Environmentalism and Abortion

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Words speak. Policies speak more loudly. Actions scream. The act of abortion plainly screams out that an expected member of the future generation of (nonzero) human population has no value. The policy of allowing the act, and for some people encouraging or even forcing it makes this sentiment more widespread than just to the one member of the future human generation you denied value to--it means none of the expected future generation have any value, as a matter of policy.

Which (nonzero) human populations are you trying to save the world for? What posterity will benefit other than the ones already conceived?

Calling abortion population control is like calling extortion a mutual agreement. It's a complete bastardization of the term that misses the connotation involved. War is a form of population control, as are genocide, government-directed starvation, and other equally unpleasant and manifestly evil practices. That doesn't mean that legitimate population control measures, such as raising populations out of impoverishment and, you know, actual contraceptives are inadequate to the "problem" of overpopulation.

Your last question is illogical. Why, exactly, is saving the environment beneficial to you if future generations are of no value?


Edit -- Please take no offense to the tone of my message. I am making a genuine inquiry, if a somewhat emotional one.

I don't know the value of your comments regarding concern about the value of future humans without consideration of the value of present humans. As I see it, human life is now and has been nothing other than CHEAP. There are more than enough people now to do everything that needs to be done presently and perhaps even for all time to come assuming an overall decrease in reproductive rates were to take place. Someone above brought up the value of other forms of life, and as I see things all life is a phenomenon beyond my comprehension of the possibilities that it has gotten this far, and that includes plants. The most fucked up aspect of life on Earth is human beings, made more fucked up by various and sundry religions and the truly mindless notions that what one or some groups sees is THE WAY should in fact be the way for all mankind. Look no further than Islamic extremists and the Religious Right extremists and those asshole politicians who get elected in this country by preying on the profound ignorance of the Religious Right. What a ripoff, but ignorance deserves to be ripped off.

Actually if all humans were to die off and everything else survived, the Earth would be a great place, otherwise I think if nothing checks man's continued destruction of the planet, then probably ultimately all life forms will disappear.

[jimmygu3]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Very well, enjoy your holiday break, if you are in receipt of one.

I'm trying to approach this from a value stance. What would I need to value in order to simultaneously support protecting the environment and the termination of conceived future generations? If I perhaps owned land that was in immediate environmental danger, but also didn't give a hoot about future generations one way or the other, then I might support both if they came as a packaged deal since it would support what I value (me and my land).

Perhaps some misguided notion of "quality of life" drives people into this stance. However, support for both simultaneously seems to contradict every criteria I can think of to qualify or quantify the impact on that value.

You ask who said that future generations have no value. Again I repeat that those who act like they have no value are saying it in very clear terms.

Ghent,

I share Chomsky's frustration with your one-dimensional view. In reality, abortion is a complex issue and those who support a woman's right to choose recognize this.

A hypothetical woman who has indiscriminant unprotected sex, then gets a late term abortion because she doesn't want to deal with a kid, does not seem to care much about others, and most Americans would love to see this behavior cease. On the other hand, a hypothetical 13-year-old who gets raped by her father and develops an ectopic pregnancy would need an abortion to save her life, and most Americans would agree that this is the right thing to do.

The majority of cases fall in between these extremes. There is a certain degree of health risk in any pregnancy. Those who want abortion outlawed are effectively saying that the government should force a woman to continue with a pregnancy that risks her life. What if she's a mother of 3 and there's a 10% chance that carrying the baby to term will kill her, leaving her children without a mother? Government's choice or her choice?

100,000 women are raped in the US each year. Don't you think most of them have plans for how they would like to start a family that don't include carrying, delivering and raising a rapist's baby? Many choose to do so but some do not, and abort the pregnancies. Should this be the Government's choice instead?

There are many laws regulating late term abortion. Most late term abortions, infrequent as they are, are agonizing choices made for the health of the mother or because the child will have severe birth defects. Many bravely choose to risk their lives or dedicate themselves to caring for a brain-dead baby, leaving little time to care for other children and family members. Some choose otherwise. Anti-abortionists think the government should take this right to choose away.

Of course, if abortion were made illegal, the wealthy could leave the country to get abortions while the poor would have unsafe abortions, many women and children dying during childbirth, and add more unwanted children to an already overtaxed foster care system.

It is offensive when idealistic religious zealots claim they are the only ones with "values". Most pro-choice people recognize that in the complex reality we live in, many rights and values overlap. There are thousands of things that I don't like, or agree with, or want my children to do, but they shouldn't be made illegal.

And, *shocker*, I care about the environment too.

-Jimmy

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Is it really that hard to understand? Honestly, it feels like you are either blinded by your own (self-righteous) feelings or are just playing dumb.

I'll answer this: "Why, exactly, is saving the environment beneficial to you if future generations are of no value?"

Again, who said that? My last question was: " And besides, who said the environment is just for humans?" There are other species on the planet, about which one might actually care, other than humans. It is also their environment.

I don't care to debate it any longer, you can think these things through for yourself.

Very well, enjoy your holiday break, if you are in receipt of one.

I'm trying to approach this from a value stance. What would I need to value in order to simultaneously support protecting the environment and the termination of conceived future generations? If I perhaps owned land that was in immediate environmental danger, but also didn't give a hoot about future generations one way or the other, then I might support both if they came as a packaged deal since it would support what I value (me and my land).

Perhaps some misguided notion of "quality of life" drives people into this stance. However, support for both simultaneously seems to contradict every criteria I can think of to qualify or quantify the impact on that value.

You ask who said that future generations have no value. Again I repeat that those who act like they have no value are saying it in very clear terms.

[Chomsky]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Words speak. Policies speak more loudly. Actions scream. The act of abortion plainly screams out that an expected member of the future generation of (nonzero) human population has no value. The policy of allowing the act, and for some people encouraging or even forcing it makes this sentiment more widespread than just to the one member of the future human generation you denied value to--it means none of the expected future generation have any value, as a matter of policy.

Which (nonzero) human populations are you trying to save the world for? What posterity will benefit other than the ones already conceived?

Calling abortion population control is like calling extortion a mutual agreement. It's a complete bastardization of the term that misses the connotation involved. War is a form of population control, as are genocide, government-directed starvation, and other equally unpleasant and manifestly evil practices. That doesn't mean that legitimate population control measures, such as raising populations out of impoverishment and, you know, actual contraceptives are inadequate to the "problem" of overpopulation.

Your last question is illogical. Why, exactly, is saving the environment beneficial to you if future generations are of no value?


Edit -- Please take no offense to the tone of my message. I am making a genuine inquiry, if a somewhat emotional one.

Is it really that hard to understand? Honestly, it feels like you are either blinded by your own (self-righteous) feelings or are just playing dumb.

I'll answer this: "Why, exactly, is saving the environment beneficial to you if future generations are of no value?"

Again, who said that? My last question was: " And besides, who said the environment is just for humans?" There are other species on the planet, about which one might actually care, other than humans. It is also their environment.

I don't care to debate it any longer, you can think these things through for yourself.

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Who said no value? It's the opposite, right? Healthier environment with smaller (but nonzero) human populations. And besides, who said the environment is just for humans?

Words speak. Policies speak more loudly. Actions scream. The act of abortion plainly screams out that an expected member of the future generation of (nonzero) human population has no value. The policy of allowing the act, and for some people encouraging or even forcing it makes this sentiment more widespread than just to the one member of the future human generation you denied value to--it means none of the expected future generation have any value, as a matter of policy.

Which (nonzero) human populations are you trying to save the world for? What posterity will benefit other than the ones already conceived?

Calling abortion population control is like calling extortion a mutual agreement. It's a complete bastardization of the term that misses the connotation involved. War is a form of population control, as are genocide, government-directed starvation, and other equally unpleasant and manifestly evil practices. That doesn't mean that legitimate population control measures, such as raising populations out of impoverishment and, you know, actual contraceptives are inadequate to the "problem" of overpopulation.

Your last question is illogical. Why, exactly, is saving the environment beneficial to you if future generations are of no value?


Edit -- Please take no offense to the tone of my message. I am making a genuine inquiry, if a somewhat emotional one.

[Chomsky]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Why value the environment at all, then, if future generations are of no value?

Who said no value? It's the opposite, right? Healthier environment with smaller (but nonzero) human populations. And besides, who said the environment is just for humans?

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Population control is an important consideration for the environment. Doesn't seem too dissonant to me.

Why value the environment at all, then, if future generations are of no value?

[Chomsky]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Population control is an important consideration for the environment. Doesn't seem too dissonant to me.

[Ghent12]

I am curious about some peoples' views on the future. I find that some people possess, simultaneously, seemingly contradictory views. This is a question of value: do you place any value on the lives of people that would be around after you die? Is this more broad than just to your kin, i.e. do you value future generations generally rather than solely your children?

Do these beliefs, either way, play a role in your actions and/or views on the environment?

Do they play any role in your views (or actions) regarding abortion?


I simply cannot philosophically grasp the concept of simultaneously supporting the concept of preserving the environment and also of supporting the "right to choose" to kill one's fetus. What, exactly, could you possibly value to justify those simultaneous positions?

Edit -- Many people define things differently, so I use the terms environmentalism and "right to choose" loosely.