It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Without abortion, how overpopulated would we be?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Here's a thread that we can all fight over.

I will present it as a question without taking a right or wrong stance. To some the question may imply that I am pro-abortion, but that is not the case, just an inference from the phrasing.

How exorbiantly would the problems of overpopulation be exacerbated if Abortion had never been legalized, anywhere in the world?

(Remember that we wouldn't just be adding on the number of aborted fetuses. Hypothetically the ones aborted before, say, 1990 could be procresting themselves by now.)




posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Interesting question and interesting debate. This one's sure to throw up some heat somewhere.

I'm in two minds on this one.

One answer would be that the western world would be greatly more overpopulated. This would mean that more resources would be required to sustain the population, and that this would put more strain on other countries and resources across the globe as a whole. More pollution may also be a factor.

The scientific approach would say that nature always attempts to control population size as much as possibly. Lack of available resources and an increase in disease therefore may drive the population down or keep it stable. Although human population dynamics do tend to be the exception in most cases, but nature always finds a way in the end



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nammu
Interesting question and interesting debate. This one's sure to throw up some heat somewhere.

I'm in two minds on this one.

One answer would be that the western world would be greatly more overpopulated. This would mean that more resources would be required to sustain the population, and that this would put more strain on other countries and resources across the globe as a whole. More pollution may also be a factor.

The scientific approach would say that nature always attempts to control population size as much as possibly. Lack of available resources and an increase in disease therefore may drive the population down or keep it stable. Although human population dynamics do tend to be the exception in most cases, but nature always finds a way in the end



I don't think it would be just the western world--I think most other countries as well, have high abortion rates. So the countries that currently produce for the western world, would also be competing for those resources.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
Here's a thread that we can all fight over.

I will present it as a question without taking a right or wrong stance. To some the question may imply that I am pro-abortion, but that is not the case, just an inference from the phrasing.

How exorbiantly would the problems of overpopulation be exacerbated if Abortion had never been legalized, anywhere in the world?

(Remember that we wouldn't just be adding on the number of aborted fetuses. Hypothetically the ones aborted before, say, 1990 could be procresting themselves by now.)


I will answer your question, when you answer this question: How much more sexually responsible would women be, if they couldn't go have their child killed?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by asmeone2
Here's a thread that we can all fight over.

I will present it as a question without taking a right or wrong stance. To some the question may imply that I am pro-abortion, but that is not the case, just an inference from the phrasing.

How exorbiantly would the problems of overpopulation be exacerbated if Abortion had never been legalized, anywhere in the world?

(Remember that we wouldn't just be adding on the number of aborted fetuses. Hypothetically the ones aborted before, say, 1990 could be procresting themselves by now.)


I will answer your question, when you answer this question: How much more sexually responsible would women be, if they couldn't go have their child killed?


Sirchancelot, history tells us not much.

Throughout history there have been harlorts and whores, cheaters and teasers.

But as far as the scenario you suggest, I think what would happen would be a) a small percentage of woman would remain chast period, as they do now b) some would rely on birth control-- even just natural rhythms, if you are including birth control in your definition of abortion--and continue to have sex C) Some woman would get pregnant, and be responsible, but bitter d) Some would throw caution to the wind, having defective morals period, and if they became pregnant it would simply be a break in their amorous quest and a challenge to their physical figures. They might resort to self-violence to attempt to induce a miscarraige. The child, when it did come, would be abandoned in a trash can, in the woods, given up for adoption, or left with family members.

Now have a go at my question.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Let me tell what i think...
If abortions were illegal, we wouldnt have to worry about overpopulation... cause many babies would have been either aborted anyway or thrown in the garbage.


Why do people abort? Cause they cant or wont care for a child, no matter what:

a)
If they cant take care of a child, then who will? If someone does take their child, then i bet they wont also have another which they self produce. So no adding overpopulation there.

b)
If they dont want the child, then they will either give it away, (look at a)
throw it away, or abort it.


I dont understand the word procresting, but lets just be greatful that it is allowed to get help aborting.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join