• 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!

Will the US have a population explosion?

trouble13 said:
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Click to expand...

If you are going to take away a woman's consent to pregnancy, why should a man have the option to consent?
 
BlueTex said:
If you are going to take away a woman's consent to pregnancy, why should a man have the option to consent?
Click to expand...
Men never had that option which is the point I have been making long before this ruling
 
year2late said:
With RvW overturned, you would think we would see a surge in births.

I don't think so. I have always contended that in the event of RvW being overturned - there would be minimal increase if any.

My thought is that women (contrary to wacky comments) do not get abortions for trivial reasons. Pregnancy alone could send the working poor into a deeper economic tailspin . Most women who have abortion already have children they are struggling to care for.

Desperate people do desperate things.

I also think that abortion pills will have a distinct underground market in areas where legal abortion is not accessible. Hell, abortions may even be more widely available (nearly every town has a pusher, most towns do not hava an abortion clinic)

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Rich western societies that have strong abortion restrictions are generally maintaining their populations but are not really growing.
 
year2late said:
With RvW overturned, you would think we would see a surge in births.

I don't think so. I have always contended that in the event of RvW being overturned - there would be minimal increase if any.

My thought is that women (contrary to wacky comments) do not get abortions for trivial reasons. Pregnancy alone could send the working poor into a deeper economic tailspin . Most women who have abortion already have children they are struggling to care for.

Desperate people do desperate things.

I also think that abortion pills will have a distinct underground market in areas where legal abortion is not accessible. Hell, abortions may even be more widely available (nearly every town has a pusher, most towns do not hava an abortion clinic)

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I sure hope so, thanks for asking
 
quip said:
What of women who desire sex in lieu of children.
Ya know, shit happens!
Click to expand...
Tell them the same thing we tell men. You do the crime, and you pay the time. Otherwise keep it in your pants. Once conception occurs is out of your hands.
 
trouble13 said:
Tell them the same thing we tell men. You do the crime, and you pay the time. Otherwise keep it in your pants. Once conception occurs is out of your hands.
Click to expand...
Interesting.
Is it the desirous sex or it's undesired fruits which has now become a crime?

Oh and ...who are these "we" you speak for?
 
trouble13 said:
Tell them the same thing we tell men. You do the crime, and you pay the time. Otherwise keep it in your pants. Once conception occurs is out of your hands.
Click to expand...
We have 100 years of proof that women will get illegal abortions if legal abortion are banned. Other than killing a woman there is no way to stop her from getting an abortion.
 
I was wrong in this thread. I thought we would have a mini baby boom due to people being stuck inside during COVID.
 
trouble13 said:
Tell them the same thing we tell men. You do the crime, and you pay the time. Otherwise keep it in your pants. Once conception occurs is out of your hands.
Click to expand...
Having sex isn't a crime, nor should it be. And pregnancy shouldn't be a punishment. It isn't our of our hands, hence abortion debate. We have abortion as an option. The only part of that is whether it is legal or not.
 
Slartibartfast said:
Rich western societies that have strong abortion restrictions are generally maintaining their populations but are not really growing.
Click to expand...
Rich western societies don't have strong abortion restrictions.
 
choiceone said:
Rich western societies don't have strong abortion restrictions.
Click to expand...
I was think about Poland and its period where Duda was in charge. One could argue whether it qualifies as rich.
 
Slartibartfast said:
I was think about Poland and its period where Duda was in charge. One could argue whether it qualifies as rich.
Click to expand...
Poland is not rich, and it is in eastern Europe, not western. Moreover, women in Poland have turned against its right wing and the government has undergone change precisely because of the rebellion against overly strict anti-abortion laws. Women who had partial miscarriages actually died because of those laws.
 
No.

Births were at a record low in the US last year (3.6 million) and there were 3.1 million deaths.

That's 0.15% natural population growth.

There were about 2 million additional legal and illegal immigrants last year, so the US population grew by 2.5 million or something, or by 0.6 to 0.8% ... which is solid, but not a population boom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom