Officials: Obama to reverse abortion policy

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

No amount of education is going to 100% fix this. People make mistakes.

So taking the causality argument out of the equation leaves you with a choice.

Theres 2 logical arguments:
1. Girl gets knocked up, girls life is over.
2. Girl gets knocked up, girl has choices she can make to rectify her mistake.

Basic sociology, economics, and psychology training required to read ahead:

It is fucking expensive to raise a child. If you dont think so, you obviously dont have one. Abortion is common and because of the stigma levied by the evangicals it is hidden from the public eye. 800,000 pregnancies are artificially terminated each year in the US. That is a huge social problem to deal with if you were to suddenly dump 800,000 children into the laps of a society not ready to care for them.

 

[OCGuy]

Although abortion doesnt bother me, I dont think the government should promote it.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

No amount of education is going to 100% fix this. People make mistakes.

So taking the causality argument out of the equation leaves you with a choice.

Theres 2 logical arguments:
1. Girl gets knocked up, girls life is over.
2. Girl gets knocked up, girl has choices she can make to rectify her mistake.

Basic sociology, economics, and psychology training required to read ahead:

It is fucking expensive to raise a child. If you dont think so, you obviously dont have one. Abortion is common and because of the stigma levied by the evangicals it is hidden from the public eye. 800,000 pregnancies are artificially terminated each year in the US. That is a huge social problem to deal with if you were to suddenly dump 800,000 children into the laps of a society not ready to care for them.

Premise 1: It is not necessary to get knocked up. Girl can avoid if she so desires, excluding rape.

Conclusion: Pregnancy is avoidable.

There is only one logical argument. After pregnancy, a woman has two choices. Keep the baby or don't keep it. Killing it should not be a valid option in a civilization that touts itself as humane.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Actually this is incorrect. Studies on abortion have shown that abortion being legal or illegal has almost no effect on the abortion rate of a country. Research indicates what an abortion ban would actually accomplish would be a substantial increase in the injury and death rates of pregnant women attempting to terminate their pregnancies.

So really, you're more talking about a whole lot of fucked up young women, not so much a load of fucked up kids.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

Overall, people didn't think any more than they do today about unprotected sex BEFORE abortion became legal. If anything, people think about it much more today as it is much more dangerous as far as STDs, etc. That "legalized abortion leads to decreased responsibility in choosing to have sex" argument is a whole lot of hot air. Changing the situation to fit someone's restrictive idealogy regarding sex will only make matters worse.

Besides, the expense of children isn't often a factor in people having sex overall. See the days of pre-griswald when BC was either nonexistent or unavailable - having multiple children was the leading cause of poverty back then...

 

[OCGuy]

Theres always the old RU-486 trick.

 

[eriqesque]

I say good move.
As I see it the more democrats that are having abortions the fewer dems there will be in the future.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: eriqesque
I say good move.
As I see it the more democrats that are having abortions the fewer dems there will be in the future.

Hahaha. I'm going to give you a free tip: You should at least read the first sentence of an article posted here before opening your fat mouth.

This policy is for international organizations, that means funding in other countries. There are no 'democrats' having abortions with this funding, genius, it's for people in Africa, South America, etc. Don't worry though, you're in good company here. There are a lot of people who don't bother to read anything about topics before spouting off stupid things about them.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

Overall, people didn't think any more than they do today about unprotected sex BEFORE abortion became legal. If anything, people think about it much more today as it is much more dangerous as far as STDs, etc. That "legalized abortion leads to decreased responsibility in choosing to have sex" argument is a whole lot of hot air. Changing the situation to fit someone's restrictive idealogy regarding sex will only make matters worse.

Besides, the expense of children isn't often a factor in people having sex overall. See the days of pre-griswald when BC was either nonexistent or unavailable - having multiple children was the leading cause of poverty back then...

I disagree. It seems to me conventional wisdom that if you have little to no consequences for making a mistake, you'll be more careless.

I disagree also with the picture you're painting. Children aren't the cause of poverty. The lack of money is. Saying children are the cause of poverty is like saying heads are the cause of excess hair.

 

[eriqesque]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eriqesque
I say good move.
As I see it the more democrats that are having abortions the fewer dems there will be in the future.

Hahaha. I'm going to give you a free tip: You should at least read the first sentence of an article posted here before opening your fat mouth.

This policy is for international organizations, that means funding in other countries. There are no 'democrats' having abortions with this funding, genius, it's for people in Africa, South America, etc. Don't worry though, you're in good company here. There are a lot of people who don't bother to read anything about topics before spouting off stupid things about them.

Got your panties in a wad though didn't it.
My job is done.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: eriqesque

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eriqesque
I say good move.
As I see it the more democrats that are having abortions the fewer dems there will be in the future.

Hahaha. I'm going to give you a free tip: You should at least read the first sentence of an article posted here before opening your fat mouth.

This policy is for international organizations, that means funding in other countries. There are no 'democrats' having abortions with this funding, genius, it's for people in Africa, South America, etc. Don't worry though, you're in good company here. There are a lot of people who don't bother to read anything about topics before spouting off stupid things about them.

Got your panties in a wad though didn't it.
My job is done.

No, not at all. I get a lot more enjoyment out of talking trash to people who say stupid things than I probably should. Call it a personal failing on my part, but I had a lot of fun telling you that you're dumb.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

No amount of education is going to 100% fix this. People make mistakes.

So taking the causality argument out of the equation leaves you with a choice.

Theres 2 logical arguments:
1. Girl gets knocked up, girls life is over.
2. Girl gets knocked up, girl has choices she can make to rectify her mistake.

Basic sociology, economics, and psychology training required to read ahead:

It is fucking expensive to raise a child. If you dont think so, you obviously dont have one. Abortion is common and because of the stigma levied by the evangicals it is hidden from the public eye. 800,000 pregnancies are artificially terminated each year in the US. That is a huge social problem to deal with if you were to suddenly dump 800,000 children into the laps of a society not ready to care for them.

Premise 1: It is not necessary to get knocked up. Girl can avoid if she so desires, excluding rape.

Conclusion: Pregnancy is avoidable.

There is only one logical argument. After pregnancy, a woman has two choices. Keep the baby or don't keep it. Killing it should not be a valid option in a civilization that touts itself as humane.

You are misunderstanding me, people make mistakes.

Your beliefs cloud what i am saying to you.

If she puts the child up for adoption, as do 800,000 other women yearly; you will have an enormous social problem. If they keep the child, as many women already do;you will have an enormous number of women driven into poverty and out of education systems in a few years time.

Lets not even discuss the ethics of children with genetic defects... That will further cloud the argument.

What i am saying is outlawing abortion is a bad move for society as a whole. Nothing good can come from the change. It's a lot like banning gay marriage. No one benefits from the ban.

 

[KK]

I don't agree with us funding abortions abroad, they're plenty of people here in this country that should be getting abortions.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

No amount of education is going to 100% fix this. People make mistakes.

So taking the causality argument out of the equation leaves you with a choice.

Theres 2 logical arguments:
1. Girl gets knocked up, girls life is over.
2. Girl gets knocked up, girl has choices she can make to rectify her mistake.

Basic sociology, economics, and psychology training required to read ahead:

It is fucking expensive to raise a child. If you dont think so, you obviously dont have one. Abortion is common and because of the stigma levied by the evangicals it is hidden from the public eye. 800,000 pregnancies are artificially terminated each year in the US. That is a huge social problem to deal with if you were to suddenly dump 800,000 children into the laps of a society not ready to care for them.

Premise 1: It is not necessary to get knocked up. Girl can avoid if she so desires, excluding rape.

Conclusion: Pregnancy is avoidable.

There is only one logical argument. After pregnancy, a woman has two choices. Keep the baby or don't keep it. Killing it should not be a valid option in a civilization that touts itself as humane.

You are misunderstanding me, people make mistakes.

Your beliefs cloud what i am saying to you.

If she puts the child up for adoption, as do 800,000 other women yearly; you will have an enormous social problem. If they keep the child, as many women already do;you will have an enormous number of women driven into poverty and out of education systems in a few years time.

Lets not even discuss the ethics of children with genetic defects... That will further cloud the argument.

What i am saying is outlawing abortion is a bad move for society as a whole. Nothing good can come from the change. It's a lot like banning gay marriage. No one benefits from the ban.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept that killing babies is an acceptable way to improve society, regardless of why we do it. You don't begin the improvement of society by harming its constituents.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

Overall, people didn't think any more than they do today about unprotected sex BEFORE abortion became legal. If anything, people think about it much more today as it is much more dangerous as far as STDs, etc. That "legalized abortion leads to decreased responsibility in choosing to have sex" argument is a whole lot of hot air. Changing the situation to fit someone's restrictive idealogy regarding sex will only make matters worse.

Besides, the expense of children isn't often a factor in people having sex overall. See the days of pre-griswald when BC was either nonexistent or unavailable - having multiple children was the leading cause of poverty back then...

I disagree. It seems to me conventional wisdom that if you have little to no consequences for making a mistake, you'll be more careless.

I disagree also with the picture you're painting. Children aren't the cause of poverty. The lack of money is. Saying children are the cause of poverty is like saying heads are the cause of excess hair.

Adding a child to a family below the poverty line (which is the most likely demographic for considering abortion) is most certainly an enormous financial strain on a family. Take one responsible parent away an it gets even more difficult for the mother to find child care while she works... she is far less likely to go to school... It's not a far leap to say that thousands of high school and college girls ruin their lives based on a stupid decision.

As for the consequences of the mistake, it's not like we have take home abortion kits at walmart for $9.99... It is extremely costly (to the same demographic) and not exactly easy.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

No amount of education is going to 100% fix this. People make mistakes.

So taking the causality argument out of the equation leaves you with a choice.

Theres 2 logical arguments:
1. Girl gets knocked up, girls life is over.
2. Girl gets knocked up, girl has choices she can make to rectify her mistake.

Basic sociology, economics, and psychology training required to read ahead:

It is fucking expensive to raise a child. If you dont think so, you obviously dont have one. Abortion is common and because of the stigma levied by the evangicals it is hidden from the public eye. 800,000 pregnancies are artificially terminated each year in the US. That is a huge social problem to deal with if you were to suddenly dump 800,000 children into the laps of a society not ready to care for them.

Premise 1: It is not necessary to get knocked up. Girl can avoid if she so desires, excluding rape.

Conclusion: Pregnancy is avoidable.

There is only one logical argument. After pregnancy, a woman has two choices. Keep the baby or don't keep it. Killing it should not be a valid option in a civilization that touts itself as humane.

You are misunderstanding me, people make mistakes.

Your beliefs cloud what i am saying to you.

If she puts the child up for adoption, as do 800,000 other women yearly; you will have an enormous social problem. If they keep the child, as many women already do;you will have an enormous number of women driven into poverty and out of education systems in a few years time.

Lets not even discuss the ethics of children with genetic defects... That will further cloud the argument.

What i am saying is outlawing abortion is a bad move for society as a whole. Nothing good can come from the change. It's a lot like banning gay marriage. No one benefits from the ban.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept that killing babies is an acceptable way to improve society, regardless of why we do it. You don't begin the improvement of society by harming its constituents.

So what is your solution for the overpopulation issues we will inevitably face worldwide?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

No amount of education is going to 100% fix this. People make mistakes.

So taking the causality argument out of the equation leaves you with a choice.

Theres 2 logical arguments:
1. Girl gets knocked up, girls life is over.
2. Girl gets knocked up, girl has choices she can make to rectify her mistake.

Basic sociology, economics, and psychology training required to read ahead:

It is fucking expensive to raise a child. If you dont think so, you obviously dont have one. Abortion is common and because of the stigma levied by the evangicals it is hidden from the public eye. 800,000 pregnancies are artificially terminated each year in the US. That is a huge social problem to deal with if you were to suddenly dump 800,000 children into the laps of a society not ready to care for them.

Premise 1: It is not necessary to get knocked up. Girl can avoid if she so desires, excluding rape.

Conclusion: Pregnancy is avoidable.

There is only one logical argument. After pregnancy, a woman has two choices. Keep the baby or don't keep it. Killing it should not be a valid option in a civilization that touts itself as humane.

You are misunderstanding me, people make mistakes.

Your beliefs cloud what i am saying to you.

If she puts the child up for adoption, as do 800,000 other women yearly; you will have an enormous social problem. If they keep the child, as many women already do;you will have an enormous number of women driven into poverty and out of education systems in a few years time.

Lets not even discuss the ethics of children with genetic defects... That will further cloud the argument.

What i am saying is outlawing abortion is a bad move for society as a whole. Nothing good can come from the change. It's a lot like banning gay marriage. No one benefits from the ban.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept that killing babies is an acceptable way to improve society, regardless of why we do it. You don't begin the improvement of society by harming its constituents.

So what is your solution for the overpopulation issues we will inevitably face worldwide?

I don't know. But baby killing doesn't seem viable. Humanity has plenty of ways to kill itself on its own.

You're asking a question, incidentally, that I've pondered before. If we can exclude our disagreement over abortion for the time-being, I wanted to get input on this idea: If we had an explosion of births, wouldn't it be followed by an explosion of natural deaths? We may have no natural predators, but we sure get sick alot. How does nature deal with overpopulation of a species with no natural predator?

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

Overall, people didn't think any more than they do today about unprotected sex BEFORE abortion became legal. If anything, people think about it much more today as it is much more dangerous as far as STDs, etc. That "legalized abortion leads to decreased responsibility in choosing to have sex" argument is a whole lot of hot air. Changing the situation to fit someone's restrictive idealogy regarding sex will only make matters worse.

Besides, the expense of children isn't often a factor in people having sex overall. See the days of pre-griswald when BC was either nonexistent or unavailable - having multiple children was the leading cause of poverty back then...

I disagree. It seems to me conventional wisdom that if you have little to no consequences for making a mistake, you'll be more careless.

I disagree also with the picture you're painting. Children aren't the cause of poverty. The lack of money is. Saying children are the cause of poverty is like saying heads are the cause of excess hair.

Experience trumps conventional wisdom if it is backed up by historical facts. People had plenty of unprotected sex prior to Roe and will continue to do so for the same reasons. If anything, since the "sexual revolution" as some call it, the consequences have gone dramatically up with the prevalence of STDs that we simply didn't have on such a scale before. Herpes/HIV/etc. are much more of a deterrent than pregnancy ever was. Besides, as has been mentioned in this thread, the legalization of abortion has had little statistical effect on the number of ones performed. It just has made it safer for the potential mothers.

Lack of money the cause for poverty!?! Why didn't I think of it sooner! The answer has just been staring at us in the face all along! Seriously, I'm not sure whether to :laugh: or be over that one... The picture I paint was VERY common prior to the early parts of the 20th century. Woman gets married (or not), and has a kid. But there is no BC available, so another one pops out....and another one.....and another one... ad nauseum until menopause. Having A child won't necessarily put you into poverty, but not having any control over the process will definitely lead there fast. Once BC became more prevalent, and was legalized, poverty among women of childbearing age went down dramatically. That is a fact.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

Overall, people didn't think any more than they do today about unprotected sex BEFORE abortion became legal. If anything, people think about it much more today as it is much more dangerous as far as STDs, etc. That "legalized abortion leads to decreased responsibility in choosing to have sex" argument is a whole lot of hot air. Changing the situation to fit someone's restrictive idealogy regarding sex will only make matters worse.

Besides, the expense of children isn't often a factor in people having sex overall. See the days of pre-griswald when BC was either nonexistent or unavailable - having multiple children was the leading cause of poverty back then...

I disagree. It seems to me conventional wisdom that if you have little to no consequences for making a mistake, you'll be more careless.

I disagree also with the picture you're painting. Children aren't the cause of poverty. The lack of money is. Saying children are the cause of poverty is like saying heads are the cause of excess hair.

Adding a child to a family below the poverty line (which is the most likely demographic for considering abortion) is most certainly an enormous financial strain on a family. Take one responsible parent away an it gets even more difficult for the mother to find child care while she works... she is far less likely to go to school... It's not a far leap to say that thousands of high school and college girls ruin their lives based on a stupid decision.

As for the consequences of the mistake, it's not like we have take home abortion kits at walmart for $9.99... It is extremely costly (to the same demographic) and not exactly easy.

Well, in my experience, the most costly part of a baby, in the early years, is the pregnancy. Children between the ages of 1 and say 4 are relatively cheap since (1) they don't really care what clothes they're wearing and (2) they're probably not in school yet.

Nonetheless, I concede your point that a child puts a financial stress on any family. But to me, the instinctual answer to poverty is not to blame children, but your financial habit. You may call that harsh, and it is. But no matter how sad a family's situation, baby-killing strikes me as wholly extreme.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
/snip

I don't know. But baby killing doesn't seem viable. Humanity has plenty of ways to kill itself on its own.

You're asking a question, incidentally, that I've pondered before. If we can exclude our disagreement over abortion for the time-being, I wanted to get input on this idea: If we had an explosion of births, wouldn't it be followed by an explosion of natural deaths? We may have no natural predators, but we sure get sick alot. How does nature deal with overpopulation of a species with no natural predator?

Putting this aside and looking from a mathematical perspective, this may be true, but the lag time between birth and death "waves" from old age makes little difference considering the length of time that people have the ability to procreate, which results in an exponential rise in birthrates. You cannot rely on this to control population growth.

Hmmm.... with no natural predators, the only way a population is controlled is via competition over finite resources, which results in war for intelligent/civilized species. Considering our technological development, this does not bode well for our civilization.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

Overall, people didn't think any more than they do today about unprotected sex BEFORE abortion became legal. If anything, people think about it much more today as it is much more dangerous as far as STDs, etc. That "legalized abortion leads to decreased responsibility in choosing to have sex" argument is a whole lot of hot air. Changing the situation to fit someone's restrictive idealogy regarding sex will only make matters worse.

Besides, the expense of children isn't often a factor in people having sex overall. See the days of pre-griswald when BC was either nonexistent or unavailable - having multiple children was the leading cause of poverty back then...

I disagree. It seems to me conventional wisdom that if you have little to no consequences for making a mistake, you'll be more careless.

I disagree also with the picture you're painting. Children aren't the cause of poverty. The lack of money is. Saying children are the cause of poverty is like saying heads are the cause of excess hair.

Experience trumps conventional wisdom if it is backed up by historical facts. People had plenty of unprotected sex prior to Roe and will continue to do so for the same reasons. If anything, since the "sexual revolution" as some call it, the consequences have gone dramatically up with the prevalence of STDs that we simply didn't have on such a scale before. Herpes/HIV/etc. are much more of a deterrent than pregnancy ever was. Besides, as has been mentioned in this thread, the legalization of abortion has had little statistical effect on the number of ones performed. It just has made it safer for the potential mothers.

Lack of money the cause for poverty!?! Why didn't I think of it sooner! The answer has just been staring at us in the face all along! Seriously, I'm not sure whether to :laugh: or be over that one... The picture I paint was VERY common prior to the early parts of the 20th century. Woman gets married (or not), and has a kid. But there is no BC available, so another one pops out....and another one.....and another one... ad nauseum until menopause. Having A child won't necessarily put you into poverty, but not having any control over the process will definitely lead there fast. Once BC became more prevalent, and was legalized, poverty among women of childbearing age went down dramatically. That is a fact.

I question the validity of your claim that STDs are a greater deterrant than the risk of pregnancy.

Wait a second. Are we talking about abortion or Birth Control here? Are you equating abortion to Birth Control? I have no argument against birth control prior to conception.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Atreus21
/snip

I don't know. But baby killing doesn't seem viable. Humanity has plenty of ways to kill itself on its own.

You're asking a question, incidentally, that I've pondered before. If we can exclude our disagreement over abortion for the time-being, I wanted to get input on this idea: If we had an explosion of births, wouldn't it be followed by an explosion of natural deaths? We may have no natural predators, but we sure get sick alot. How does nature deal with overpopulation of a species with no natural predator?

Putting this aside and looking from a mathematical perspective, this may be true, but the lag time between birth and death "waves" from old age makes little difference considering the length of time that people have the ability to procreate, which results in an exponential rise in birthrates. You cannot rely on this to control population growth.

Hmmm.... with no natural predators, the only way a population is controlled is via competition over finite resources, which results in war for intelligent/civilized species. Considering our technological development, this does not bode well for our civilization.

Plausible, but...well, I'm getting out of my area of knowledge. My argument against you is speculative.

I suggest we return to the brawl at hand.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

This is not a ban on abortion, we just don't pay for it.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

This is not a ban on abortion, we just don't pay for it.

For Christ's sake-- our money is ALREADY GOING to faith-based abstinence-only shit thanks to George W Bush. YOU ARE NOT SPENDING ANY MORE FOR THIS MOVE BY OBAMA.