Abortion vs. saving rain forests?

Question

Environmentalists preach that we can't cut down rain forests because of the cures for disease and such that may be found there.

Should the same arguement apply for abortion? Might we abort the scientist who would discover said cure?

I realize there are other compelling reasons for not cutting down rainforests, but I would like to focus on the one presented.

EnragedParrot....not really. By your arguement of "every sperm is sacred" you would have to reason that every egg is as well and mandate that every woman ovulating would have to get pregnant. I'm focusing on pregnancies that occur, not ones that might occur.

To add. I don't work for a lumber industry, I am a machinst. Nice try though.

Answer 1

I never thought about that.

Very thought provoking.

Answer 2

You might. But by the same reasoning, you run the risk of aborting countless great lives with every single sperm cell that doesn't fertilize an egg and become become a full grown human. And when you start making that sort of argument you're heading towards the slippery slopes of 'Every Sperm is Sacred' territory. And you don't want that.

Edit: I don't think it matters. What you're talking about are the potential great lives that are lost when an abortion is performed. I'm saying just as many potential great lives are lost when a pregnancy is not allowed to occur at all. And that by your logic every act of copulation that does not result in pregnancy destroys countless great lives. In which case we couldn't allow a single sperm cell to be destroyed, since each one contains the potential for a great life.

And your argument focuses only on the children being aborted who are going to =help= humanity. What about all the ones who wouldn't? I'd say you've got about the same chance of aborting a great scientist who might some day save the rain forests as you have a lumber baron who will cut them down.

Answer 3

Abortion should be a choice. Honestly it is an unspoken fact but, Did you know women, before abortion was invented, used to hit their stomachs against tables or eat a lot of "Sick herbs? So honestly if the woman does not want to be pregnant she will find a way to end it one way or the other. As for the rain forest it's not only a cure it carries there. It carries oxygen, Our vital life supply. I don't think we can live without air. So without trees we might end up a little short of breath (Pun intended)

Answer 4

Lets be honest with ourselves, you are generalizing just the same as most humans do, furthermore your lack of ability to rationalize is overbearing your remedial understanding of chain of events and cause and effect. An unborn child is unarguably innocent, how do you think that equates the the biblical prophecy regarding "spilling innocent blood"? Furthermore, you are probably involved in some lumber related industry that requires you to defend the levelling of the rainforests...(and now you are thinking that I didn't understand the context of the question) But, alas, I do. I am proving a point...Everything is relative in this universe, and unfortunately we live in a three dimensional world but only percieve it as two dimensional. If everyone in the world understood the question you are asking they would all be smart enough not to make these irreversible mistakes, unfortunately; the ignorant shall always be with you.

Answer 5

If you save the rain forest...the kids that weren't aborted will have trees.
If you forget the trees, and stop abortion, all the unwanted kids will grow up and be criminals (because their mamas didnt want them) and cut down all the trees and then everyone will die.
If you abort the scientist the diseases will kill the people.

If you keep the babies and keep the trees, they will grow up in the jungle and be very strong.

Answer 6

no contest
Overpopulation is one of the mayor problems in this world ,and so is deforestation

So much more abortions ,and far less deforestation More population control is needed
as we now have become a species out of control compared to all other species.

But how do we ethically control overpopulation?
It is suspected that controlling factors have been in play already for quite a while .

And ethically is not possible .People are to vain or to proud ,Many many cultures rate a man´s value by the number of children they got ,In India,Africa,Mexico and USA amongst others

Our natural resources and especially food production are reaching critical levels as well as fresh water supplies .

People use and need land,so more and more is being changed to accomodate human growth and devellopment.

Over the last half century,
Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million

In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise. .

Each year pressures on water supplies are increasing with 70 million more people drinking cooking and washing ,not to mention Irrigation for agriculture which consumes 70% of all water supplies.

SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS

At a Bilderberg(UN)meeting in Kopenhagen in 1998 it was suggested to bring the world population down by 60%,one cannot help but wonder at how this would be archieved
(And the Americans manauvring for a nuclear war is suspicious)

POPULATION CONTROL
(in the past and present and suspected)

War (past .present and future)
Native peoples have been suplied with arms and encouraged to wipe each other out ,(such as all over Africa )

NATURES WAYS
disease(today,past and future)and Natural disasters or predators

MAN´S WAYS

Manufactured disease(suspected today)
Cures that kill(suspected today)
Poisoned consumer goods (suspected today)
Making children infertile or gay,by raising the PH level in drinking water or even drinks (suspected today)

BIRTH CONTROL
In the past the Olmecs women ate yams to make them infertile,
Today we have several methods but most reach only the educated ,i handed out condoms to an native Mazatecca comunity in Oaxaca ,and the church retrieved them all )
Education on birth control(not enough,again the poor regions are excluded )

Laws that limit childbirth per family(China)

RADICAL APPROACH ,remember Soylent green , ?????? Who can imagine to what exstent humanity can be driven if Survival was the issue.
We have already seen some horrific human behaviour surface in times of War .

In the past the Mayas ,Aztecs and druids to name but a few practised Human sacrifice,
The Aztecs fertilized their fields with the by products.(an economic idea)

Answer 7

Tree vs fetus - a consumed acorn does not mean there will be no more trees any more than an aborted fetus means there will be no more scientists.

Answer 8

If you abort him maby his next life will be a tree!

Answer 9

How about trees produce our oxygen!!!

Answer 10

hahahahaahahahahahahahahah good one sweet breeze too funny u made me laugh
and u too mata ;-)