• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If anti-abortion, would you support other forms of population control?

jmotivator said:
Nope, it is actually based on fact. I just have a clearer view of what abortion is than your walled off, antiseptic, actuarial view of what abortion is.

It kills living humans. It has killed tens of millions of living humans in the past 50 years. That is what you support.
Click to expand...

Abortions have been happening since the early Greek days. In the early 1930s over 800,000 abortions occurred each year even though abortions were not legal. That’s more abortions per year than occurred in the US during 2014 even though in 2014 our population was more than twice the amount in the 1930s.

Making abortions legal not only save many women’s life’s. It also lowers the rate of abortions thus saving many unborn from being aborted.
 
Cameron said:
My support of abortion rights is predominantly pragmatic. Unwanted children are a burden on society: our foster care and public schools systems are already underfunded and failing in many areas. Without proper care, such children are likely to grow up emotionally disturbed or with educational deficiencies or delinquent, imposing further burdens on society. I believe it was Freakanomics that posited that there was a correlation between Roe v Wade and the modern decrease in crime we have experienced since the 80s. Whether you believe that or not, it cannot be denied that dealing with children who are not wanted by their parents comes at a significant cost in an already overpopulated world.

Second, I simply do not feel that termination of a fetus — a small collection of human cells which in its earliest stages is far less complex than the trees we cut down at will or the flies we squash without a second thought, and which even in intermediate stages is still far less complex than animals we breed and slaughter for meet and clothing — is an inherently unjustifiable act.

But controversial as these opinions may be, and I know how passionately many will disagree, I am more curious to know what pro-lifers’ views are on the practical problems that anti-abortion policy presents. What alternatives policies would you support to control out-of-control population in a world where the need for human labor is becoming less and less critical, and yet more and more people are being born? Where overpopulation is already destroying our environment and creating friction between expanding cultures?
Click to expand...

First, there is no such thing as an unwanted child. When two people take part in the process that creates one, knowing it could be the result despite any and all things done to prevent it,they can't claim it's unwanted. They can claim it was not the intention but the unwanted goes away as soon as the act that creates it takes place. If you don't want something, you don't do what it takes for that to happen.

Secondly, termination an unborn child because it's inconvenient to you is never justification for doing so. Calling it a fetus only lessens the severity of what is being done in the mind of the one doing it or who support those doing it. Personally, I put humans on a much higher level than trees and flies. Maybe you don't.

A suggest a little self control and personal responsibility for choices. It's not someone else's place to come up with solutions for what other people do. Too often the mindset is I did something and it caused a problem but it's up to you to figure out how to solve it.
 
CFI302 said:
First, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.
Click to expand...

This is 100% wrong. Today in the US there are over 100,000 children waiting to be adopted (not just in foster care, but available for adoption). To encourage MORE unwanted, unaffordable kids to be born, with nowhere to go, is unconscionable IMO. While the cute little infant might get adopted, then it means an older child, waiting and hoping for a family wont get one. These kids are all aware of their situation, the unborn knows nothing.
 
Lursa said:
This is 100% wrong. Today in the US there are over 100,000 children waiting to be adopted (not just in foster care, but available for adoption). To encourage MORE unwanted, unaffordable kids to be born, with nowhere to go, is unconscionable IMO. While the cute little infant might get adopted, then it means an older child, waiting and hoping for a family wont get one. These kids are all aware of their situation, the unborn knows nothing.
Click to expand...

So, if you go to a bank and complete the process of buying a house, are you claiming you didn't want the house?

I don't encourage more children, I encourage people that make a choice to do what it take to produce one accept the responsibility of providing for it instead of taking the easy way out and killing it.

What you seem to be doing is supporting abortion because what someone produced is inconvenient.
 
CFI302 said:
So, if you go to a bank and complete the process of buying a house, are you claiming you didn't want the house?
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that every time couples have sex, they want a kid?

And I see you completely avoided answering the questions in my post. Why is that? How are you justifying producing more and more unwanted/unaffordable kids when there are so many already aware and hoping for a family?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom