Are you Pro choice or Pro Life?

[Not Anyone To Care For]

I am Pro-choice as of right now with the way society and technology as it is. People are having trouble feeding themselves of right now and over population is an impending issue. But, in the future ( let's say in the next 150 years or longer) pro-life can be reasonable conclusion, we may be able to feed everyone and we would be able to make a system where the mother can be taken care of during pregnancy and when she gives birth the baby could immediately go to an adoption center. Imagine if Albert Einsteins mother aborted him? Great minds can be destroyed by accident and that isn't something to risk in the future.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

@Grayman

Right, well..

I don't believe it's the people who follow a religion or attend church in general that seem to care about the pro-life/pro-choice label. Rather it's done as gesture of politics by religious politicians, protesters, and TV/radio personalities. Whether you personally think abortion is wrong for whatever ethical or moral reason is not the same as adopting the pro-life/pro-choice label which means you want to legally prohibit or allow them in society.

If you're campaigning in some way for "pro-life" bottom line I'd say you're still seeking to control others because the consequences of "pro-life" is forcing a woman/family to have a baby which is absurd and borderline vengeful. Even in the most caring stance you're attempting to save the life of the baby for potentially ruining the life of the mother and baby down the road.

 

[Grayman]

I've spent many years working for secular charities, and working alongside religious ones. Most stay on their high horses the entire time. They have no problem treating the poor, huddled masses like piles of shit. They have no problem telling their own impoverished members (let alone nonmembers) to go fuck themselves because they're not worthy of help. Some go a step further and outright exploit those in need.

They get away with it because they're churches. They don't have to be accredited, licensed, or overseen by any objective entities, and they take full advantage of that fact.

Catholic Charities' signs might as well read, "Pregnant? Scared? Illiterate? Perfect. Just sign here."

Do you have one or two examples?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

It seems that your experiences with a specific social structure have shaped your views in way that prevents you from seeing any value in it.

Ah, but to the contrary. My experience with the catholic/christian church has been quite positive and I've met a fair share of valuable and intelligent people among the clergy. What might be surprising is that their private views/lives do differ quite significantly from the outdated by 2 millennia routine they choose to follow to the note on "stage". Though it is convenient for them, they aren't the victims in this situation, they partake in the charade willingly, it's their job after all. It's difficult to abandon something they partially agree with when they don't create new alternatives for themselves.

I've seen some of their inner workings and I've seen and confirmed similar things about their practices elsewhere.

It is by what I learnt that I've come to conclude that as a whole, charities tend to be a business model for dishonest companies looking to fill the niche of spiritual or idealist profit milking. Even more so if charity is but one branch of a larger organisation that invests in the niche to diversify and expand their market reach. Charity is a legal weak spot that's just ripe for exploiting if one looks for funneling their profits into lower tax brackets or taking governmental benefits for the corporation.

Your insinuation that I can't see the utility or value in organised and supportive social communities is way off the mark.

Anyway, as I mentioned earlier this charity bit in the abortion topic and it is as I said, that the church(whatever other religious sects organisations you can think of) does put and enforce its expectations on people to conform to its tenets, which includes the pro-life position.

Religious organisations are "companies" on the same principles as microsoft or intel, they simply operate on a less transparent (easily publicly calculable) business model.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Pro-choice, echoing most of the reasons already given, though I do wonder if pro-life critics take time to view this from an existential perspective, i.e. life sucks for everyone at least in some respect regardless, and is arguably meaningless, so is there any real consequence, and can agency ever truly be limited to the point where a given option is mandated? Are roller coasters and coat hangers at risk of being outlawed? And if there is meaning, is some sense of suffering or pain necessary to derive or appreciate it?

Ethical decisions are best taken rationally. That's f'ing common sense, too.
Emotions don't add anything of value to a consideration, they just bias it in arbitrary ways.

So many generalizations, and so little time, and I don't want to derail any further. I'll state that I reached the same stance based on emotion and ask you to reflect on how that might have happened and to consider how one's degree of emotional maturity (which is not the same as stoicism, by any means) might play a role.

I just realized how weird this response of mine is given that I'm simultaneously criticizing blanket approaches while also stating that different approaches lead to a blanket conclusion, something akin to synchronicity. But I'm confident in it though. What do you think of it?

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I am Pro-choice as of right now with the way society and technology as it is. People are having trouble feeding themselves of right now and over population is an impending issue. But, in the future ( let's say in the next 150 years or longer) pro-life can be reasonable conclusion, we may be able to feed everyone and we would be able to make a system where the mother can be taken care of during pregnancy and when she gives birth the baby could immediately go to an adoption center. Imagine if Albert Einsteins mother aborted him? Great minds can be destroyed by accident and that isn't something to risk in the future.

A couple of cool points you bring up here, imho. I don't see overpopulation and lack of food availability as problems, or at least not problems without solutions that already exist. To me, the real issues are social and economic conventions and structures that prevent the implementation of existing solutions. We're not efficient at all by any means, we're selfish, we waste to a sickening degree, and we're bound by very odd and outdated traditions and ideals. Like, we coexist with ideas like planned obsolescence, patents, and protectionism. wtf?

But the other thing is the idea of evaluating potential before making the decision to eliminate it, which I love, though I'm not sure how it's done. We don't know what produces great minds. Though don't get me wrong, there's plenty of placebo effect and dunning-kruger flying around with regards to genetics and parenting and our best current knowledge on the subject. You might be interested in the idea of adversity being a formative force to an otherwise supple and undifferentiated mind, and/or component parts of it. But if that's the case, then that also reduces the importance of pre-elimination assessment, though not entirely. Applying niche theory and integration could be fun too. What if we shift our focus from individual intelligence to meta-intelligence, like, say... bees? I guarantee there are different selective forces at play at these different levels of organization, and I'm willing to bet that some of what's elected for on the individual scale is grossly counterproductive on the meta scale. What is a bee, anyway? Going beyond the hive level entirely, is a bee truly separate from, say, flowering plants, via co-evolution? Or beyond that?