I need $625 to pay for an abortion tomorrow but I won't have money until Friday. What do I do?
None of my family/friends either have the money or will support the decision.
Use protection/birth control next time.
Tomorrow is the first pill. Friday is the second. I have to provide the full payment of $625 tomorrow upfront or I won't get the pill. I don't qualify for coverage because I make too much money and don't live with family.
Time-wise I qualify for the pill. Which is a much less invasive procedure than some other options. I'm simply very stressed out. The amount is exorbitant and much more than I had anticipated and I don't know how I'm going to come up with it. So far loans have not provided a dependable alternative.
It's a human being, and every second it is developing and growing.
Are humans that are less sentient any less human? Should we just myrder all the retarded or mentally handicapped people, then?
Watch a video of an actual abortion and tell me it's not murder.
Oh come on. I fully support your choice to get an abortion, I think everyone should have the right to make their own decisions on that front, but don't fucking lie to yourself. You're choosing to end your baby's life, to avoid inconveniences in your own life. I don't know your situation, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it really is your best option, but don't act as if there isn't any weight to that decision. If you're not the least bit morally conflicted about it, you're either borderline sociopathic, or just really really good at lying to yourself.
Not the OP, Bub. And no, fetuses are not people. Fuck, they're not only full-blown humans. That's like saying a building that only has the support structure is a complete building. There's nothing usable about it. It's in a state of becoming whole.
Aborting a fetus is like mowing your lawn. There's nothing to feel guilty about because you're not doing anything wrong.
It's not a baby yet. It doesn't have a developed nervous system. It's not ending a life, it's preventing one from beginning.
You think you know what sentient means and you way, way don't. Please look it up.
OK first of all, it is a parasite at this point. It can't survive on its own. It is literally feeding off of her.
Second. It wasn't her choice to get pregnant. Maybe she made a choice to have sex and got unlucky, but that isn't a choice to get pregnant.
All humans have sex for recreation & bonding, not just for reproduction. We're all walking around, all of us, with the instinct to do exactly that, but we've built a society in which it's very undesirable to have a child too young. We're not living in the ancestral environment any longer, "accept your biological consequences" isn't an admonishment that really fucking applies.
I've got no problem with birth control, and I think abortion should be legal for anyone that wants one. I just can't stand people who will not accept responsibility for their actions. It's not the action itself that bothers me as much as your bullshit justifications.
I understand that sex isn't all about procreation, but everyone knows that if you let a guy cum inside you, you might get pregnant. If you get pregnant, that is YOUR CHILD growing inside of you. If you choose to get an abortion, you are ending your child's life, before it begins, so that your own life might be better and more fulfilling.
I'm not saying that's a bad or evil decision, but it really bothers me that you can all just convince yourselves that it doesn't mean anything at all. Own up, for fuck's sake.
Simple. A parasite will never develop into a human being. A tapeworm is a tapeworm. A fertilized egg will turn into a fetus. A fetus will become a baby. You get the point.
Now i feel pre-baby killing is fine. I really do. Just stop hiding what it really is.
>go to $0.99 store
>buy pack of wire hangers
>proceed to abort fetus with recently purchased wire hangers
>there is a guide on wikihow for wire coat hanger abortions if you need help
It's not a rationalization. I've never believed killing something without a fully-formed nervous system was equivalent to killing a developed being. I think it's very disingenuous of you to conflate the two. Similarly I think the life of a jellyfish (which lacks even a central nervous system) is less valuable than the life of a crustacean (which has a simple central nervous system) which in turn is less valuable than the life of a rodent (which has a sophisticated and well-developed central nervous system.) I really don't lend much weigh to what something might eventually become; morally, you have to answer for killing it in the here and now.
You can disagree, and that's fine, but it's a morally consistent position. It's not "people not accepting responsibility for their actions," it's just people who disagree with you.
Give me your paypal. I'll be glad to loan you the money until Friday.
I agree that there's a huge difference between getting an abortion, and killing a living baby. But I don't think you can compare an abortion to killing a jellyfish, either. No matter what stage it's at, that is YOUR child, not just a random life-form without a "fully-formed nervous system," as that seems to be where you draw the line. Unless you were raped, it's alive because of a decision YOU made, and you're choosing to end that life because it'd fuck with your own.
I don't believe abortion is on par with murder, and I don't think I said that in any of my posts. But it is a decision to end a life, and I don't think that should ever be treated lightly or frivolously
It costs a lot of money to raise a child and support a human life. So there literally is a "price," whether or not that makes you feel queasy. I don't think that "price" signifies "value" in this case, but if you don't have the money to raise your child, that child will have a shitty life.
Neuroscientists can't even define 'consciousness' or 'sentience' in a coherent manner, can't explain why we need to sleep or what sleep actually *is* -and yet you are certain that a human being with neural activity, a heart beat, and a functioning brain can be murdered because it "isn't sentient"?
This isn't a decision I made lightly. It came at great emotional and mental cost. I understand where you're coming from in terms of accepting responsibility. In the event that I do have a child I don't want it under these negative circumstances. Sorry if my points don't come across. I typed a whole thing but it didn't go through for some reason.
The human nervous system begins to form before the blastocysts implants in the uterine lining.
Nerve signals are detectable before a home pregnancy test can work.
The brain in fully formed before 6 weeks.
Babies react to stimuli at 8 weeks.
So - you're not even wrong. You're retarded.
>"I might not be able to afford to get the baby a new car when he is 16"
>"welp - better kill him!"
Sweet heavens but you're stupid.
"He might be poor" is justification for murder?
I really didn't mean to aim all that directly at you, make assumptions about you, or make you feel worse about something that's already tough. This thread kind of turned into a general debate about abortion, and I was responding to other posters.
>"You were poor when you grew up, right?"
>"Sure. I mean, mom and dad worked hard as they could, but we never had much. But they loved me!"
>"Frank, you dad was a doctor, right?"
>"Yyeah. And mom was, too"
>"So you were rich?"
>"I guess. It never meant much to me. I mainly just missed by parentts ebcaue they were gone all the time. I would have been fine with being poor if they had been there to love me"
Kids don't care iif they are rich or poor, they care if they are loved.
Ever see a guy about to die?
They'd trade every nickel they ever made for 5 more minutes alive too be with people they love.
"They might be poor" is no excuse to murder a child, loser.
The woman clearly doesn't want the fetus retard. It would grow up unloved. It's also not a child, it's a bundle of cells that can't feel pain. It's as much a human being as the sperm in the cum tissues you flush down the toilet every day.
If you both have steady work raising a kid is stone easy.
I have 5
>yes, fucking really
and when we started having them my wife stayed home and has been a SAHM ever since.
After I was hit by a drunk driver and had to switch careers I spent some time selling cars.
90 hour work weeks, making about $950 a month the first few months. Had to move into a POS partment with the 4 kids we had at the time.
The kids remember it with great fondness.
Sleeping on mattresses on the floor in one room, going to the library for books because we didn't have cable OR a TV, listening to Star Wars radio plays we got from the library, etc.
I eventually made a lot more money.
They are *better* for it. They are eager to give to charity and to help people because we remind them.
Waking up to a toddler crawling into bed with you saying 'love you, mama" will make anything worth it.
You're using a fictional anecdote and subjective personal experience to reinforce what seems to be a one sided belief on the matter. I don't condone the action but there are many dimensions to the situation.
Good for you, seriously, but not everyone wants that lifestyle. I work 70 hour weeks as it is now and go to school. I'm not downplaying the sacrifices necessary to raise a child I'm just saying that I'm not ready for them.
Look, fuckwad, I didn't say were were wrong because you are a loser (ad hominem) I said you are a loser because you are wrong (insult).
Looks like you are also ignorant, too, loser.
She and the dad have steady jobs. She admits she is just behind because of holiday spending and taking vacay.
This kid isn't going to be sleeping in an alley and eating from a dumpster.
>fetuses dream, play games, smile when they hear their mother's voice, and more
>A fraction of adults have memories from the womb
BTW, once you give a clear, coherent definition of what 'sentience' is be sure to submit it to the Bobel Academy - they'll be thrilled.
>child was raised wrongly
What? Do you plan to beat it?
Raising a kid doesn't take that much, really.
Goodwill clothes (they don't fucking care, trust me); cheap diapers or even cloth ones. Breast milk. Baby food. Love them. Hold them.
A place out of the rain with a blanket to sleep.
The rest is luxury
There's no evidence to back this up, unless you can prove that a 7 week old fetus is conscious and capable of subjective experience. Most experts agree somewhere around the 3rd trimester is when they can feel pain.
28 years old, eh?
Tell you what - in 4-6 years when you want a baby and are struggling because tempus fugit and you are considering dropping $2k-8k on fertility just remember - you could have had a fridge covered in drawings saying "I love you", instead.
What? What's that?
Of course I have sympathy for you - you obviously never received basic education in things like personal responsibility and ethics.
But ignorance and poor breeding are no excuse for willful murder.
What I said isn't a hope, it is a warning. I have never, EVER, met a woman that had an abortion that didn't duffer about it for the rest of her life.
OP my ex had an abortion.
I freaked out and talked her into it, then she convinced herself it was a good idea.
We haven't talked since then.
Anyway, i would like to tell myself she would have done it without my involvement, but even then i know that won't assuage my guilt.
And by the way, the pill didn't work for her. She took the two pills twice, and then still had to have some kind of procedure.
I could go on with how it affected me psychologically, but instead I'll just ask you to reconsider this.
It's... your baby.
I see two - kill an innocent vs don't kill an innocent.
Everything else is bullshit.
Let me put it this way - if you saw a toddler, 18 months old, in a cabin in Africa would killing it because it was poor be OK with you?
Then it is bullshit now.
If you saw a healthy kid in, oh, Toronto, who had a mother who was emotionally distant and a father who worked too much would you kill it?
Then it is bullshit now.
No, fuck you, it is.
Leaving a woman's body is not some magical even that takes a lump of silly putty and magically transforms it into a 'fully realized human person with rights and shit, maaaaan'.
A blastocyst is alive BY DEFINITION.
A fetus is human BY DEFINITION.
We are discussing a living human who has committed no crime and deserves no punishment.
Anything else is a smokescreen.
Everything else is bullshit.
There is one, *one*, *ONE* question here:
"Is it OK to kill an innocent human?".
>What? What's that?
Stop having conversations with yourself as a smug way of making a point. even if you're making good points, your insufferable attitude makes it difficult to take your side
>It's as much a human being as the sperm in the cum tissues
It's a human being as soon as the zygote is formed. Comparing it to sperm is retarded. Sperm are your own cells, a zygote is a new organism with its own genetic code. If the mother's blood would come into direct contact with the fetus, her immune system would recognise it as a foreign organism and kill it. New human life begins at conception, that's a scientific fact that no one educated is disputing. The abortion debate is about personhood and the morality of killing humans without a developed consciousness.
t. medical student
>"There's no evidence to back this up
So - you are ignorant and too lazy to search the web, too?
From "Early Childhood Development - Neural Development" by Klein and Wilson;
"In the seventh and eight week slowly or rapidly, singularly or repetitively, spontaneously or reflexively, the embryo continues to practice the movements begun earlier and to move in new ways. Frequently, hands will touch the face and the head will turn. The many muscles of the face are now largely well developed in preparation for the complex facial expressions to follow.1 Touching the embryo can produce squinting, jaw movement, grasping motions, and toe pointing. Small pin pricks cause a jolting pain reaction."
Protip: read a book
You're just factually wrong. Literally everything you said (except for "reacting to stimuli") is wrong. Absolutely zero percent of the nervous system is formed before the blastocyst implants, no nerve signals are detectable at that stage, and though it develops rapidly throughout the course of the first trimester, the brain is far from fully formed by that point. It's not even completely formed by the end of the second trimester.
As regards reacting to stimuli, I'm afraid it takes a lot more to prove sentience than that. Nice try, though.
Either of you complaining about the Lebensunwertes Leben brigade with their 'well, if the kid might be *poor*' excuses?
Either of you complaining about the 'it ain't sentient' excuses, even though there is no coherent definition of sentience?
Then go fuck yourselves.
I'm sick of you limp-wristed, no-spine faggots and your
>"Oh, don't be snide to the stupid and the evil"
sniveling. I hate, *hate*, HATE people who get all misty-eyed at a fucking beer ad at Christmas time and turn around and say
>"now, don't be rude with the murderer"
OP has had people treating her with kid gloves all her life. Same with 2/3rds of the fuckwits in this thread.
This is a human life.
And the child's own mother is asking for help murdering it.
If you aren't outraged there is something profoundly wrong with you.
So fuck off about my tone.
Reacting to stimulus isn't pain. Pain is a subjective experience to noxious stimulus. Nociception is the basic reaction that animals with a nervous system display when damaged. Moving away from damaging stimulus doesn't mean you're having a reaction to it.
Say you touch a hot stove. Moving your hand away is the natural reaction to something that is objectively harmful. Saying "ouch!" afterward and sucking your teeth at it like a fucking pussy is due to pain.
Learn basic concepts before you try to argue them.
I agree with your basic argument and the principles you're expressing, but I also think you're coming off like a crazy ranting moron. You're damaging your credibility in the process, and basically rendering it impossible that your argument will actually get through to the person you're addressing, or make any kind of difference. It's not about "being nice to the 'murderer,'" it's just that people don't really listen to you if you're going off on tangents and screaming in their faces. At best, you're preaching to the choir, and you're actually kind of pissing the choir off, too.
I'm not the person you're arguing with, but this shit is really just semantics. If there's moral weight to the decision to end a pregnancy, I don't really think it matters how far along you are. Either you're giving that fetus a chance at life, or you're choosing not to.
I'm not hardline pro-life, I think everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions, but I think arguments like yours are pretty toxic. I don't think we should be trying to completely dodge any kind of guilt or accountability for the choices we make. Sometimes you're SUPPOSED to feel bad, even if you're making the right decision
You are artificially separating the physical reaction and the emotional reaction. You cannot demonstrate that there is no emotional response as well, especially since in utero stimuli can cause conditioned responses before birth.
Lsck of evidence is not evidence of absence. We know, for a fact, the physical reaction exists.
Want to try again?
1) It's not murder. Murder is a legal term and can only be used for illegal and intentional killing of a human. If it's legal, find another word for it, like "slaughter" or "butcher," whatever has the connotation you're looking for.
2) You're the limp-wristed faggot here. "Oh, boo-hoo, don't kill da buhbies." Nevermind that pregnancy and childbirth are physically damaging and potentially fatal to the woman, never mind that the child may very well grow up wishing it had never been born, never mind that we have enough people in the world. There's no situation in which someone should be forced to lend out their organs.
Go cry into your pillow about the injustices in the world or something, you fetid shit. Maybe if OP wants a baby in the future, you can lend her your massive sandy cunt and plump ovaries.
either you are a troll, or an idiot.
you don't wanna stretch out your pussy? It's MADE to stretch. It stretches DURING sex.
you don't wanna put weight on? You realize that giving birth will boost your immune system and give you bigger breasts, right?
It's basic biology. Don't blame me for your poor education.
>lack of evidence isn't evidence of absence
In science, the default answer to "Is ____ present?" is "no" until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on you to prove it does exist, not on naysayers to prove it doesn't.
It's an important distinction that's often overlooked, but we're agreed that it doesn't significantly affect the morality of the situation.
The capacity to think, feel, and suffer. You understand I'm speaking in practical terms, not trying to come up with an airtight definition for publication in a philosophical journal, right? As it happens I don't believe any such airtight definition exists -- not even in theory.
Let me be unambiguous. It's certainly possible that first-trimester fetuses (as well as jellyfish, molluscs, crustaceans and so on) are able to have subjective experiences, are aware of themselves, and perhaps are able to suffer, in some very limited capacity. However, their nervous systems are so simple, and consequently that capacity must be so very limited, that I'm quite comfortable with killing them. Yes, there's some point of development & complexity at which that ceases to be OK, and no, I'm not claiming to know exactly where to draw the line, but I'm confident ten-week-old fetuses are on the right side of it.
Nice job sidestepping the fact that you've got your facts all wrong about human development.
I really can't imagine why,
every time you start a new sentence or even change a thought,
you start a new line of text.
Did somebody tell you that's how to write?
It's really annoying to read.
It makes you come across as kind of a twat.
You'd seem like a twat even if your arguments weren't fallacious and you weren't generally just an abrasive dick
(which you are.)
It is an important decision, but I'm just saying it's ridiculous to say a fetus isn't a living thing just because it hasn't developed enough to feel pain or respond to stimulus. You're still cutting a life short, no matter what.
I don't think that should affect whether or not abortion is legal, it's important that people should have their choices. I just think it's dangerous to defend those choices by pretending they don't mean anything, or that the moral debate isn't important. Morals shouldn't necessarily dictate laws, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored altogether, and too many people seem to have real trouble accepting the grey areas.
False. Murder is a moral term to represent the unjustified killing (willful or not) of a person. Otherwise what the Nazis did wasn't murder because it was legal.
>legal positivism never works, pal
>"No, YOU'RE a faggot!
>"She'll gain weight! The kid might be poor! He might be SAD!"
A look at a dictionary, 'no, you!' and worthless speculation ?
That's all you've got?
FFS, grow a pair.
>"I am not pro-life"
>"I don't like your tone"
>"Let me apologize"
>"Abortion is different than killing a living baby"
>"it isn't bad or evil"
You are so busy being open-minded you don't have a position. You have no real moral stance, you just think it might be icky.
A jellyfish is never going to develop into a human being. Given a few more months' time, a fetus will. Morally, it really doesn't matter WHEN you terminate the pregnancy, because the result is the same - that fetus could've been a living, breathing, thinking human, and now it never will. It's not really about the amount of pain the fetus feels when you kill it, the argument is more about the killing itself.
It's fine that you disagree, I guess it's fine that you're morally OK with that, but I'm just saying your justifications are fucked. If you're at the point of coming up with pointless analogies and comparisons, you're just trying to dodge the actual truth of the thing. You're ending, or preventing, a human life. Not a fucking jellyfish.
>Subjective psycjological response to negative stimuli
Your presentation of how psychology and biology works tells me - College Junior, 200 level Biology, about a 3.2 ion the class. No psychology class above a seminar and certainly no philosophy or ethics.
I never said it wasn't a living thing. Of course a fetus is alive.
Morality is subjective, and while I dislike abortion, I stand with bodily autonomy.
No, it's absolutely a legal term. You're objectively incorrect, unless you're using it figuratively. In which case, boy, arguing with you is MURDER on my patience!
Also, it's less "she'll gain weight" and more "she could literally die." Pregnancy is much more dangerous than a first or second trimester abortion. Women do still die due to complications during pregnancy and childbirth. It's disturbingly more common in the US than in other developed countries.
So you admit what leading neuroscientists admit - we don't know what sentience is.
Yet you insist that killing an innocent human is OK because you think they aren't sentient?
That is a problem
>that was another poster
this. the genetic code of the person has already been set. as soon as the sperm fertilized the egg that persons traits were created. you were a fetus at one point, look at you now
its not autonomy because the body is sharing itself with another body. what about the fetus's right to have the mother terminated for being such a gigantic slut, and transferred to a surrogate parent to finish it's gestation in peace?
I've given my moral stance. Abortion ends a human life, and that decision should never be treated lightly or frivolously. I think it's very dangerous for people to argue in favor of the LEGAL status of abortion, by trying to downplay or deny the MORAL status of abortion. Because people actually take that seriously, and those arguments can (and do, and have) lead to a devaluation of human life and a casual, thoughtless approach to sexuality and abortion.
But I also think laws should be separate from emotion, and I'm not deluded enough to think my morality can, or should, be applied to everyone else. I can imagine circumstances in which an abortion really would be the best, most logical choice for both the parents and the unborn child. And I also think that if a girl's pregnant, and she REALLY doesn't want to have the baby, she's gonna find a way to get rid of it. Better to let a doctor handle it professionally then to let it get botched in some amateur job or attempt at self-abortion.
I wish I could see the world as simply as you do, but experience, observation and empathy have made that impossible. That doesn't mean I don't have a position or a moral stance, just that it's become complicated over time.
>Morality is subjective
Perhaps the stupidest thing in this thread.
Morality deals with the real actions of people in the real world.Sine the world is objective morality is, too.
This is why deontological and virtue ethics bridge the is/ought gap while many others do not - they hold morality as objective.
>No, it's absolutely a legal term
Laws exist only to enforce morality.
Murder isn't illegal because it is bad for business, it is illegal because it is morally wrong.
>I do love that even a glance at wikipedia shows you incorrect
you are about ten times more likely to die walking down the street than in childbirth in america.
five times more likely to choke to death
The rate of pregnant women who die from complications from pregnancy or childbirth is 0.02% of births in the US.
Yes, abortions do cause an even smaller percentage of deaths of the adult woman, but thats really splitting hairs at that point.
>I'm not deluded enough to think my morality can, or should, be applied to everyone else
This means you don't actually have a morality; you have personal preferences.
"Morality", properly understood, is about right and wrong, good and evil, what is permissible and what isn't.
not him, but you are actually wrong about that.
Because they said "my morality" it's clear they are referring to their personal moral code, not the greater concept of morality, which is the objective truth of right vs wrong that we all try to understand.
And it's fine that you're not fine with that (gosh, how many times can I shoehorn fine into a sentence?) I didn't respond to your prev. post (>>16677105) because this is starting to seem like just a fundamental philosophical disagreement we have, and it's not going anywhere. You seem to think that ending and preventing a human life are morally interchangeable. To me they're not remotely the same act. Fuck, I wish a lot of lives were prevented that weren't. I'm not a misanthrope, not being >le edgemaster supreme, it's that millions of people are born into circumstances where they're going to suffer, and yes, I realize many people rise above their circumstances, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see those situations go away. I'd like to see a world where being born to parents who actually wanted you and were equipped to care for you was regarded as a fundamental right (and as a corollary, where never having to have a child you never wanted was also regarded as a fundamental right.) Obviously the best way to achieve that is through providing better contraceptive methods and educating and motivating people to use them, but in the short term, abortion will do.
All of this ultimately stems from the fact that I don't believe that fetuses are people yet, and that preventing a human life isn't, in itself, wrong. Certainly not equivalent to ending one. Everything flows from those two positions. It's OK that you disagree with them. Not everybody has to agree with me. I just wish you'd stop claiming that I (and that people like me) are "dodging the actual truth of the thing" -- I think I'm quite clear about what I support and it's patronizing to insinuate otherwise. I've even made a point of writing "kill" instead of "end," or "terminate," or some other euphemism, to avoid allegations that I'm whitewashing my position.
But in practical terms, that's a fantasy. And pretty much any time any culture has attempted to legally enforce that type of "absolute morality," it results in more injustice than good, because it gives far too much power and self-righteousness to those on the "right" side of the law. Just look at how Sharia Law affects the societies in which it's enforced. Historically speaking, all systems are corruptible, and the best way to keep it from getting too far, is to keep things from getting too one-sided.
This is why separation of church and state is necessary, and this is why I fully support a girl's RIGHT to get an abortion, even if on a moral level, I find it to be a selfish, short-sighted, and destructive choice.
I agree that abortion and murder aren't equivalent. I just think abortion has a lot more weight than you do. And the more you try to justify your stance, the worse it sounds. Your idea of "happiness eugenics" is flat-out insane. Implying that people who didn't have happy, loving parents can't make valuable contributions to society, when historically speaking, people have done great and ambitious things driven by the desire to escape poverty and misery. You're obviously a very naive, shortsighted person with a very narrow scope of human experience and observation.
>This is why separation of church and state is necessary
you were doing fine, then you went and said this, which shows you know nothing.
Separation of Church and state is that the government doesn't run the church and vice versa. It doesn't promote any form of secularist ideology. It prevents a religious BODY from having power over law.
Laws ARE attempts to enforce absolute morality. Otherwise, we wouldn't make murder illegal, as well as a slew of other things. They are morally wrong.
I get where you're coming from, and it's possible that "morality" was the wrong word to describe my stance.
But I disagree with you, in that I don't think laws should exist to enforce morality, but rather to protect rights and freedom. If murder, violence, or theft were legal, there would be no rights or freedom for most people. We'd all just be under the thumb of murderous warlords.
... what do you think morality is?
Something is wrong morally because it effects someone else's rights or freedom.
Age of consent laws exist to make sure youths are not taken advantage of, i.e. their rights and freedom.
I can't think of a single morality issue that isn't about rights.
Hell, the entire abortion debate is just about a woman's freedom of action versus a child's right.to life.
Morality is not, and never has been "I don't like this, so it's morally wrong"
all these meat eaters talking about killing an innocent...
>Laws ARE attempts to enforce absolute morality. Otherwise, we wouldn't make murder illegal, as well as a slew of other things. They are morally wrong.
Not that Anon, but I'd say that part is at least very debatable. Law's purpose is not to enforce morality, but to protect the society. Murder is not illegal because it's immoral, but because it's harmful to the society.
Of course they are closely tied, as most of our moral code stems from the same principles, but they are not one and the same.
I'm continuing to reply to you as a courtesy, but I'm going to keep it brief.
>Implying that people who didn't have happy, loving parents can't make valuable contributions to society
Reread what I wrote and you'll see I explicitly did not do this. That's not something I've claimed, not something I ever would claim.
>people have done great and ambitious things driven by the desire to escape poverty and misery.
This doesn't mean that poverty and misery aren't horrible things that should be inflicted on as few people (particularly as few children) as possible. You have an astoundingly romanticized vision of poverty, addiction, mental illness, and so on, if you think that when children are born to parents suffering from any of those, it's not a deeply regrettable situation, for all parties concerned.
If you knew a single woman working a minimum wage job with a history of bipolar disorder and depression, or perhaps struggling with alcoholism -- and unfortunately, many women like that exist -- and she asked your opinion, would you urge her to use birth control? Or would you say, no, it's fine, because if you have a child, their suffering might ennoble them and eventually inspire them to enact great social change?
What I'm saying is no different from teaching people, "Don't have children until you're mentally, emotionally, and financially prepared for them." Do you seriously disagree with that statement? Do you seriously think it would be "flat-out insane happiness eugenics" if most people took that to heart?
1: take a picture of yourself
2: make a kickstarter for your abortion
3: post a link to the kickstarter on /pol/
It takes 2,500 gallons of water, 12 pounds of grain, 35 pounds of topsoil and the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline to produce one pound of feedlot beef.
>but beef is food
>Something is wrong morally because it effects someone else's rights or freedom.
Something is wrong morally because it is evil. Even if it affects only you an action can be evil inherently.
The use of drugs such as heroin that are addictive and cause great damage or death.
Overindulgence to the point of illness, obesity to the point of being effectively crippled, etc.
This is why it seems like there are progressively more stupid people. The idiots reproduce.
Does it ever surprise anyone else that there people of a clearly conservative Christian bent on 4chan? I don't know why it does, but it always strikes me as odd.
what's your definition of evil, because the things you described wouldn't really fit the bill of evil.
Most cultures don't consider suicide evil. Tragic and selfish, yes, or in the case of Christianity, a sin (which is NOT the same as evil) but not evil.
self harming is always bad for you, but I've never heard anyone refer to it as evil.
I've only ever heard evil be used to describe malicious intent towards others.
The role of a christian is to go where non-Christians are and show them, through their actions (such as helping people through their problems and giving advice), why Christianity is the correct path.
4chan is perhaps the best place for that in the modern world.
Also, the person you responded to isn't sounding stupid for presenting correct scientific data.
Virtually no medical professional supports abortion on a scientific ground. They support it as a humane solution to a societal problem.
Doctor assisted suicide falls much into the same category.
I think it's evil to throw away a human life, even if it's your own. I think life is a gift and a privilege and it's wrong to waste it like that. I don't believe people can really be "evil" on a fundamental level even if they do evil things, I'm not judging or scorning people who have done those things. But yeah, I think that kind of self-destruction is an "evil" thing to do even if I wouldn't use that word in most conversations. And I think most of the time, the people who are self-destructive like that are dealing with problems they probably wish they could solve better. I think they should be helped rather than condemned, but I don't think I'm off-base in calling those actions wrong.