[Mobius]

I propose a high-level infiltration of the Catholic church over the next hundred years to replace all the die-hards from the Vatican with more even-minded people, thus allowing for a change in their views on both condoms and abortion. Boom, you've got a massive drop in the population growth rate in umpteen ****ty little third-world nations.

You're not up to date. The Church has accepted the use of condoms(only in certain circumstances) and accepts abortion, too(only when the mother is risking her life).

we could nuke it twice

Why don't you change its location first?

Move it to a desolated place...like your Alaska

[Nuke]

maybe italy should take their patch of land back
in the most violent and brutal means possible

[Mobius]

maybe italy should take their patch of land back
in the most violent and brutal means possible

I don't get it...we should conquer Europe and North Africa, again?!?

[Mefustae]

You're not up to date. The Church has accepted the use of condoms(only in certain circumstances) life).

Unfortunately, those circumstances don't seem to include AIDS-ridden African nations.

and accepts abortion, too(only when the mother is risking her

That's not exactly something that should be trumpeted. "Yeah, you can have an abortion... but only if you're literally about to die." Yep, that's progress that is. At this rate, they might give the OK to oral sex by the year 3000! Joy!

[Mobius]

Unfortunately, those circumstances don't seem to include AIDS-ridden African nations.

Who told you that? The use of condoms is accepted when either partner has AIDS or stuff like that. The situation in Africa is particular, they think that without sex the spreading of AIDS can be contained. They just don't know that people can't survive without it.

• and accepts abortion, too(only when the mother is risking her life

That's not exactly something that should be trumpeted. "Yeah, you can have an abortion... but only if you're literally about to die." Yep, that's progress that is. At this rate, they might give the OK to oral sex by the year 3000! Joy!

Now help me finding the problem about this one!

1) Abortion when the mother is risking her life...Ok;

2) Abortion when the mother just doesn't want a child...NOT Ok;

I'm replying to your post because someone 18 years ago followed the second principle expressed above. I wouldn't be here otherwise.

[Mefustae]

Now help me finding the problem about this one!

1) Abortion when the mother is risking her life...Ok;

2) Abortion when the mother just doesn't want a child...NOT Ok;

I'm replying to your post because someone 18 years ago followed the second principle expressed above. I wouldn't be here otherwise.

But it's not always (read: never) that black-and-white.

What about an unwanted child that would be born into a neglectful household? What about an unwanted child that would be born into a household unable to support it? What about an unwanted child that would be born into a home wrought by upheaval, such as a warzone? What about... etc.

There are many, many different things that factor into the wellfare of a child, and the cold, hard fact remains that - sometimes - dead is better. Making a blanket ban on abortion intrinsically causes a lot more suffering than allowing it on a provisional basis.

[Mobius]

Let me think...

What about "he can be adopted"? Just look at me, I now have a normal life and I play videogames like any other

[Mefustae]

Let me think...

What about "he can be adopted"? Just look at me, I now have a normal life and I play videogames like any other

You're operating on the assumption that the child will be born in a country with a well-developed or effective child protection/wellfare system. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Heck, even in developed, western nations like the US or Australia, child protection still has its fair share of abysmal failures.

I take it you were adopted? Well, that'd be super, since you've come out with a good lifestyle. Internet access alone says that much. Of course, how many aren't so lucky?

[Nuke]

abortion is ok so long as you eat the fetus

[Mefustae]

Thankyou once again for your valued insight, Nuke. This forum would surely be a darker place without you.

[Mobius]

You're operating on the assumption that the child will be born in a country with a well-developed or effective child protection/wellfare system. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Heck, even in developed, western nations like the US or Australia, child protection still has its fair share of abysmal failures.

I somewhat share your opinion, though I think that abortion condemns to death a child who has a chance of having a normal life. If a child has 95% probabilities of becoming a baby soldier, prostitute or dying at the age of 1...I believe in the remaining 5%. He/she has the right to live, no matter of what.

I take it you were adopted? Well, that'd be super, since you've come out with a good lifestyle. Internet access alone says that much. Of course, how many aren't so lucky?

Yes, I'm American(surprised, eh? ). I don't criticize my lifestyle...and I didn't like what people said of me a few years ago

I know there are unlucky children, but they have the right to live and fight for a future!

abortion is ok so long as you eat the fetus

Uhm...we're not dogs...

Thankyou once again for your valued insight, Nuke. This forum would surely be a darker place without you.

 

[Mefustae]

I somewhat share your opinion, though I think that abortion condemns to death a child who has a chance of having a normal life. If a child has 95% probabilities of becoming a baby soldier, prostitute or dying at the age of 1...I believe in the remaining 5%. He/she has the right to live, no matter of what.

While I find your attitude towards this issue quite heartening, your emotions are merely complicating this matter. We all want to believe in that 5%, but it's exactly that belief that will see millions of children born into a life of prostitution, abuse, and early death.

In our nice, cushy, western lifestyles, we can't even hope to understand what these children would be born into. I know I certainly can't, and i'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that we don't have many child soldiers on this forum to enlighten us. You'll probably notice that most people dead-set against abortion have either had good lives or are otherwise have no idea of the horrors that life can hold, and yet the seem to hold this insane belief that any life is better than nothing. We need to look past the baseless emotion surrounding this issue and look at the cold, immutable facts: Life sucks, and there are times when a baby simply should not be brought into this world. No ifs, no ands, no buts, it just shouldn't be born.

[Mobius]

But you can't kill them.

"It shouldn't be born"?!? It's not acceptable. You can't say something like that! A child deserves to be born!

[Mefustae]

"It shouldn't be born"?!? It's not acceptable. You can't say something like that! A child deserves to be born!

Into a short, painful and traumatic life? How can you be the judge of that? How can I, for that matter? The point is, we can't! And certainly neither can the man in the Vatican. Therefore, the only way to know is for the mother to decide, as she is the ultimate authority on the wellfare of her child.

Why should it be up to anyone but the mother?

[Mobius]

The man in Vatican have the right to say "No, by doing this you're killing a person" and make their opinion public. I live in a country where politics are strongly influenced by Vatican. I might not share their opinions, but I should let them talk.

What if, thanks to abortion, you kill 100 babies...5 of which had a chance of having an acceptable lifestyle? Or...

"There's no food..."

"Kill them! They shouldn't be born!"

After a month...

"We have just received supplies coming from Europe!"

"D'oh!"

[Mefustae]

The man in Vatican have the right to say "No, by doing this you're killing a person" and make their opinion public. I live in a country where politics are strongly influenced by Vatican. I might not share their opinions, but I should let them talk.

They can talk, but what right do they have to dictate the actions of African women half a world away, living vastly different lives in a vastly different land than anything the old men of the Vatican have experienced? My point is that this issue is too damn complicated to be dealt with by blanket declarations, and thus the choice must fall to the parent rather than some arbitrary body of individuals.

What if, thanks to abortion, you kill 100 babies...5 of which had a chance of having an acceptable lifestyle? Or...

"There's no food..."

"Kill them! They shouldn't be born!"

After a month...

"We have just received supplies coming from Europe!"

"D'oh!"

Okay, let's say those 100 all survive. The lucky 5 you mentioned go on to have rich, fulfilled lives. The other 95 rarely get their teenage years, with may falling to disease or parental abuse early on. The few that remain ultimately end up working the streets as teenage prostitutes, and a few very special ones will be drafted into the local militia at age 11 to participate in ethnically cleansing the neighboring province. None of these children will live to reach 21.

But the important thing is they're alive, isn't it? We can go on living our cushy lives, safe in the comfort that life goes on. Sure, they might not have lived for long, but it's better they at least had a chance at life. Right?

[Mobius]

They can talk, but what right do they have to dictate the actions of African women half a world away, living vastly different lives in a vastly different land than anything the old men of the Vatican have experienced? My point is that this issue is too damn complicated to be dealt with by blanket declarations, and thus the choice must fall to the parent rather than some arbitrary body of individuals.

I doubt it. There are plenties of African and Asian Cardinals plus priests who spend years in those places. There's one who comes back for a while every 5 years. I met it twice in the past ten years.

I think they know more about poor societies than any other. No, wait: ignore that "I think".

Okay, let's say those 100 all survive. The lucky 5 you mentioned go on to have rich, fulfilled lives. The other 95 rarely get their teenage years, with may falling to disease or parental abuse early on. The few that remain ultimately end up working the streets as teenage prostitutes, and a few very special ones will be drafted into the local militia at age 11 to participate in ethnically cleansing the neighboring province. None of these children will live to reach 21.

But the important thing is they're alive, isn't it? We can go on living our cushy lives, safe in the comfort that life goes on. Sure, they might not have lived for long, but it's better they at least had a chance at life. Right?

First of all, those 5 who have a normal life are enough to justify the prevention of a massacre. Even 1 would be enough to justify it. They will die at the age of 4? Of 9? Of 11? Of14? Of 17? Of 20? They will have a chance of being helped. Read above...what if you kill them right before the arrival of supplies, including food and water?

[Mefustae]

Just so I can get a gauge of where you stand, let me ask you a hypothetical: Would you willingly kill a 5-year-old girl to save 100 people?

[Mobius]

This is turning into a nonsense...

It's not a matter of "save a certain number of children, many of which are going to die soon". You're simply not in the right position to say "they shouldn't be born!". Why would you kill them if in, let's say 7 years, a consistent amount of supplies will reach their village? Why don't you think that, in a future, the situation might change?

100 years ago Italians of the Southern regions lived pretty much like the Africans. They moved to countries like the USA, Germany, France, Switzerland, Argentina and Brasil to work. Many of them succeded, and the situation here has completely changed, because people lived to make this a better place. If you kill the babies, if you don't help them and change the situation of their countries...you solve nothing! The 5 lucky children you mentioned could become doctors, are you aware of it?!?

[Mefustae]

It's not a matter of "save a certain number of children, many of which are going to die soon". You're simply not in the right position to say "they shouldn't be born!". Why would you kill them if in, let's say 7 years, a consistent amount of supplies will reach their village? Why don't you think that, in a future, the situation might change?

Exactly! I'm not in a position to dictate the fate of children. But neither is the Vatican! I'm merely saying that there are ****ty situations out there, and that it's wrong to make black-and-white declarations on the topic. Are you saying that the mother is incapable of deciding whether or not her situation is suitable to allow a child to be born?

And for the love of Pete, we're not talking about "killing babies"! You're turning this into a loaded discussion by making it sound like i'm advocating infanticide.