You can get unintentionally pregnant without being a slut, or careless.
It is illogical to say that you get to kill kids, if that is what abortion is, unless other people pay for your kids.
It makes perfect sense to ask whether people who argue that banning abortion is in the best interests of kids, how they will prevent these kids from growing up in misery, crime and poverty.
It makes perfect sense to ask people who argue that banning abortion is in the best interests of kids, how they will prevent these kids from growing up in misery, crime and poverty.
This is not a reason to kill them. A life, once conceived, has its own intrinsic value that can't be mitigated by the material circumstances that might affect it. No matter how miserable or impoverished a person's childhood might be, that child has a potential contribution to make, and a right to live.
The only logical way to argue that banning abortion is not in the best interests of kids is to argue that there is such a thing as a child being "better off dead," and that it is possible to make that determination before the child is even born. Even on its surface, that is obviously immoral, and that's before we get into discussing who makes those determinations and what criteria they use to do so.
But I already acknowledged that (though I do not regard all abortion as murder). I find it laughable that the advocates of abortion say that "if you don't give social services, we get to have abortion". That is not how it works, no more than you get to commit infanticide if there are not social services to your liking after birth.
My point is: if you are saying that anti-abortion is in the best interests of the child, then it makes perfect sense to try to ensure that they do not grow up in misery, poverty and crime.
The only logical way to argue that banning abortion is not in the best interests of kids is to argue that there is such a thing as a child being "better off dead,"
If you believe that abortion is murder, then yes. But that was never my point. My point is that if it's welfare of kids that you care about, do not stop at just outlawing abortion. Considering how much crime and poverty results from single parenthood, many of which are now prevented due to abortion, I think this is a legitimate point.
I don't disagree, but on this particular issue, I'm a one-battle-at-a-time kind of guy. Abortion is a moral evil so extreme that the only remedy I can see is to eliminate it first and worry about the consequences later. Reestablishing family togetherness and monogamy as the societal norm would certainly improve child welfare, but that is a generational task and it doesn't mean we should wait a generation before outlawing abortion.
That may be shortsighted of me, but I can't get past the fact that in the United States alone this practice has already exterminated 85 million lives that could have been lived, 85 million people who might have been the next Isaac Newton or the next Shakespeare, however unlikely. Yes, many of those children may have grown up in poverty, but they would have grown up. Instead they were denied the opportunity to enjoy a life, and the opportunity to contribute, and we have been denied the benefits of what they might have contributed. Enough is enough.
This is not a reason to kill them. A life, once conceived, has its own intrinsic value that can't be mitigated by the material circumstances that might affect it. No matter how miserable or impoverished a person's childhood might be, that child has a potential contribution to make, and a right to live.
The only logical way to argue that banning abortion is not in the best interests of kids is to argue that there is such a thing as a child being "better off dead," and that it is possible to make that determination before the child is even born. Even on its surface, that is obviously immoral, and that's before we get into discussing who makes those determinations and what criteria they use to do so.
But I already acknowledged that (though I do not regard all abortion as murder). I find it laughable that the advocates of abortion say that "if you don't give social services, we get to have abortion". That is not how it works, no more than you get to commit infanticide if there are not social services to your liking after birth.
My point is: if you are saying that anti-abortion is in the best interests of the child, then it makes perfect sense to try to ensure that they do not grow up in misery, poverty and crime.
If you believe that abortion is murder, then yes. But that was never my point. My point is that if it's welfare of kids that you care about, do not stop at just outlawing abortion. Considering how much crime and poverty results from single parenthood, many of which are now prevented due to abortion, I think this is a legitimate point.
I don't disagree, but on this particular issue, I'm a one-battle-at-a-time kind of guy. Abortion is a moral evil so extreme that the only remedy I can see is to eliminate it first and worry about the consequences later. Reestablishing family togetherness and monogamy as the societal norm would certainly improve child welfare, but that is a generational task and it doesn't mean we should wait a generation before outlawing abortion.
That may be shortsighted of me, but I can't get past the fact that in the United States alone this practice has already exterminated 85 million lives that could have been lived, 85 million people who might have been the next Isaac Newton or the next Shakespeare, however unlikely. Yes, many of those children may have grown up in poverty, but they would have grown up. Instead they were denied the opportunity to enjoy a life, and the opportunity to contribute, and we have been denied the benefits of what they might have contributed. Enough is enough.