People say 'Yes' to this? - Page 4

**Hraesvelg** · 10-26-2009, 03:25 PM

If we could sustain the population, I might agree with you, but we're pushing it like it is. We're bursting at the seams and we're going to hit starvation levels fairly soon, unless with come up with some sort of technological marvel in food production/distribution.

**Lirange** · 10-26-2009, 07:30 PM

You do know that the USA has more food then we even need? We distribute more food around the world then any country, but we also waste the most food than any other country.
And I agree with Jikanu, I'd rather have a chance of living a happy life than not living at all.

**Ivramire** · 10-26-2009, 08:12 PM

Logistics.

Maybe if you can get that food to them in-time without going through the political, financial and manpower / time hoops.

I don't like the idea of abortion either. Especially some people who seem to treat it as a form of contraception. But I do think it's a necessary 'evil', for lack of a better term.

**Ralath** · 10-26-2009, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Jikanu

Adoption Agencies, anyone?

Adoption agencies don't work. Why do you think there are so many kids in foster homes right now and that parents that want to adopt have to go to a foreign country?

It's not because of a lack of kids.

Quote:

and besides, once you've had sex, you know what can happen. it's one of the risks you have to accept when you preform the act. :/

How is this even an argument? People know that they can die in a car crash but that doesn't stop them from driving.

Jikanu · 10-26-2009, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Ralath

Adoption agencies don't work. Why do you think there are so many kids in foster homes right now and that parents that want to adopt have to go to a foreign country?

It's not because of a lack of kids.

How is this even an argument? People know that they can die in a car crash but that doesn't stop them from driving.

cars werent made specifically for crashing. Sex was made for the specific reason of reproduction. Using it for other reasons is fine, but you accept a risk when you do.

@Hrae: I think the main population issue could be solved through sex ed and empowering women in nations such as India. in places like China, it's a bit different, though. But abortion isnt really the best solution, due to it being considered unethical, immoral, and the fact that it's only really viable in majorly developed countries where population isnt a huge issue.

**Hraesvelg** · 10-26-2009, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Jikanu

But abortion isnt really the best solution, due to it being considered unethical, immoral, and the fact that it's only really viable in majorly developed countries where population isnt a huge issue.

You may consider it as such, but that doesn't make it so. Prevention is the best solution, but a lot of these involve kids too young and dumb to really understand the consequences.

Jikanu · 10-26-2009, 11:12 PM

Did you see the purely factual part of my comment? Developed countries dont have such a huge population issue; women's empowerment in countries in India can help massively. Also, i forget the name, but there was a country that had one of the world's highest populations, and started a huge birth control campaign that lowered it to the point where it was sustainable again... As for your prevention assertion, wouldnt TRUE prevention be keeping them from getting pregnant in the first place?

**Hraesvelg** · 10-26-2009, 11:17 PM

I think I was unclear.

Quote:

due to it being considered unethical, immoral

That was the bit I was referring to when I said "You may consider it as such, but that doesn't make it so."

And prevention does mean not getting pregnant in the first place. The only way to make that absolute is to spay and neuter teenagers, which I might consider as an option. People keep saying "eugenics" like it's a completely bad thing...

**Lady-Loki** · 10-26-2009, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by Jikanu

1% chance of the baby reaching happiness someday > 0% chance, in my belief.

personally, i think abortion should only be considered if the mother's life is directly at risk.

I have to differ with you here. In my situation my life was not in danger but my baby had absolutely no chance at all of living for even 24 hours outside the womb. And her hours outside the womb would have been constant pain for her little body. We had an amniocentesis test and we had the ultra-sounds that clearly indicated serious issues with major organs.

With that knowledge you still believe she should have been delivered into constant pain for her few hours of life?

Again, I say that unless you are walking in that woman's shoes, you have no idea whether abortion is right or wrong for her.

Jikanu · 10-26-2009, 11:18 PM

you still havent replied to the parts of my statement that were purely fact.... women's empowerment, etc...

@Loki- once again, that's a bit of a different situation. i was referring to the people who have abortions because they dont want to deal with the baby, or because they're not sure financially. when there's a 100% chance that the baby will not live, it's totally different.

And at that, i would like you to know that im totally sorry for your loss.