Are there any arguments against abortion that don't boil down to religious doctrine?
Are there any arguments against abortion that don't boil down to religious doctrine?
Racial/cultural. Certain minority groups have a disproportionately higher rate of abortions than the majority white ethnicity, which could be said to work against their flourishing.
The number one killer among African Americans is not heart disease or cancer, but abortions. About 12% of the American population is black, but they account for nearly 40% of all abortions. Other minority groups are increasing in size in America at a much quicker rate than the African American community.
The CDC stated a few years ago that 616,074 African Americans are born every year, yet 458,500 additional babies will die from abortion. It's a big and controversial statement, but I've heard it called a self-imposed genocide.
Last edited by Aria; 12-10-2020 at 08:20 PM. Reason: Added some info
Are there any secular arguments against murder? If you place no inherent value on human life then what do you place value on?
In rare cases mb health or mb forthcoming miscarriage makes it less shameful (health issue for the non potential offspring).
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
Also, to a Muslim a lifetime is of infinitely less period of time to their life after death - it is the part about eternal torture you should be attempting to defend. Supposedly Muslims will laugh on the Day of Judgment - how can they do that when their faith says that most people who have ever lived will be tortured for eternity?
I think primarily, I'm concerned about the psychological impact an abortion might have on the person having one, and it's not great to go round killing things generally. But the number of women, infants, and fetuses dying will probably be higher if abortion was illegal.
It's not clear that it does say that. Most people will go to the hellfire but for many it will be temporary.Also, to a Muslim a lifetime is of infinitely less period of time to their life after death - it is the part about eternal torture you should be attempting to defend. Supposedly Muslims will laugh on the Day of Judgment - how can they do that when their faith says that most people who have ever lived will be tortured for eternity?
I don't have to defend anything to you, by the way. The bottom line is that we have a basis for morality, and you don't. If you don't want to "do the time" then don't do the crime (or pray that Allah has mercy on you).
Yes. That we shouldn’t make arbitrary decisions about when someone can be killed and when they can’t. We only allow abortion, when the mother’s life isn’t in danger, because of convenience rather than a principled understanding of when someone is old enough to be protected from murder.
I use my conscience to evaluate things but I accept that it might be wrong in certain cases. In the end your conscience is just feelings, and feelings can be wrong - if they were right all the time then people wouldn't do things like murder, rape, etc. This is why we use the shari'ah to judge things, because Allah knows better than we do.The basis for my "morality", if such a thing exists, is my conscience. Are you implying that you do things contrary to your conscience - contrary to what your reason tells you is acceptable? If so, how do you know that you are following a morally acceptable being? How can you distinguish between Allah and Shaitan, if one is carrying out torture worse than anybody can imagine? If one of them told you to kill a child (as in the story of Abraham), how could you say that that being had a "basis for morality"?
And by the way, we don't believe that Allah told Abraham to kill his child. It was a metaphorical dream that he interpreted but Allah stopped him before he did it because it was a misinterpretation. That is why he said that he had fulfilled the dream before actually carrying it out.
It has been promoted as a "right" but it's rather a point in the agenda to control the poor and third world population as its a threat for the rich. Millions have been invested to promote an ideology and operate an industry to reduce the births of the unimportant and undesirable.
National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200) was completed on December 10, 1974 by the United States National Security Council under the direction of Henry Kissinger.
It was adopted as official US policy by US President Gerald Ford in November 1975. It was classified for a while but was obtained by researchers in the early 1990s.
The basic thesis of the memorandum was that population growth in the least developed countries (LDCs) is a concern to US national security, because it would tend to risk civil unrest and political instability in countries that had a high potential for economic development. The policy gives "paramount importance" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries to control rapid population growth which the US deems inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States since the "U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad" and the countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the US.
It recommends that US leadership "influence national leaders" and that "improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA, and USAID."
Thirteen countries are named in the report as particularly problematic with respect to US security interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. The countries are projected to create 47 percent of all world population growth.
It also raises the question of whether the US should consider preferential allocation of surplus food supplies to states deemed constructive in use of population control measures.
The paper takes a look at worldwide demographic population trends as projected in 1974.
It is divided into two major sections: an analytical section and policy recommendations.
The analytical section discusses projected world demographic trends and their influence on world food supply, minerals, and fuel. It looks at the relation between economic development in the least developed nations and investigates the implications of world population pressures on US national security.
The policy recommendations is divided into two sections. A US population strategy and action to create conditions for fertility decline. A major concern reiterated in the paper concerns the effect of population on starvation and famine.
"Growing populations will have a serious impact on the need for food especially in the poorest, fastest growing LDCs.[least developed countries] While under normal weather conditions and assuming food production growth in line with recent trends, total world agricultural production could expand faster than population, there will nevertheless be serious problems in food distribution and financing, making shortages, even at today's poor nutrition levels, probable in many of the larger more populous LDC regions. Even today 10 to 20 million people die each year due, directly or indirectly, to malnutrition. Even more serious is the consequence of major crop failures which are likely to occur from time to time.
"The most serious consequence for the short and middle term is the possibility of massive famines in certain parts of the world, especially the poorest regions. World needs for food rise by 2.5 percent or more per year (making a modest allowance for improved diets and nutrition) at a time when readily available fertilizer and well-watered land is already largely being utilized. Therefore, additions to food production must come mainly from higher yields.
"Countries with large population growth cannot afford constantly growing imports, but for them to raise food output steadily by 2 to 4 percent over the next generation or two is a formidable challenge."
"The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.... The location of known reserves of higher grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments" [Chapter III, "Minerals and Fuel"].
"Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth" [Chapter III, "Minerals and Fuel"].
"Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the 'establishment,' 'imperialists,' multinational corporations, or other -- often foreign -- influences blamed for their troubles" [Chapter V, "Implications of Population Pressures for National Security"].
"We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs. Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country. "Third World" leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time." [Chapter I, "World Demographic Trends"]
"In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion."
Abortion as a geopolitical strategy is mentioned several dozen times in the report with suggestive implications: "No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.... under developing country conditions foresight methods not only are frequently unavailable but often fail because of ignorance, lack of preparation, misuse and non-use. Because of these latter conditions, increasing numbers of women in the developing world have been resorting to abortion....
Here is the full passage:
"Indeed, those who committed crimes used to laugh at those who believed. And when they passed by them, they would exchange derisive glances. And when they returned to their people, they would return jesting. And when they saw them, they would say, 'Indeed, those are truly lost.' But they had not been sent as guardians over them. So today those who believed are laughing at the disbelievers, On adorned couches, observing. Have the disbelievers [not] been rewarded [this Day] for what they used to do?"
You only get what you give.
"And the dwellers of Paradise will call out to the dwellers of the Fire (saying): "We have indeed found true what our Lord had promised us; have you also found true, what your Lord promised (warnings, etc.)?" They shall say: "Yes." Then a crier will proclaim between them: "The Curse of Allah is on the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.),"" - Qur'an 7:44
I could not laugh at a person being tortured. I don't see how torturing someone for disbelief is giving them what they gave.
"But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning." Qur'an 22:19-22
In your view, is Anne Frank going to be put in the fire of Jahannam? How long for?
The Qur'an says its signs are clear. I disagree.
An omniscient being should know that to a fallible being, nothing is clear. Punishing someone for their honestly held beliefs and disbeliefs is foolish.
Its deity cares more about belief and and disbelief than it cares about good and bad works - good works will not prevent you from being tortured in its dogma.
What is the rationale beyond taking someone else's word for how to behave (for example "Muhammad", if he existed), while believing in the existence of a being that it is said that its signs are clear?
I cannot accept on faith that the Muslims say that Muhammad said that Jibreel said that Allah said something. I cannot even take my own senses for granted.
It is one thing to establish a human existed to a certain level of confidence, but impossible to prove any of the qualities ascribed to Allah. It simply is not rational for a being to belief in the existence of an omnipotent or an omniscient being. A being could not know it is omnipotent or omniscient.
Aside from that, "morality" is inherently subjective - it is not something that can be proved or disproved.
It does not matter to me whether Allah is "good" or "bad" in its own assessment. Once such a being has been "proved", the only thing that matters is if I accept its terms. There is no independent authority of whether or not my actions are acceptable. I very much intend to follow my own informed judgement, which is the best I can do. Another individual being omnipotent or omniscient is rather irrelevant to that.
abortion = killing of people. of own children
someone needs a religion miracles to do not like this idea?
if "abortion" is acceptable, then to "abort" those who did this is ok too?
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
Pro-lifers are r-strategic peasants, whose favor of preserving all lives over the promotion of high-quality ones is keeping our species economically and genetically weak, and holding back our progress to the stars.
Sex simply feels good and results in kids. High IQ seems to be a evolutionary dead end which works against itself. IF it leads to the lack of procreation, it means it cannot exist in the future versions of the organism and will be selected against.
At any rate imo post enlightenment philosophies about life as well as post-marxist and bourgeois capitalist conceptions of an only materialist existence seem to be self -destructive to say the least..
Just as an example, its not uncommon these days to be a smart, well educated 35+ year old woman who is childless, in a career they chose themselves, making good money.. while at the same time having creeping dread that one's life has gone off the rails for some reason and something is deeply wrong.
The reality of the situation is that she is a brainwashed cog in the capitalist machine of perpetual growth and the product of an education system which was designed to make her a worker-drone and never catered to her biological life-cycle as a human being.
Last edited by SGF; 12-18-2020 at 04:43 AM.
Ultimately, if you think that having children is going to be a catalyst for meaning in itself, you're in for a bitter surprise. The act is as bad as clinging to a child as you would to a piece of meat in the hopes that it will save your doomed marriage. There are two things that are marketed in a very false and harmful way nowadays: the concepts of authenticity and purpose.
The concept of purpose has been weaponized and distorted. At the end of the day, it is not something that you can look to as being your salvation, and it will definitely not do you a sliver of good if you polish it with a little bit of 'meaning' to give it a wee shiny luster. If you truly want meaning to be the essence and not just a mere decoration to something you think of as a "calling" or "purpose", then you need to find that essence by feeling the weight of your own cross, and through your own path and journey.
I feel that promoting family values in a hollow manner is as mindless as echoing that you need to focus on a career before all else. In both cases, you would simply parrot the mere REFLECTIONS of ideologies that mean nothing to the individual at large-- will starting a family really get Stacey back on track when she hasn't known, and hasn't tapped, into the potential that's been burrowed by years upon years of emotional and psychological trauma enforced through fear porn and emotional death?
Spoiler: no it won't. Just as focusing on career is not going to suddenly make Michael the Software Designer from enjoying what lies beyond the gilded cage of his own design.
Remember, kids, that having no family at all is better than having an utterly broken family. But who am I to lecture people on this? Some might genuinely get a kick out of seeing their own offspring grow distant while harboring the very seeds of remorse towards their parents that they, themselves, have planted there when they thought that it will be a good idea to raise someone in an environment of pure and utter chaos.
And there you go: meaning. Your legacy is your meaning. And the very legacy you've left on your death bed is a diseased lump of people trying to survive in an empty world while regurgitating, and passing on, the sins of their fathers and mothers.
I'm all for finding joy in the peaceful harbour and the warm hearth that constitutes a family. But I feel like people really are a bit stupid and naive sometimes, without realizing that their purpose is not true purpose if it acts as a surrogate for it. There are a lot of things to consider here.
.. further I don't think happiness is that important, nor the warm embrace of family. Often the bittersweet life full of struggle is worth more. We struggle and fight .. because we were born into this world, moving forward in spite of all the misfortune, discomfort, hardship.. emotional, physical or otherwise.
“To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities—I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not—that one endures." ― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power
I choose life over death, its that simple. Life is bittersweet.. terrible, cruel and beautiful. To deny the unborn this experience is a crime.
Last edited by SGF; 12-19-2020 at 10:09 PM.
they got condoms at walmart for $3
Last edited by Computer Loser; 12-30-2020 at 02:32 PM.
Which strategy makes the most sense, if
A.) You're never going to see her again.
B.) Her daddy owns a shotgun?
There is also Case
C.) You love her and want to have children with her,
but that's, like, 0.00001% in our survey.