last night i asked a question about spaying and neutering pets. the general concensus seemed to be that everyone agreed that these are necessary evils in order to prevent the effects of overpopulation of animals. just as spaying and neutering has now become commonplace, do you see abortion eventually becoming the norm as a means of not only birth control, but population control as well? indeed, the earth is only so big. it is estimated within the next 60 years the population of the earth will double to approximately 13billion people. some countries, such as china, already rely on abortion as a means of population control. do you suppose when the u.s. starts feeling the effects of overpopulation abortion won't be seen so much as ungodly, but necessary?
2007-10-24 03:10:17 · 36 answers · asked by just curious (A.A.A.A.) 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
lucid freedom, i think people would sooner give up the rights of an undeveloped fetus before they give up their rights to reproduce.
2007-10-24 03:20:07 · update #1
Abortion isn't really like spaying or neutering, it is like getting a vasectomy or getting your tubes tied. Those two procedures are performed voluntarily on humans all the time.
2007-10-24 03:13:59 · answer #1 · answered by leaptad 6 · 12⤊ 1⤋
Prevention vs cure...?
That is what you are asking.
You should use prevention where possible and cure for when it's already happened.
You talk about spaying animals as if it's an option to spay people... if you think about that, it's clearly not! Personal choices cannot be dictated by anyone in a free society.
Abortion is an option that I assume is taken on board with a heavy heart and after much thought. It's up to the family and it's a very personal and private thing.
Laws are made to protect human beings and the law only sees the foetus as such at a particular point in the pregnancy. I must admit, I question the length of time they have decided but I don't know enough about it to have a fair opinion.
You have to wonder, without natural selection how will the population grow?
2007-10-24 03:55:58 · answer #2 · answered by Fiona F 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Spaying and Neutering is nothing like abortion. It is a means of controlling the animal population, but they are simply being "fixed" so they cannot reproduce. Abortion is actually killing the baby when it has already been conceived. Many people are looking at abortion, and I find it disgusting. I don't see how someone could do it, but that's just my opinion. I am not one to judge, and it is their life. I don't agree with it, but there are others that do. Millions of animals are killed every year because of irresponsible owners not spaying and neutering their pets. If spay and neuter wasn't available, could you imagine all of the suffering animals that we would have wandering around right now? Disease? Hit by cars? More and more puppies and kittens? Spaying and neutering is a must, when abortion is not. Abortion is a way to get out of having the baby without going through the pregnancy, letting the baby live, and then giving him/her to a family that may not be able to have children themselves. If it's a rape victim, incest, or something like that, then I can understand, but otherwise, when there are other options, why kill your unborn child?
2007-10-24 03:18:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
My female APBT played wth a male APBT, and he was intact he was properly socialized, not a mean bone in his body, he was friendly to ALL dogs and all people. A male Labrador even jumped on him, and he rolled over on his back for submission. Sadly because he was intact and his owner let him out all the time, he got stolen, and hasn't been found. It depends on how the dog is trained. How ever I have a male Patterdale Terrier who was rescued from the streets. Got him off the streets and neutered. It changed him completely. I rememeber on the streets (where I found him) he would fight other strays, but some he would leave alone, the neutering caused him to be aggressive to ALL dogs even females now. If I could go back I would, and have him intact like he was. He had a way better temperment. And I am responsible enough to have an intact animal, although mine are spayed and neutered. Edit: I said brb and got a TD, eessh?
2016-04-10 02:19:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Abortion is NOT birth control. It is not equivalent to spaying and/or neutering.
The equivalent would be tubal ligations- and vasectomies - but NOT abortion.
Most people who rely on abortion as a form of birth control - are ignorant - and have not used the primary forms of birth control. If we are an ignorant society - then yes - maybe we'll go in the direction you've described. How horrible!!
I am pro-choice - but again - abortion should NOT be thought of as birth control. Abortion is a last resort and should only be used in cases of rape or health risks. There are other solutions to our population problem.
2007-10-24 03:25:05 · answer #5 · answered by liddabet 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your are comparing sterilization (before conception occurs), with fetal abortion (after conception occurs). Your analogy is severely flawed.
Firstly: Spaying and neutering involves sterilization before birth occurs. Abortion involves killing an already live fetus.
Secondly: You are comparing animals to human beings, again not an equal comparison.
Though your general premise, sterilization, particularly of the so called "starving" countries that continue to have babies they cannot feed is a great idea. Abortion for the sake of population control is not.
2007-10-24 03:17:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
What might become necessary is birth control, not abortion, and education in proper use of birth control, rather than fear that it will encourage people to have sex (oh no! ;) ).
Research needs to continue to make available more, and more effective methods of birth control.
People need to realize that the Earth is already over burdened, and that bringing multiple children into the world is not healthy for the world, or them.
2007-10-24 03:19:10 · answer #7 · answered by Krista 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No because there are so many other ways to avoid a pregnancy! There's the pill, the shot, IUD, condoms, spermicide, diaphram, the sponge, vastectomy, tubal litigation, and many many other ways. Those ways are effective to prevent pregnancy and are less painful and cost effective. Places like rural China do not always have the proper education and means to obtain birth control to prevent an un wanted pregnancy.
2007-10-24 03:15:39 · answer #8 · answered by Me 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
spaying and neutering are forms of birth control, not abortion. Many people get 'neutered' daily. If vets were doing abortions, I could see the vilidity of your question, but since you are comparing prevention to termination, I don't see the point!
2007-10-24 03:15:14 · answer #9 · answered by jessielynn 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think is spaying and neutering is good enough for our pets then it is good enough for the Chinese. I would rather pay for prevention rather then abortion. When America start feeling the effects? We have 40 million illegal immigrants that have us on the ropes as we speak.
2007-10-24 03:16:52 · answer #10 · answered by Twigits 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It would actually be to "EDUCATE" (not control) people in South Africa, China and in every other poor Country,... to think about HOW they're gonna raise their kids before even making them!!!
And to help those Countries developing a better sexual education in schools.
They need to prevent it... educating them... not controlling them...
and especially NOT with abortion!
In many places they keep generating kids even though they cannot afford to support them or... even worse...when they already know they have AIDS and they keep doing it...!!!
To bring a child in the world is a serious responsibility: nobody who's not willing to take it seriously should do it.
It makes no sense to think about "abortion" but not about contraceptives!!!!!
2007-10-24 03:15:47 · answer #11 · answered by Aredhel 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋