Hot button issue

Okay, again, sorry about the forfeit. It's been really crappy, and it turns out i need to get a new computer. So, i'm posting on a friend's here. Okay, to address the future experience argument, yes, i in fact would probably use my future to justify my survival. however, if i was unaware that i had the possibility of future experiences, or unaware that someone was going to terminate my existence, I would not care, because i would either not know that i was going to be terminated, and therefore would not be able to argue effectively, or be unaware that i had future experiences, and so i would also not have a very effective argument. As for your assumption about changing the lives of people, you do know that it is possible for a fetus to grow up and have a bad life? You say "JoAnn Darfur" as being the only bad luck, but what about the three billion people who live on less than $2 a day? What if the child is born there? Or, as someone said in comments, what if the child is born poor in a first world country? www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats Another thing is that you seem to assume that a child will always positively affect the lives of those around it. What about the single motherr who can't afford day care and has no steady source of income? How do you know that changing the lives of hypothetical people won't make their lives worse? About Hitler: not what i meant. However, if you believe in heaven, do you not believe that those murdered are now better off? Essentially, all these future arguments are based 100% off the assumption that the fetus would lead a great life. This is a flawed assumption. I mean, i could easily concoct a scenario where fetus Nelly grows up in a ghetto and is a crack whore, and so aborting her will help her. For every hypothetical scenario you create, I can make one, because these scenarios are not based on fact. Okay, to address the Kantian argument, by the universal logic, the death penalty is wrong. You believe in the death penalty; are you by Kantian ethics wrong? I find Kant's arguments to be mostly irrelevant. There are all kinds of actions which if universalized would destroy humanity, but yet we do them anyway. Using Kantian ethics is trying to apply impractical rules to a practical world. "Who cares about animals? They're nothing more than automatons. (Now I know PETA is after me). Really though, what they want is not important." Why is what animals want any less important than what people say a fetus wants? I mean, at least an animal that is no longer a fetus has actual mental capacity. Also, the extinction of humans would restore the planet to its natural balance, which is good. "If the mother does not want to care for her child, then I am sure, there are plenty of adoptive parents that would LOVE to have fetus Johnny as their new baby. I again remind you of Juno. Of course, if the mother lives in a warzone, then abortion may be a good idea, but, again, generally, a mother that just accidentally gets pregnant can spend nine months of her life with a baby in her tummy. She doesn't have to have anything to do with it afterwards, she can just poop it out and be done. While a burden, it is irrelevant compared to the future life of value of the fetus." Perhaps there would be adoptive parents, perhaps not. In New York, for example, 33% of foster care children were waiting to be adopted, in Illinois and Texas, 47%. http://www.adoptioninstitute.org... So little Johhny might be on the waiting list for a while. (Old numbers i know, but they were the most comprehensive data i could find.) BTW, Juno was a MOVIE. Either way, while you have said that mothers should have their baby and adopt it, you have not proven why. My contention is that the fetus's current value to society is actually a negative, because it places a person out of the labor pool and that person also requires additional care from others. Their future value to society is undeterminable, and could either be negative or positive (gangster or cop). Therefore, it is in the best interests of society to allow a woman to reenter the productive part of society should she have the desire, rather than force her to remain a resource drain on society while gambling on an unpredictable outcome.