2006-07-27 01:58:21 · 25 answers · asked by dmb 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It doesn't say much for us as human beings, does it?
2006-07-27 02:04:10 · answer #1 · answered by grey_sky_morning84 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
That is simple :
Trees produce oxygen and are a natural resource that is not easily re-plenished .
Children are being born everyday and they are the reason for overpopulation .
the more children that there are the less food there is going to be .
More people should use birth control , and practice safe sex to limit the number of unwanted children .
What will people eat when there is no more space to grow food , EACH OTHER .
Remember " Soylent Green is People " .
2006-07-27 02:06:16 · answer #2 · answered by rocknrod04 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's that the type of wide generalization. Why on the earth could you even ask this question? merely because of the fact human beings prefer to save trees would not advise they do no longer prefer to save ALL infants (no longer basically the unborn). Your time table is displaying....
2016-11-03 02:42:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think you can classify the issue so easily. People are governed by a number of internal beliefs. Some may not see abortion as murder. Some may see protecting the environment as protecting the world for all the as yet unborn children. It's a bad idea to stereotype people and then judge them by such flimsy standards.
2006-07-27 02:03:54 · answer #4 · answered by sincityq 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is an answer I wish I knew. I don't know how people can say that an unborn child is not a living thing - a baby is a living being at conception.
2006-07-27 02:05:00 · answer #5 · answered by Jayna 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I try not to argue this debate too much, but I'm tired of hearing all the time. Maybe people are more concerned about saving trees because the trees create oxygen, which we need to breathe and survive.
2006-07-27 02:02:23 · answer #6 · answered by j.f. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because unborn children aren't really living creatures whilst trees are.
Personally, I like trees better.
2006-07-27 02:01:36 · answer #7 · answered by Slam 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The main reason would probably be that they are just self-centred. I mean, think about it? If one had a choice, would you choose to save yourself or someone else's unborn kid that will end up depleting the oxygen? (no offence intended to anyone out there, I'm just rationalising...)
2006-07-27 02:04:56 · answer #8 · answered by goddess 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
good question. I s'pose they are quite retarded and dont understand the meaning of important. trees are important especially for woodland creatures but i wouldnt say that they are more important than the lives of unborn children.
2006-07-27 02:06:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Trees are alive and useful. What use have the thousands of sperms that a man ejaculates, of which the one you mention is just another sperm. It is a long time before a sperm has as much usefulness as a healthy tree.
2006-07-27 02:03:31 · answer #10 · answered by Davie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Trees live longer and contribute more to the planet than human life.
2006-07-27 02:01:51 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋