Do you realize in America we would lose about 1/3 of our crops if we stopped exploiting bees?
Who is pollinating or are we all eating rice?
Pro Choice or Pro Life?
- Thread starter 7
- Start date
Do you realize in America we would lose about 1/3 of our crops if we stopped exploiting bees?
Who is pollinating or are we all eating rice?
The world is a big place. It would take much bigger picture pov to get it done. Definitely not impossible though.
Il quote some experts on this:
experts said:
We could easily survive, though maybe you wont get the exact food that your taste preference desires.
Perhaps in theory it is obtainable. I won’t deny that. But do you honestly believe there is any remote chance of that ACTUALLY happening? I truthfully don’t and I believe you are being dishonest with yourself if you think it might. In the meantime I won’t look down on anyone eating almonds or cucumbers and I request the same from anyone who sees me eating a ham and cheese omelet.
If you're talking about this, I ignored it because it was a derailment, but if you have any related questions you are welcome to shoot.
If you are asking if I value the doctor's life more than the homeless man's life, then my answer is no.
Depends on what time frame you're looking at. Within my life-time? I would be shocked to have the system perfected
Actually I don’t think its ever going to happen. I don’t look down on anyone as I said I also eat meat. People can and will do what they want & who am I to stop them.
But I still want to know the truth regardless
Humans in my opinion are by nature selfish beings who will never care enough about the earth or anything to save it.
If humans ever do go extinct, the earth will thrive in my opinion.
Well if you are unable or unwilling to participate in answering my questions after I answered all of your questions then I think maybe the conversation is over.
@TheCriminaL
So you value a pig as equals with a human being?
same can be said for the US in the long term. in fact taxpayers in most states that allow abortion don't pay for it whatsoever
look at hunter/gatherer groups, almost none die from heart disease (the ones that do are due to genetic illnesses or mutations). heart disease is more caused by sedentariness than food intake
yup. illegal abortions are also dangerous to the pregnant women, as coat hanger abortions and other forms of non-medically induced abortions can lead to permanent damage
the US government also thinks this way, as there are more subsidies for pig farmers than child development
They do not eat it in excess yes
This I agree with 100%.
And to bring things back on topic, the fact that some people would rather have a late term abortion than give the baby up for adoption is one example of that selfish nature.
You guys are so off topic that I didn't even read half of these posts. @7 The argument "you eat animals that aren't human and thus you are a hypocrite" is such a reach. Why don't you actually debate why abortion, in your opinion, is correct morally without trying to prove someone is a hypocrite. I am guessing you do have arguments for such a thing, so do it instead of this 
.
I am pro-life and am of the opinion that life starts at conception. I am open to other opinions if I find them logically and morally sound enough, but this has not happened so far. Anybody who is pro-life needs to describe when the baby in their view is granted rights (i.e. when life begins) and what qualities the baby has at that time (i.e is it because they have developed a brain? Heart starts beating? etc.). Then we need to discuss if this is an accurate metric for the determination of life. The cutoff cannot be arbitrary, there must be a reason.
My reason for pro-life starting at conception is that at this point it is a human being with all of the genetic code it will ever have. It is an unborn child forming in his/her mother's stomach. Hell, the heartbeat begins in the first month and in the the baby begins to develop eyes, a face, and blood cells very early on. This genetic metric is the only consistent point in time where we don't commit some moral atrocity that, if elaborated on, we would find reprehensible.
.I am pro-life and am of the opinion that life starts at conception. I am open to other opinions if I find them logically and morally sound enough, but this has not happened so far. Anybody who is pro-life needs to describe when the baby in their view is granted rights (i.e. when life begins) and what qualities the baby has at that time (i.e is it because they have developed a brain? Heart starts beating? etc.). Then we need to discuss if this is an accurate metric for the determination of life. The cutoff cannot be arbitrary, there must be a reason.
My reason for pro-life starting at conception is that at this point it is a human being with all of the genetic code it will ever have. It is an unborn child forming in his/her mother's stomach. Hell, the heartbeat begins in the first month and in the the baby begins to develop eyes, a face, and blood cells very early on. This genetic metric is the only consistent point in time where we don't commit some moral atrocity that, if elaborated on, we would find reprehensible.
going with this, i am of the opinion that a baby cannot be called one until it can live outside of the womb.
that said, I also believe that "life" is a fluid term across cultures, so having a universalist argument is a very ethnocentric and uneducated
To anyone who considers themself pro-life, are you also anti-abortion in the case of rape?
Honestly I've felt my discussion with Liquid and Dx (besides the last comment), have been pretty spot on in advancing the discussion. Liq has made me think a lot about parts of my belief system and crim has introduced some perspectives I hadn't thought about. I think at first 7 was not wrong in pointing out the logical inconsistency.
Agreed, that's why I tried to go after the other premise that life is to be valued, because I find the argument of when someone is legally considered alive to be somewhat arbitrary. I don't think there it is as black and white as the other ideas.
Life for now concerns me just in the United States. If we cannot agree on the definition of life in the United States, we will have a damn hard time trying to make laws which prevents me from killing other people. It must be defined here. Eventually, it should be defined universally, but for now I will settle for US.
@zen, I don't think 7's pointing out people eating meat was fruitful to the discussion. I care significantly more about humans than I do about other animals. If we want to discuss why that is at a later date we can, but the life of a bear, fish, crab, or a cow combined aren't worth more than the life of my mother or any single individual in my family. I hope it isn't just me who feels this way.
@Chernobyl The womb is just a location. I find this a weak argument currently as location doesn't really affect whether I am alive or not. If you are referring to dependency, I also think this is a mute point because a baby out of the womb is very dependent. Hell, if I were to leave a baby on its own for a day it would probably die.
@zen, I don't think 7's pointing out people eating meat was fruitful to the discussion. I care significantly more about humans than I do about other animals. If we want to discuss why that is at a later date we can, but the life of a bear, fish, crab, or a cow combined aren't worth more than the life of my mother or any single individual in my family. I hope it isn't just me who feels this way.
@Chernobyl The womb is just a location. I find this a weak argument currently as location doesn't really affect whether I am alive or not. If you are referring to dependency, I also think this is a mute point because a baby out of the womb is very dependent. Hell, if I were to leave a baby on its own for a day it would probably die.
Look man, one of Dx's premises for pro-life was that he valued life. 7 Pointed out the logical inconsistency, which is how discussions work. You either counter the premise, or suggest that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. This is basic discussion. Dx then changed his premise to him valuing HUMAN life, which is not the same as all life, which then allowed us to better understand his viewpoint.
I watched the entire first video, but not the second (because time is limited). It was revealed to me that abortion has a .0007% death rate, lesser chance than colonoscopy, but what about damage to female genitalia? To be honest I'm going off of purely what my mom has said (who has had an abortion), but the hook inside of a woman can damage a woman. I don't think that future miscarriages or problems during pregnancies were accounted for in his first video. I don't think that was left out of the video by accident, abortions still seem risky..