ahh....where to begin.
"I am afraid I have a hard time buying the population control theory, not in America at any rate. Maybe its because I am American, terribly ethnocentric and a real estate developer to boot. I see a tremendous amount of vacant, unimproved land out there. America is not over-populated. Some of her cities are conjected but for the most part overpopulation is not an American problem. Abortion as population control in America, therefore, is not anywhere near being a need."
Overpopulation just about literal space. The earth could probably fit 100 billion people quite comfortably, and with their own parcel of land, however it does not take people jammed together like canned sardines to have an overpopulation of humans. The greater the population, the higher the enviromental damage, the higher the pollution and the greater the consumption of natural resources. This is what I was referring to by overpopulation and not actual living space. I don't know about you but I've noticed a drastic change in the environment from when I was a child. It's December and there hasn't even been snow yet....and I live in Canada....I remember when I was a child there would already be snow above my head by this time of year. The places I used to fish at as a child have no fish in them, we are warned to not breath our air or swim in our lakes and I don't believe this is because of the lack of population (nor is it totally the fault of overpopulation though I think it is a major factor). 7 billion people have more wants and needs than the natural resources can provide and we pollute more than the earth can absorb effeciently.
"I, personally, think of all humans as being important. Whether this is a result of my religious convictions or my conscience, I can't be certain. Human life has value. Whether it has value because of human vanity or it has value because of its intrinsic worth, human life does have value. I happen to believe that human life has some intrinsic value. That is why I favor the death penalty for those who show a blatant disregard for another's human life and that is why I believe that, if a fetus is a human life, an unborn child should be protected. I know my own children have tremendous value to me. This value may only be a "felt" value but it is just a real to me as though it were intrinsic. Am I making any sense?"
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say (or I didn't express myself well enough), I do not think we have no value, we are important but not as important as we think. We are not better than flies but flies are not better than us.... I believe we are equal to our environment and not better, can't have one without the other ..... what would happen if all the flies disappeared?, it would be disasterous for the food chain, so many other animals would die and we would also feel it's effect. Everything is important otherwise it wouldn't exist. Trees are needed to clean carbon monoxide from the air and to provide homes for animals, flies feed the animals which in turn feed other animals, why are humans important? Don't get me wrong, if I had the choice of saving a dog or a human I'd pick the human but not because I think humans are more valuable, they're just more valuble to me (one is a reality and the other an opinion) and also because I can more easily empathise with a human. To a mechanic a wrench is more valuble than a cooking knife and to a chef a cooking knife is more valuble than a wrench but both a wrench and a cooking knife are as valuble as one another, just more useful and valuble to different people.... I guess what I'm trying to say is that things of the same value can be more valuable at certain times. If someone right now offered you the choice of either a house worth a million dollars or a boat worth 50 000 dollars, which one would you choose? The house of course, it is more "valuable", but what if someone offered you the same choice when you were afloat in the middle of the ocean? You'd take the boat of course, a million dollar house doesn't do you good if you're dead, therfore the boat is more valuable. The relation of this to my aurgument is that we do not understand the delicate balance of nature and therefore we do not truly know the value of things within it. We might be choosing the million dollar house when we are in the ocean and fully expecting it to float.... we might be choosing for every human to live at the expense of everything else, not realizing that everything else is what makes us live. I would rather kill 1 billion people with my own bare hands than cut down all the trees, why?, because I know that if I were to cut down all the trees then a lot more than one billion would die, and that's not even counting other species. I do believe if we continue without population control there may be a time when out of necessity we cut down all the last trees and unless we trim the herd, the whole herd may die. Humans don't have a lot of natural enemies anymore so we must be our own enemy in order to achieve a balance with the environment. I'm not saying we should all wear Birkenstocks and live in hammocks while eating roots but I am saying in order to survive we must come to grips with the sobering fact that we must limit the size of our population.
"I have my doubts that illegal abortions would ever be a dangerous as they were before Roe v. Wade if, some time in the future, Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. I do think that it is interesting that the Supreme Court majority opinion writer believed that Roe v. Wade was bad law but, because of a doctrine in American jurisprudence call "stare decisis" (let the decision stand), the law was upheld anyway."
I'm not very familiar with the Roe vs. Wade case though I have heard it briefly mentioned before.
There are still dangerous practises of abortion here in Canada even though I believe it is legal across the country. In Ontario (where it is definately legal) a teenage woman aborted the child herself because of the embarresment she'd thought she'd face if she went to a clinic. A person shouldn't feel so ashamed of making such a tough decision and I believe that if it were to become illegal cases like this would become more common. It would turn otherwise lawbiding citizens into criminals. Also the price of an illegal abortion would be much higher than that of a legalized abortion. How would a poor person be able to abort a child "properly" if affordable clinics were not available?
"I am a firm believer in the end never justifying the means. I believe the means always polute (or vindicate) the end. You do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and you live with the possible negative consequences. This, I think, is a good definition of integrity. Doing the right thing dispite the possible negative consequences."
I am in agreement with you on that issue. I too believe one should always try and do the right thing. However what is your definition of right in comparison to someone else's? Even if everyone wanted the same thing in life (which essentially I believe they do...happiness) there would still be everyone aurguing over which is the most righteous path to proceed on. There are clear cut issues that most agree on, murder without cause is wrong, stealing without need is wrong, spitting in your boss's coffee cup is right just had to add a little humour into this discussion but what about the grey areas? Like when is murder justified and when does one need to steal and how often should you spit in your boss's coffee cup : This is why we should discuss abortion and what path to proceed on.... is abortion justifiable and is it necessary? What would make it justifiable and what would make it necessary?
"You are right ... it is kinda scarey because there are parallels. I am not going to gloss over the differences (because there are some differences). The question is whether or not those differences are material. If a two month old fetus is a human being then it is just as wrong to kill a two month old fetus as it is a newborn as it is a 30 year old beer drinking Lutheran or a balding, Socialist, visiting professor in Korea."
Actually in Canada we have hunting seasons for both Lutherans and American professors teaching in Korea....however the limit is two of each.... got to keep their numbers down some how :0 Yes I do agree that if we come to the conclusion that a fetus is a human then it's wrong to kill it and should be compared to killing an adult. However if faced with a choice by necessity (because of overcrowding)of killing a fetus, which one would you choose? Would you rather kill Ghandi or a fetus with the potential to be Ghandi?
"That is a horrifying thought, Trevor. Aren't the Chinese Socialists? Sorry, wrong thread."
No it's not Socialism, the Chinese gov't is currently practising a loose form of Moronalism And Yes, it's a horrifying thought to me as well. Pro-life would then be Pro-Abortion for abortion would be needed to sustain the human race. If we want to maintain the existence of everything on this planet we can not hold on to the illusion that we can keep breeding like rabbits without a negetive consequence. We need everything to live so that we may live. Trees would still live if all humans died but would humans still live if all the trees died? So what is really more important?
"Adoption is always an option, Trevor. There are waiting lists ump-teen miles long for willing and able parents to adopt. Those parents usually undergo a very thorough screening."
You're thinking only in terms of America, what about in a coutry where poverty is even more widespread. You can't ask the poor to adopt if they can't feed their own children.
"In America, money equates into a second car, a big screen TV, a DVD player, a healthclub membership, and a boob job for the wife (no offense intended, ladies). I have two children and my wife is staying home and raising them. I do not have a big screen TV, DVD player, healthclub membership, and my wife has not had a boob job. I do have a second car (an '83 rusty Toyota pickup) but it is nothing special. But our needs (food, water, clothing, shelter) are met."
And that is what money equates to you, but take a drive around America...and any country for that matter. Go out and meet the lady who had to decide if she should pay the electric bill or buy bread and sliced bologna for her children. I'm sure you'd be surprised to discover the amount of people that do worry about having enough to feed their kids. Some people don't have cars and don't have DVD's and their main concern is feeding, sheltering and clothing their family. Quick question, it's off topic but I just thought of it, if you can not afford to clothe yourself and no one will give you clothes, should public nudity still be illegal for you?
"If we have forced abortions, why not forced adoptions? Would that not be the lesser of two necessary evils?"
Then should we start forcing people to take in homeless as well? They need a home as well How would we dedide who should be forced to take care of a child? Would forcing someone to raise a child make them a better parent or a worse one?
"This line, I think, breaks down when you recognize that, unlike the brain cell:brain, brain:human body relationships, the fetus is genetically distinct from the mother. It shares 50% of her genetic make-up but only 50%."
Good point, I can do nothing other than agree with you.
"This brings me back to my initial statement way, way long ago: "I, personally, would have no problem with the termination of a pregnancy if I could be convinced that it did not involve the taking of a human life."
Same here and for the moment I do believe that a fetus is not "human" yet. I'd much rather see people practise safe sex and restraint on the number of children they have then have abortion. Choosing not to have a child is always preventing the inevitable death of at least one person, so in a quirky way, not having a child is the same as saving a life....and maybe in an overpopulation scenario, saving everyone's life. I will say for the record that if I knew a fetus had thought or feeling and felt pain and pleasure, that I personally would never ask a girlfriend or wife to abort and would try to convince her otherwise if she wanted to....unless of course we were faced with the overpopulation scenario, then a difficult decision would have to be made.
"If a growing fetus could be detached from the mother's womb and be incubated to survive to full term independent of the mother, would it not be an individual at the time of detachment? In this instance an pregnancy would be terminated and there would be no resulting loss of human life."
I think there was a Jean Claude VanDamme movie resembling this
"I personally prefer Eva Herzigova or Laetitia Casta. Rebecca Romjin Stamos, I think is a bit over-rated, but you cannot go wrong with Sarah O'Hare (SI Swimsuit '99). Imagine if all of them were aborted! What kinda world would we be living in then! Hillary Clinton might be in the Victoria's Secret catelog! AHHHHHH!!!! Hold on ... I have collected myself again ... man was that a frightening thought or what!?!"
Yes but if none of them were ever born we would never know the difference because the peak would have been set at a different level. A large hill is impressive if you've never seen a mountain. ... but then again in any world Hillary Clinton in lingerie would be scary
Anyways, there is still a lot of fat to chew on about this subject and I will try and take a look at your sonnet when I have a chance Mr. Don King....I mean Jbouder, I always get self-promoters mixed up with boxing promoters Take care.