The Math Quiz

[Jerry]

Over population is but one consequence of "my body, my choice" + "they're going to have sex anyway" attitude. It can hardly be blamed on those who oppose both pre-marital sex and abortion.

You can make abortion as legal and available as you want, it still won't solve the over population problem, so there's no point in arguing in favor of abortion so as to curb the population growth.

The key is in not making these unwanted pregnancies in the first place, but modern feminists would rather die then embrace conservative values such as 'community first', so I guess we're just screwed.

 

[jamesrage]

OK, lets start with a hypothetical assumption:

The year is 2010, Abortion is Illegal, and the Laws are strictly enforced.


Currently there is a slight deifference in the numbers for dealing with the influx of Humans awaiting families;

"In 1992, there were 127,441 children adopted in the United States. (Flango and Flango, 1994)

In the 1990s, there are approximately 120,000 adoptions of children each year. This number has remained fairly constant in the 1990s, and is still relatively proportionate to population size in the U.S. (Flango and Flango, 1994)
New York

104,000 children were adopted in 1986, 53,000 of whom were related adoptions and 51,000 of whom were unrelated. In addition, approximately 10,000 children were adopted from abroad, bringing the total number of unrelated adoptions to 61,000. (Bachrach, London, Maza, 1991)

Adoption Statistics: Numbers & Trends

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html"

They issue here is how to deal with the unwanted children entering the system. I request any plans we can come up with to save these children from a lonely, uncared for existance.

Those numbers would not exist because people would be forced to deal with the consequences or the fear of having to deal with the consequences.That fear alone would get people to use condoms and birth control pills.Please do not give me that bull **** that condoms and birth control pills do not always work.J

 

[Jerry]

Those numbers would not exist because people would be forced to deal with the consequences or the fear of having to deal with the consequences.That fear alone would get people to use condoms and birth control pills.Please do not give me that bull **** that condoms and birth control pills do not always work.J

Personally I think that if we were to virtually outlaw abortion, then those who fear over population would quickly start supporting strong border security and one-child-per-family laws.

 

[1069]

Personally I think that if we were to virtually outlaw abortion, then those who fear over population would quickly start supporting strong border security and one-child-per-family laws.

You are nuts. :?
Yeah, those of us who support reproductive choice are suddenly going to start lobbying for forced abortion, if you and your ilk ever manage to take away our access to safe, legal medical care.
Whatever. :roll:
Forced childbirth and forced abortion are equally heinous and objectionable.
In fact, they are simply two sides of the same coin.
Your side is the only side which would ever support "one child per family" laws. In order to support such a measure, one must be of the opinion that women are not human and therefore do not have any right to bodliy sovereignty.
The antichoice side is the side that promotes this belief, not the prochoice side.

 

[Jerry]

You are nuts. :?
Yeah, those of us who support reproductive choice are suddenly going to start lobbying for forced abortion, if you and your ilk ever manage to take away our access to safe, legal medical care.
Whatever. :roll:
Forced childbirth and forced abortion are equally heinous and objectionable.
In fact, they are simply two sides of the same coin.
Your side is the only side which would ever support "one child per family" laws. In order to support such a measure, one must be of the opinion that women are not human and therefore do not have any right to bodliy sovereignty.
The antichoice side is the side that promotes this belief, not the prochoice side.

As an Anti-Choicer I strongly support the removal of any right you can not use responsibly.

Though I haven't shown support for forced abortion, having argued child limit as being financial incentives and determents to effect the same, should people in general continue to endanger the species though irresponsible use of their reproductive system, then the day will come when extreme measures such as forced abortion/sterilization (the latter for men also) will become necessary.

Legal abortion does not help over population.

Only you can prevent unwanted pregnancy.

 

[jamesrage]

You are nuts. :?
Yeah, those of us who support reproductive choice are suddenly going to start lobbying for forced abortion, if you and your ilk ever manage to take away our access to safe, legal medical care.
Whatever. :roll:
Forced childbirth and forced abortion are equally heinous and objectionable.
In fact, they are simply two sides of the same coin.
Your side is the only side which would ever support "one child per family" laws. In order to support such a measure, one must be of the opinion that women are not human and therefore do not have any right to bodliy sovereignty.
The antichoice side is the side that promotes this belief, not the prochoice side.

When you engage in sex you are willfully choosing to impregnate someone or get pregnant yourself.Abortion is not reproductive choice.Reproductive choice would be abstinence or birth control pills or condoms.It is idiotic to say that outlawing abortion is forced childbirth.Forced childbirth suggest that one was impregnated against their will.

 

[Felicity]

Only you can prevent unwanted pregnancy.

One of the public education campaigns could be Smokey the Spermatazoa...:rofl

 

[FutureIncoming]

As an Anti-Choicer I strongly support the removal of any right you can not use responsibly.

Really? Does that mean we should sterilize anyone who has 3 kids, since they obviously are not exhibiting responsibility toward the human species (excess breeding leads to Malthusian Catastrophe)?

Should we cut the vocal cords of every pro-lifer, for exhibiting equal lack of responsibility (encouraging reproduction to cause a Malthusian Catastrophe)?

Just asking.

Hey, I see you re-labeled yourself from "Evil Conservative". Did this, and this (which supports data presented in the first link), have anything to do with it, by any chance?

What will it take for the pro-lifers/anti-choicers to realize that excess population is NOT a good thing?

 

[Jerry]

Really? Does that mean we should sterilize anyone who has 3 kids, since they obviously are not exhibiting responsibility toward the human species (excess breeding leads to Malthusian Catastrophe)?

Eventually it will come to that.

Should we cut the vocal cords of every pro-lifer, for exhibiting equal lack of responsibility (encouraging reproduction to cause a Malthusian Catastrophe)?

It's been established that legal abortion is has not proven to be an effective curb to over population. One primary PL solution has always been to not produce unwanted pregnancies to need to be aborted, adopted, etc, in the first place.

Hey, I see you re-labeled yourself from "Evil Conservative". Did this, and this (which supports data presented in the first link), have anything to do with it, by any chance?

Here again we see why your arguments fall apart, when they apply at all: you make all the wrong assumptions.

I haven't abandoned the label of Evil Conservative, it's just that there is a character limit for one's title.


Please see post 86 for the most recent self application of that title.

Women loose their objectivity when they become pregnant?
I'll agree to that.

Here, have some information on financial planning for keeping your child ( where's your fiancé', btw, we have info. for him as well; and it gets better once you 2 go down to the court house with $70 and make it official next week), some information on adoption services, and a Hang'ing® kit courtesy of your local Evil Conservative Chapter.

What will it take for the pro-lifers/anti-choicers to realize that excess population is NOT a good thing?

You say that as if we don't already know.

"Abortion rights", "reproductive rights", "a woman's right to choose" and Roe-v-Wade are not founded on any notion of preventing over population, so the very argument that legal abortion should be preserved so as to stem over population is itself a straw-man.

 

[gullivers travails]

Again, it's vital to recognize that the bulk of the world's population is made up of the poor, uneducated lower classes. Most of them have no idea how pregnancy is achieved - and, if they did, they would care less!

Maybe, that's why a few of the world's 'leaders' are hoping and praying (and planning) a potential 'improvement' which some type of calamitous event could achieve.

 

[FutureIncoming]

It's been established that legal abortion is has not proven to be an effective curb to over population.

It's also been established that roughly 50% of abortions are done because other birth control methods failed. Therefore abortion IS effective at preventing at least that many extra mouths-to-feed from being born, which should never have started out in the first place as fertilized ova or implanted blastocysts (the Choice made by those who expected birth control to work). And any anti-choicer or pro-lifer who fails to recognize this is implicitly saying that despite such Choice, the population needs to increase by that many unwanted humans -- that is, they want overpopulation to become even worse than it already is, faster than happens with abortions being done.

And I shall never agree with such stupidity.

 

[Felicity]

It's also been established that roughly 50% of abortions are done because other birth control methods failed.

An interesting mental excercise would be to try to figure out how many unplanned pregnancies are the result of people who engaged in sex believing BC will prevent pregnancy who would have otherwise remained chaste until marriage if society hadn't promoted the sex without responsibility mentality that occurred with the availability of easy, legal, and medically approved (HA!) hormonal BC. The number of people having sex out of wedlock skyrocketed and so did the abortion rate--also many other social ills were aggrivated by the advent of HBC.

It's a number we can never really know since the Pandora's box was opened.

 

[jamesrage]

It's also been established that roughly 50% of abortions are done because other birth control methods failed. .

Now if that was true it would be grounds for the largest class action lawsuit for faulty products and at least a major news story dealing with consumer fraud.Statistically the US has 1.37 million abortions per year and that number was from 1996,and you are trying to spew such nonsense that 50% of done because other birth control methods have failed.Half of 1.3 million for 12 years is 7,800,000 people


Abortion Statistics

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)


Abortion in the United States
1996 1,365,730
1997 1,328,000
1998 1,328,000 Estimate
1999 1,328,000 Estimate
2000 1,328,000 Estimate
2001 1,328,000 Estimate









BTW way lets not forget that statically 47% of women who had abortions have had previous abortions.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.
Abort73.com || Abortion Statistics
48% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI).

Therefore abortion IS effective at preventing at least that many extra mouths-to-feed from being born, which should never have started out in the first place as fertilized ova or implanted blastocysts (the Choice made by those who expected birth control to work). And any anti-choicer or pro-lifer who fails to recognize this is implicitly saying that despite such Choice, the population needs to increase by that many unwanted humans -- that is, they want overpopulation to become even worse than it already is, faster than happens with abortions being done.

The logic that people will continue to practice unsafe sex with out a easy way out is absurd.It is because of abortion that women and men in engage in unprotected sex and that 40 million plus abortions have been performed as a result.

 

[Jerry]

It's also been established that roughly 50% of abortions are done because other birth control methods failed. Therefore abortion IS effective at preventing at least that many extra mouths-to-feed from being born, which should never have started out in the first place as fertilized ova or implanted blastocysts (the Choice made by those who expected birth control to work). And any anti-choicer or pro-lifer who fails to recognize this is implicitly saying that despite such Choice, the population needs to increase by that many unwanted humans -- that is, they want overpopulation to become even worse than it already is, faster than happens with abortions being done.

And I shall never agree with such stupidity.

Again, your argument is a straw-man as none of the various abortion laws were created for any population control purpose.

 

[gullivers travails]

It's also been established that roughly 50% of abortions are done because other birth control methods failed. Therefore abortion IS effective at preventing at least that many extra mouths-to-feed from being born, which should never have started out in the first place as fertilized ova or implanted blastocysts (the Choice made by those who expected birth control to work). And any anti-choicer or pro-lifer who fails to recognize this is implicitly saying that despite such Choice, the population needs to increase by that many unwanted humans -- that is, they want overpopulation to become even worse than it already is, faster than happens with abortions being done.

And I shall never agree with such stupidity.

I have said on occasion that debating abortion is about equivalent to debating how many fairies can dance on the pinpoint of a needle.

Had there been no abortion in the 20th century, the world population would easily be 50 billion today! AND currently, this Earth and its resources is not handling 6.5 billion people all that well. Behind closed doors, the 'leaders' are speculating on how to get the population down to 2 billion - thereby, achieve balance of humanity and what the Earth provides.

People are also blind-sided by the 1.2 million abortions annually in America and, they forget or don't know that world-wide the annual abortion count is generally 50 million.

 

[FutureIncoming]

It's also been established that roughly 50% of abortions are done because other birth control methods failed.

I will confess to having dredged that percentage up from memory of something posted somewhere around here some time ago by somebody else (steen?). I did not double-check it. However, here is SOME relevant data:
lifeissues.net | Induced Abortion as Birth Control
The page includes a table of data for various years from 1975 to 1993. In the "All Women Aborting" column, one line for each listed year is labled "Was Using (contraception) When Became Pregnant". Note that this percentage steadily increased, to 36% in 1993, thirteen years ago. I see no reason to think that the percentage is not close to 50% these days.

An interesting mental excercise would be to try to figure out how many unplanned pregnancies are the result of people who engaged in sex believing BC will prevent pregnancy ...

I think I also read somewhere that something like 50% of unplanned pregnancies get aborted. If so, you could take the statistics from the above Web page (the raw data that was converted into percentages), and double the number of abortions performed on all women who were using contraception, and that should be the number of unplanned pregnancies associated with sex-with-contraception.

... who would have otherwise remained chaste until marriage if society hadn't promoted the sex without responsibility mentality that occurred with the availability of easy, legal, and medically approved (HA!) hormonal BC. The number of people having sex out of wedlock skyrocketed and so did the abortion rate--also many other social ills were aggrivated by the advent of HBC.

Hmmmmm...see the last paragraph of this message. The problem is that the delivery of what has been promised has not kept up with expectations of what was promised (by the existence of better-than-rhythm birth control methods). I see this, also:

it would be grounds for the largest class action lawsuit for faulty products and at least a major news story dealing with consumer fraud.

ALMOST. The products ARE sold with failure rates known and published, after all, which gives the makers a legal "out". But see, what I wrote above was about expectations. The average person doesn't think things like that (the odds catching up with them) will happen to him/her. Especially when they are teenagers. So they expect more of birth control than what it can actually deliver.

The logic that people will continue to practice unsafe sex with out a easy way out is absurd.

FALSE. We have plenty of data that supports the notion that people (adults mostly) had lots of unsafe sex, back in the 1920s-1960s (Before the Pill), because penicillin and other drugs were easily effective against sexually transmitted diseases. There has been much greater awarenss about unsafe sex since uncurable diseases, from herpes to the drug-resistant "ordinaries" to AIDS, became widespread. And of course with respect to the existence of birth control methods like the Pill, all that did was affect one of the other meanings of "unsafe sex". Up to 99% of those who used modern birth control methods had actual safe-from-pregnancy sex, not just the illusion of it.

It is because of abortion that women and men in engage in unprotected sex and that 40 million plus abortions have been performed as a result.

FALSE, AGAIN. Partly because globally, something more than 40 million abortions per year are done. Partly because millions per year, worldwide, would probably be done even if abortion was illegal everywhere. (Which it won't be, because different cultures have different values regarding unborn humans; few foreign cultures are as ignorant and stupid as the average pro-lifer in the USA.) And partly because of those diseases just mentioned, "unprotected sex" may be near an all-time low, percentage-wise.

your argument is a straw-man as none of the various abortion laws were created for any population control purpose.

IRRELEVANT. Because fighting the elimination of abortion can be based on population-control notions. Which is exactly one of my arguments, and not a "straw man" at all.

 

[Jerry]

I IRRELEVANT. Because fighting the elimination of abortion can be based on population-control notions. Which is exactly one of my arguments, and not a "straw man" at all.

The abortion issue is about women's rights and "personhood", not population control. So between that the fact that legal abortion has proven to be an ineffective method of population control, you have no logical argument to make.

 

[FutureIncoming]

your argument is a straw-man as none of the various abortion laws were created for any population control purpose.

IRRELEVANT. Because fighting the elimination of abortion can be based on population-control notions. Which is exactly one of my arguments, and not a "straw man" at all.

The abortion issue is about women's rights and "personhood", ...

REALLY? Is that why various Religious claims are commonly introduced, despite Separation of Church and State?
The abortion issue is about why unborn humans may or may not be killed. Officially, only Legal arguments may be allowed. And Science can get a word in edgewise occasionally, since Experience/Precedent has shown that Laws are better when they do not defy Scientific Fact.

Unofficially, of course, such as in this Forum, all sorts of arguments are raised. And only the utterly nonsensical ones eventually get barred.

... not population control.

It remains a fact that abortions have the side-effect of reducing the rate-of-increase of the human population. This fact is associated with Expenses Relevant to the Government. And Laws tend to be written to partly deal with Expenses. Do we (the Government) want more taxpayers? Of course! BUT-- can we afford the "investment" of subsidizing millions of unwanted mouths that are presently being aborted, in an era of looming shortages and associated rising costs, before they become able to be taxpayers? If you think this has no relevance to whether or not abortions should be banned, think again! (Governments typically don't pass laws that lead straight to bankruptcy.)

So between that the fact that legal abortion has proven to be an ineffective method of population control, you have no logical argument to make.

WRONG. As just written above. Without even mentioning the phrase "Malthusian Catastrophe", as I tend to do in less Legal-oriented arguments.

Getting back to the Legal, I might mention that you forgot to mention "Precedent", when you listed "women's rights" and "personhood". I remind you of the Precedent I've mentioned on other occasions, regarding the Founding Fathers and the First Census, in 1790. They decided that no unborn human deserved to be counted as a "person". And every Census since has been consistent in that way. And I will keep pointing this Precedent out, until it percolates (via "degrees of separation") to the Top Legal Eagles who are defending abortion rights. After which the Final Decision should be almost a no-brainer, favoring persons over animals.

 

[Jerry]

REALLY? Is that why various Religious claims are commonly introduced, despite Separation of Church and State?
The abortion issue is about why unborn humans may or may not be killed. Officially, only Legal arguments may be allowed. And Science can get a word in edgewise occasionally, since Experience/Precedent has shown that Laws are better when they do not defy Scientific Fact.

Unofficially, of course, such as in this Forum, all sorts of arguments are raised. And only the utterly nonsensical ones eventually get barred.

It remains a fact that abortions have the side-effect of reducing the rate-of-increase of the human population. This fact is associated with Expenses Relevant to the Government. And Laws tend to be written to partly deal with Expenses. Do we (the Government) want more taxpayers? Of course! BUT-- can we afford the "investment" of subsidizing millions of unwanted mouths that are presently being aborted, in an era of looming shortages and associated rising costs, before they become able to be taxpayers? If you think this has no relevance to whether or not abortions should be banned, think again! (Governments typically don't pass laws that lead straight to bankruptcy.)

WRONG. As just written above. Without even mentioning the phrase "Malthusian Catastrophe", as I tend to do in less Legal-oriented arguments.

Getting back to the Legal, I might mention that you forgot to mention "Precedent", when you listed "women's rights" and "personhood". I remind you of the Precedent I've mentioned on other occasions, regarding the Founding Fathers and the First Census, in 1790. They decided that no unborn human deserved to be counted as a "person". And every Census since has been consistent in that way. And I will keep pointing this Precedent out, until it percolates (via "degrees of separation") to the Top Legal Eagles who are defending abortion rights. After which the Final Decision should be almost a no-brainer, favoring persons over animals.

Even with those who support unlimited use of abortion as a contraceptive, abortion has never been about population control, but of a woman’s right to choose in light of a ZEF not having “personhood”. There exists no legal precedent to that end, it is therefore unfounded. Your argument remains a straw-man.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Even with those who support unlimited use of abortion as a contraceptive, abortion has never been about population control, but of a woman’s right to choose in light of a ZEF not having “personhood”.

IRRELEVANT. Since you basically repeated what you wrote in #39, I have repeated my response. Today's arguments are not about legalizing abortion, but about ending its legality. And one of the consequences of ending abortion will be to enhance the population explosion. Do you deny this?

There exists no legal precedent to that end, it is therefore unfounded.

Tsk, tsk, what you just wrote implies that everything that ever became a precedent was "unfounded" first. I laugh at the idiocy of the notion.

Your argument remains a straw-man.

FALSE. The population explosion is real, and it will increase exactly to the extent that banning abortions leads to a higher birth rate. I am not creating a "straw man" about that; the facts speak for themselves. I notice you have not tried to deny this. All you appear to be trying to do, desperately, is keep this aspect of the abortion issue from being recognized for what it is: Valid/Relevant Data. You have failed.

 

[Jerry]

IRRELEVANT. Since you basically repeated what you wrote in #39, I have repeated my response. Today's arguments are not about legalizing abortion, but about ending its legality. And one of the consequences of ending abortion will be to enhance the population explosion. Do you deny this?

Tsk, tsk, what you just wrote implies that everything that ever became a precedent was "unfounded" first. I laugh at the idiocy of the notion.

FALSE. The population explosion is real, and it will increase exactly to the extent that banning abortions leads to a higher birth rate. I am not creating a "straw man" about that; the facts speak for themselves. I notice you have not tried to deny this. All you appear to be trying to do, desperately, is keep this aspect of the abortion issue from being recognized for what it is: Valid/Relevant Data. You have failed.

By your own admission now, legal abortion is not a sound solution to over population, therefore assuming your various false premises and taking up your straw-man argument is foolish, as at best you would only maintain this ineffective solution to the problem you propose.

 

[FutureIncoming]

By your own admission now, legal abortion is not a sound solution to over population,

LIAR!!! I have never ever claimed that abortion was "a sound solution" to overpopulation. I have always claimed that abortion can be part of an overall solution, a very different thing.

Also, it is a part that is working right now, by preventing 40 million unwanted mouths-to-feed from being born each year, worldwide. And nothing you can write, about eliminating abortion, can elminate that fact.

And since that IS a fact, that's one valid reason for opposing the elimination of abortion. Not a straw man at all.

 

[gullivers travails]

By your own admission now, legal abortion is not a sound solution to over population, therefore assuming your various false premises and taking up your straw-man argument is foolish, as at best you would only maintain this ineffective solution to the problem you propose.

In order to achieve human progress and ongoing presence in this world, I would like to see acknowledgment of the fact that the world and its resources are NOW overpopulated by about 4.5 billion living souls (people).

World leaders now wrestle with that problem - no decent, moral solution yet on the table.

The abortion issue has nothing to do with the 'true' problem - except to worsen it somewhat.

 

[Jerry]

In order to achieve human progress and ongoing presence in this world, I would like to see acknowledgment of the fact that the world and its resources are NOW overpopulated by about 4.5 billion living souls (people).

World leaders now wrestle with that problem - no decent, moral solution yet on the table.

The abortion issue has nothing to do with the 'true' problem - except to worsen it somewhat.

The population argument does not address any of the core reasons for allowing abortion; it is therefore a straw-man in toto.

 

[Jerry]

LIAR!!!

How quickly you descend into ad-homs is amusing.