Most woman who have an abortion go on to have children in the future when they are ready. If your having a baby you cant afford you're not as likely to go on having more children, so it seems abortion actually creates more children.
2007-05-19 09:48:09 · 13 answers · asked by wisemancumth 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
proabortionists dont even know their fellow abortionists arguments. Ive heard the population control argument every time. You are pro abortion when you grasp at staws trying to defend it with every hypocracy in the book.
2007-05-19 14:24:08 · update #1
First of all, there is a small minority of people who are actually "pro-abortion"; more often than not, people are pro-choice. Learn the difference.
Second of all, there are already plenty of mouths to feed in this world that are viable life forms. Why put those who are indeed viable below those who are not? Stop worrying about fetuses and instead treat the children that are already on earth like they count.
I'd really love to see a non-biased source that states that abortions creates more children. Other than being a blatant oxymoron, that defies all logic.
FOS - "there is no difference, pro-choice to get an abortion is the same as pro-abortion"
Are you serious? You don't realize the difference between someone who is literally FOR abortion and someone who merely believes the legal option should be there? Alright, fine, I'll break it down into simple terms for you:
a) pro-life, someone who is opposed to legal abortion.
b) pro-choice, someone who is for having the legal option to a safely performed abortion.
c) pro-death/pro-abortion, someone who believes abortion is an underutilized tool and should be more mandatory.
Do you get it a little more clearly now?
2007-05-19 09:56:24 · answer #1 · answered by jennocide 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
If someone is using population control as a justification for allowing abortion, they clearly do not understand the issue. Most pro-choice people state that it is within an individual's rights to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
The current legal justification for abortion, as laid it in Roe v. Wade is fairly simple. Abortion is considered a medical procedure and a person's right to privacy with regards to medical procedures prevents government intrusion into this decision.
2007-05-19 17:23:23 · answer #2 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are confusing several things.
First, it is "pro-choice" not "proaborionist." No one is proabortion.
Second, some pro-choice groups also dabble in lowering population growth. Some groups dedicated to lowering or stopping population growth also advocate pro-choice. However, very few people have argued that abortion be used to control population growth. Quite the opposite, in fact. Both pro-choice and lowered population growth groups advocate strongly for widely available family planning methods (birth control), which actually DECREASES the number of abortions.
And to the folks that think that overpopulation is not a problem: There are myriad problems associated with overpopulation, including hunger, disease and overcrowding. There are no known benefits. Welcome to reality.
2007-05-19 17:16:26 · answer #3 · answered by sparky52881 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Where do you get your information from?
Most women do have babies when they are ready, that's pretty self evident. It may not have anything to do with afford though, as few very well off families have more than three kids, and, like the Bushes, most have two.
A woman might choose abortion if the fetus is damaged, or if shes going to college and is unmarried, or is in her early teens, or if she is married and looking at number four and dad just lost his job. In fact married women do have abortions, something the antichoice groups just don't get.
You can't very well tell your husband you want to practice abstinence, he might get awfully upset.
2007-05-19 16:56:48 · answer #4 · answered by justa 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Holy circle reasoning. So, where are the links that support the 'facts' you have just stated. I've known plenty of women who never had abortions that had more children they could afford. If you haven't been around it, then you can't really speak on it. Stay in your little white fence suburb and try not to make yourself look foolish again. Thanks.
2007-05-19 16:58:13 · answer #5 · answered by FaerieWhings 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm not sure i follow your logic. I haven't seen anyone seriously trying to defend the population control standpoint. its more of the "someone else's medical decisions are not your business" position.
edit: can you possibly explain the "proabortionist" standpoint that you are vilifying? you seem to be a bit confused as to definitions here.
2007-05-19 17:00:52 · answer #6 · answered by bluestareyed 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
...no. Most have an abortion because they don't want a child SQUAT. If they have a children too early without being able to sustain he/she, they just put a child into a horrible life. And your theory of having babies later would cancel itself out wioth having a child later, not increase the population.
2007-05-19 16:55:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
hey, do you have a website or a collection of notes i could use. i had so much stuff on my old computer but when it fried i couldn't get any of my old abortion arguments back. i had like a 12 page list :(
2007-05-19 23:52:51 · answer #8 · answered by TJ815 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
In addition, the mere issue of overpopulation is a myth. There is no problem with the number of people of the world. In fact, if one was to say that there was a problem, it would have to be a lack of population, since it is dwindling to unsafe levels. If anyone brings up India, grow up. The problem there is not overpopulation. Rather it is underutilization of resources available to them for the population.
2007-05-19 16:55:19 · answer #9 · answered by †Lawrence R† 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋
I am pro-choice but not for population control. Honestly I think you made that up. I don't think anyone is pro-choice for that reason
2007-05-19 16:55:02 · answer #10 · answered by justin b 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋