It's the right thing to do. We all know that.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:39 amI think that's very nobleImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:11 pmGary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:19 am So it appears that there will probably be far fewer abortions in the US than before. I'm wondering if that will lead to more care and use of contraceptives in intercourse or else a huge population surge.
For those who believe abortion is wrong, what is your plan for if the world becomes overpopulated to the point that we run out of resources to nourish everyone?
Educate women. And I don't mean primarily "about reproduction." Just give them the means and opportunity to get at least the end of high school, with options for career, business or higher ed. Until then, guarantee them security of their persons.
Statistically, educated women freely choose to have less than two children each. If we do that, the world reproductive levels will soon fall below replacement levels, and we'll have to encourage women to have more children for the good of society. In other words, we'll have the opposite problem.
We have enough arable land in the world right now...more than enough to feed everybody. In fact, we could feed a lot more, if centralized governments and corrupt totalitarian regimes were not so common. However, that's a political, not an agricultural shortcoming. We have the food.
But educating women would be the right thing to do...for them, for us, and for the world. Then we could let people be free, and still keep population under control. Everybody wins.
Not only that, but by educating women, we won't have to kill any of them anymore.
Problem solved.
Their "thinking" changes nothing.but what about people who don't think there is a soul or don't think that human life begins at conception?
If it's wrong, and if it's murder, for me to smother my two-year-old with a pillow, it doesn't become right or not-murder if I say, "Well, I didn't believe a two-year-old is a person."
However, if I do NOT murder any two-year-olds, then even if I happen to hold the view that two-year-olds are not persons, I STILL have not murdered any.
So only the abortionist can be a murderer -- and will be, regardless of her personal "thoughts" on the matter. The anti-abortionist will never be, so long as she continues to kill nobody.
Do you see how the above answers that question?Should they be forced to abide by the rules of people who believe the opposite?
Are you seriously asking if a person should be allowed to smother two-year-olds if they "believe the opposite" to you and me?
Again, isn't the answer obvious now? It's murder. That's why you don't let people do it.I mean, why not allow some people access to abortion if they so choose?
Why have you not considered the adoption option? Is that not a legitimate "choice"?...to force your worldview on others who don't share it seems like it could possibly be wrong.
If a woman does not abort her child, even if she doesn't want her, and doesn't think she's a human being, it would mean that there is zero chance she'd be committing murder, and she'd be giving an infant to adoptive parents who, right now, statistically can't get enough of them.
But pro-abortionists don't want that. They want to kill their children, and they even want others to kill theirs. Not only do they not want to love, provide for and raise them themselves, they're so bitter and hateful they won't even allow a childless couple to have the joy of her. (and it is, by vast preponderance, female children that get aborted).
Instead, the selfish, hateful woman wants her child dead...and nothing but dead, so the child cannot live apart from her, and so a loving home cannot welcome a new child. She don't want to have her own child, one created purely by her own previous choices and actions; and she doesn't want anybody else to have her either. She'd rather see her own child dead than have that.