• 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!

Pro-lifers: How do you want to solve child overpopulation without legal abortions?

cpwill said:
......It does not matter if you agree, or if I agree, or if either or both of us disagree.... it's math. Math doesn't care what we think or feel about it. The math is that our birthrates are below replacement rate.

RE: "we are back to the high levels of the 1950s", how are you looking at this chart:

View attachment 67387743

and determining that the right end of the blue line is as high as the left end of the blue line?
Click to expand...
I still disagree. Your reasoning is out of date.

At one time they predicted when the baby boomers of the 1950s reached retirement age, there would not be enough workers in the workforce.

Well ,most of the baby boomers of the 1950s reached the age when they may chose to retire.

Many chose not to retire and still actively work,
including my husband who with his brothers started a company in the mid1960s.

Another thing that was not predictable was the pandemic which unfortunately killed many of the elderly and also lowered our life expectancy.
 
minnie616 said:
I still disagree. Your reasoning is out of date.

At one time they predicted when the baby boomers of the 1950s reached retirement age, there would not be enough workers in the workforce.

Well ,most of the baby boomers of the 1950s reached the age when they may chose to retire.

Many chose not to retire and still actively work,
including my husband who with his brothers started a company in the mid1960s.
Click to expand...

I'm glad your husband and his brothers (apparently) love what they do :) That's a great blessing.

However, the statistical truth remains that, not only is the number of workers expected to drop from 3.4 to 1 in 2000 to 2 to 1 in 2030.... we don't have enough younger workers to keep SS and Medicare funded at their current benefit levels today, which is why we are now drawing down on the so-called "Trust Fund". That is a budgeting gimmick, to be sure, but even it will run out (in about ~11 years, depending on what happens in the mean time).

And, even though Baby Boomers say they want to work until about 68, a majority of them are actually retiring below the age of 65:

1651069617349.png

Everyone of those people retiring today is currently scheduled to outlive their full benefits. That's worrisome.

Unfortunately, the topic is easily demagogued, so, we will almost certainly not take any wise actions in the out years that will enable us to make slow, steady, changes that protect our most vulnerable seniors. We will instead wait until the last minute, and then be forced to make sudden, destructive, highly disruptive changes that will cause more harm than necessary :(



minnie616 said:
Another thing that was not predictable was the pandemic which unfortunately killed many of the elderly and also lowered our life expectancy.
Click to expand...

The Pandemic also cut heavily into FICA taxes, and Social Security is now scheduled to run out of money even sooner (~2033) :-/
 
EdwinWillers said:
....but sucking the brains out of an unborn child, or ripping their limbs off, or poisoning them in the womb AREN'T gross?
Click to expand...


The only time a brain is sucked out is in a late term abortion.

Roe V. Wade makes it illegal to perform a late term pregnancy with the exceptions of the woman's life is in serious jeopardy of ending or the fetus has a very serious problem and is probably dead. Usually it's both.

No doctor in America will ever perform a late term abortion. They will do it only with the exceptions listed above. It's illegal to perform without those exceptions and not doctor in America is going to perform one.

That is a situation of a wanted pregnancy. The woman or couple is going through a hell no one should have to endure.

That woman or couple have already had a baby shower, they have redone a room for a nursery, they know the sex of the fetus and have given it a name.

It's very sick and cruel to manipulate such a situation to excuse your hate for abortion.

You hate abortion. Fine. Hate it all you want but when you start posting things that are not true, are sick and gross, you pass into being dishonest and irrepsonsible.

I believe it's very cruel and sick to use such a situation the way you have.

It sounds to me like you want women whose pregnancies have gone wrong to die.

No woman should have to die just because her pregnancy went wrong.

Sound to me like you disagree.

By the way, when are you going to honesty answer the question of the OP?
 
Gordy327 said:
It sounds like you got your information from a pro-life website. That's not how abortions are generally performed.
Click to expand...


Most abortions are performed months before a brain or any thing close to a human body and organs exist.

The only time a brain is sucked out, is a late term abortion. And by the way, the republicans and bush boy made that illegal in the early 2000s. By law, no doctor is sucking out any brains. Late term abortion is now, flood the uterus with water then extract the fetus. No brains are being sucked out.

That, by law, can only legally be performed when there is a serious problem with the fetus. It's either usually dead or will die soon after birth. Or the life of the woman is in serious jeopardy of death.

That's it.

So you use one of the worst life threatening situations a woman can endure to excuse your hate for abortion and women.

You are very transparent in your dishonesty.
 
cpwill said:
....No? If anything, we are likely to face problems from it's reversal, as humanity ages and slowly ceases replacing itself.
Click to expand...
Your chart shows an almost exponential growth rate for the world population.

An aging population simply means people are living longer. Keep in mind that the aged were once young and reproducing.
 
Last edited:
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
If abortion ceased to exist would you agree that there are other means of limiting unwanted pregnancies?
Click to expand...


My oldest sister is a doctor. During her OB training she had a patient who had her tubes tied. Her husband had a vasectomy.

She ended up pregnant. My sister delivered the baby.

I have a friend whose sister in law had her tubes tied. She ended up pregnant.

I had an assistant who had her tubes tied. She ended up pregnant.

My child's best friend's mom was on the pill but had an infection. She was prescribed antibiotics. Her doctor never told her those antibiotics made her birth control ineffective. She ended up pregnant.

I can go on and on with stories like that. In fact, most unplanned pregnancies are the result of birth control failure. Not due to the lack of birth control.

Nothing is perfect. Contraception is not 100%. Accidents do happen.

Then we have a political party that is in an all out war on contraception. They even cheered as a private company went to the Supreme Court to be able to deny their female employees to have contraception covered on their insurance.

When Obamacare started with the requirement that birth control be covered 100%, the republicans screamed bloody murder and demanded to have that removed from Obamacare. Obama had to come up with a compromise and even then, the republicans rejected that.

Finally, only 3% of Planned Parenthood's business is abortion. The other 97% is a combination of STD screening, mammograms and BIRTH CONTROL. Planned Parenthood is responsible for preventing billions of unwanted pregnancies through the decades, yet the republicans hate them and want to shut them down. If it was about preventing abortion the republicans would be embracing Planned Parenthood instead of vilifying them and trying to shut them down.

The actions of the republicans tell me they want to cause as many unplanned pregnancies as possible then force the woman to carry it to term. All without any help. While the male who made her pregnant is allowed to just walk away from his own flesh and blood without even looking back to see what he has caused. The woman's life is destroyed and changed forever, the man's life goes on as if nothing ever happened.
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
If abortion ceased to exist would you agree that there are other means of limiting unwanted pregnancies?
Click to expand...
LOL how are you going to make abortion cease to exist? It has existed ever since women discovered Pennyroyal. Ban it? That just makes it illegal. You think males should have some way to control women and a pregnancy they know will be destructive to the family or the clan. How about trying to respect women's judgement and work with them to control unwanted pregnancies instead of thwarting their reasonable reasonable decisions and banning reasonable options.
 
Josie said:
I think your position is absolutely awful. One of the worst things I've read here, really. Almost all foster parents are amazing. Full stop.
Click to expand...

The good ones are, yes. I have no doubts about that. Unfortunately, "almost all" is not true.
 
cpwill said:
I'm glad your husband and his brothers (apparently) love what they do :) That's a great blessing.

However, the statistical truth remains that, not only is the number of workers expected to drop from 3.4 to 1 in 2000 to 2 to 1 in 2030.... we don't have enough younger workers to keep SS and Medicare funded at their current benefit levels today, which is why we are now drawing down on the so-called "Trust Fund". That is a budgeting gimmick, to be sure, but even it will run out (in about ~11 years, depending on what happens in the mean time).

And, even though Baby Boomers say they want to work until about 68, a majority of them are actually retiring below the age of 65:

View attachment 67387749

Everyone of those people retiring today is currently scheduled to outlive their full benefits. That's worrisome.

Unfortunately, the topic is easily demagogued, so, we will almost certainly not take any wise actions in the out years that will enable us to make slow, steady, changes that protect our most vulnerable seniors. We will instead wait until the last minute, and then be forced to make sudden, destructive, highly disruptive changes that will cause more harm than necessary :(





The Pandemic also cut heavily into FICA taxes, and Social Security is now scheduled to run out of money even sooner (~2033) :-/
Click to expand...
Guess we see tissues differently once again.
I have the gift of dyslexia.
Therefore , I can usually see the bigger picture.

I happen to know more seniors who are still employed than not.

From US News :

https://money.usnews.com/money/reti...people-are-still-working-in-their-70s-and-80s



It's not uncommon for baby boomers to continue to work well into their 60s, 70s or even 80s.

Some people decide to continue working because they need the money, while others love what they do and can't imagine not doing it anymore or just need to stay busy.

With continued improvements in health care and life expectancy, people can spend as long in retirement as they spent working.
 
Last edited:
weaver2 said:
LOL how are you going to make abortion cease to exist? It has existed ever since women discovered Pennyroyal. Ban it? That just makes it illegal. You think males should have some way to control women and a pregnancy they know will be destructive to the family or the clan. How about trying to respect women's judgement and work with them to control unwanted pregnancies instead of thwarting their reasonable reasonable decisions and banning reasonable options.
Click to expand...
Again, my comment is in response to the OP’s question.

It’s perfectly clear that for you few abortion is the only choice.

But, would you like to answer what I asked?
 
Liberal7360 said:
My oldest sister is a doctor. During her OB training she had a patient who had her tubes tied. Her husband had a vasectomy.

She ended up pregnant. My sister delivered the baby.

I have a friend whose sister in law had her tubes tied. She ended up pregnant.

I had an assistant who had her tubes tied. She ended up pregnant.

My child's best friend's mom was on the pill but had an infection. She was prescribed antibiotics. Her doctor never told her those antibiotics made her birth control ineffective. She ended up pregnant.

I can go on and on with stories like that. In fact, most unplanned pregnancies are the result of birth control failure. Not due to the lack of birth control.

Nothing is perfect. Contraception is not 100%. Accidents do happen.

Then we have a political party that is in an all out war on contraception. They even cheered as a private company went to the Supreme Court to be able to deny their female employees to have contraception covered on their insurance.

When Obamacare started with the requirement that birth control be covered 100%, the republicans screamed bloody murder and demanded to have that removed from Obamacare. Obama had to come up with a compromise and even then, the republicans rejected that.

Finally, only 3% of Planned Parenthood's business is abortion. The other 97% is a combination of STD screening, mammograms and BIRTH CONTROL. Planned Parenthood is responsible for preventing billions of unwanted pregnancies through the decades, yet the republicans hate them and want to shut them down. If it was about preventing abortion the republicans would be embracing Planned Parenthood instead of vilifying them and trying to shut them down.

The actions of the republicans tell me they want to cause as many unplanned pregnancies as possible then force the woman to carry it to term. All without any help. While the male who made her pregnant is allowed to just walk away from his own flesh and blood without even looking back to see what he has caused. The woman's life is destroyed and changed forever, the man's life goes on as if nothing ever happened.
Click to expand...
At any time have I suggested that preventative measures are 100% effective? Seriously, show a post of mine where I said that.
 
weaver2 said:
Your chart shows an almost exponential growth rate for the world population.

An aging population simply means people are living longer. Keep in mind that the aged were once young and reproducing.
Click to expand...

My chart shows high population growth through 2015 - and you are correct; people are definitely living longer, and that does produce a temporary increase in population.

It does not, however, produce a permanent growth in population - merely stretches the back years out. Declining birthrates are - absent the discovery of immortality - still the long term driver of population growth, and those are still pointing downwards, which is why the U.N. (and other) demographic data sets show the global population peaking at some point this century, followed by a flattening, followed by slow reduction.

The U.S. is already well below replacement birthrate - any growth will be due to immigration.
 
cpwill said:
My chart shows high population growth through 2015 - and you are correct; people are definitely living longer, and that does produce a temporary increase in population.

It does not, however, produce a permanent growth in population - merely stretches the back years out. Declining birthrates are - absent the discovery of immortality - still the long term driver of population growth, and those are still pointing downwards, which is why the U.N. (and other) demographic data sets show the global population peaking at some point this century, followed by a flattening, followed by slow reduction.

The U.S. is already well below replacement birthrate - any growth will be due to immigration.
Click to expand...
Your link about birth rate admits that :

Still, the future economic impact of a decline in birth rates is still debated.
 
minnie616 said:
Your link about birth rate admits that :

Still, the future economic impact of a decline in birth rates is still debated.
Click to expand...

The headline of the link you cite:

Researchers expect the US to face underpopulation, blaming a falling birth rate and economic crises

...The global population is expected to peak at 9.7 billion by 2064 and then fall back down to 8.8 billion by 2100.....​

And the thrust of the article is that the United States will have to import large numbers of people to make up for our own decline in birthrates.
 
Closing the borders would slow down the population growth
 
Patriotic Voter said:
So why did you say "almost all" foster parents are "amazing" with their unwanted babies?
Click to expand...

Because they are. Some are awful foster parents, most aren't.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
You know for a fact that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Stop posting nonsense.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that slow down the growing US population, though?
 
It's important to remember that the "pro-life" people are invested in the idea of increasing misery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom