Yes, the rate may have decreased but there are more people living in Europe than ever before. Thanks to immigarion from areas with high birth rates, there's not enough houses to go around and their prices are at all time highs, areas have water supply problems becasue of over population. You're suggesting to add seven cities the size of London to this EVERY YEAR? Again, good intentions but reality is very different, one day you guys might wake up to the real world.
Well we could etc replace the immigration with higher birth rates. Those countries that exports immigrants can take care of their own problems.
You're looking at the problem locally. GLOBALLY the world population is increasing, you can't just push problems out of your area and claim the problem is solved.
I didn't know you was an imperialist. Well in that case I'm sorry for you and for your country. Brittain had once an imperium of nearly half of the world(don't remember exactly), but now only Northern Ireland, Falkland islands and some other minor countries are left. Don't think that any of those really have an 'exploading population'. For my country, we have space enough for 80-100 times more people(just saying that we have, not that we should fill it up as fast as possible). Immigration is however a problem here and we need to replace the foreigner influx with a higher birth rate. The medium age are growing every year. That's the problem.
I actually fail to se you point here completely? How does this address the fact that the world population is increasing or indeed have anything at all to do with it? By your reasoning the world with continually have to keep having an ever increasing birth rate. We have more kids now then we'll have an even bigger population problem in 70 years as todays populaton retires. Again, as with all of your 'ideas' it's ill thought out and impractical.
I think we should all agree to common facts: 1- For the immediate time being, population decline is a bigger long-term risk than population increase. Unless people want to work until they are 85 years old, they need to keep having children to support them when they are old. Social Security, stock market income, interest income, etc. are all just ways of having young people do work for old people. If there are no young people to work, your money is of no value; prices will rise, and you'll need to work to earn a living. 2- having a child is a big change in the life of a woman 3- Since adoption is possible, giving birth to a baby does not involve a life-time need to care for the baby. 4- Hitler had emotional problems, that didn't justify killing the Jews. Emotional problems are not a justification for doing things. 5- Abortion terminates the life of an unborn human being with a unique genetic code, and does kill a human life. Hopefully this will help people talk on the same terms. It is silly that people are suggesting the obsurd. Let's stop being so emotionally charged, and actually discuss this without making-up our own facts. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. Pro-life, does not mean anti-choice. I should hope that we can all agree that abortion is a never a happy thing. I hope that even the most pro-choice people out there would prefer that women not sleep around if they do not intend to get pregnant. I am sure no-one is advocating that women have intercourse unless they are willing to have a baby. That is obsurd, as the purpose of intercource is to have children. Likewise, I'm sure no-one here actually wants there to be more abortions; but rather, fewer.
Great points Chrysostum. However your final statement that no one is advocating that women have intercourse unless they are willing to have a baby is way off base. If women use "safe" intercourse; meaning they use birth control, condoms, etc. sex can be purely for pleasure. I know birth control is not perfect, but if you use two methods at once (condoms & pills) the risk of pregnancy is minimal. If the woman does become pregnant, she should have to go all the way and give the baby up for adoption.
that if a woman chooses to have intercourse, she should be willing to accept the possibility that she become pregnant. Condoms are not really that effective. Some claim 80%; but reality shows about 50%. Most people do not use them as labled, and/or do not use them always. The pill claims 99% 'effectivness', but those number are also bunk. Other drugs, alcohol, smoking, sickness, stress, etc can all affect it. It is 99% effective if you are healthy, don't drink, take it at exactly the same time every day, are unstressed, have the right dosage, etc. In reality, the numbers are much lower.
I think it should be allowed as long as the woman is not using it as a means of birth control (She took neccesary percations to ensure that she did not get pregnant). There was a story on the BBC a while back that I found quite interesting. It can be found here: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4954856.stm
So much for the sex-ed classes. I feel sorry for the guy who can't figure out how to use a condom, maybe we should add a couple more years to high school to help educate them??
As my first post says, that is a rare situation. It accounts for less than 1% of abortions, and like the issue of partial-birth abortion, is not what the question is asking about. if we took all the people who were opposed to abortion in most cases, and had these people discuss that issue, it would make sense. However, most people who bring up your question are just using it to argue why abortion-on-demand should be allowed. I think that exceptional cases, such as abortion outisde of the 1st term, abortions due to rape, incest, etc. should be posted on a seperate thread. Most people who bring up parti-birth abortion are just making an arguement. They really think that all abortion should not be allowed. Likewise, those who bring up rape are just using it to argue, not because they think abortion should be illegal except for rape. If this post was title: "Should a law be pased outlawing abortion, except for rape?" then, that would be a fair consideration. However, that is not the topic, the topic is "should abortion be allowed to women?" Rape is such a rare situation in that question that it diverts people from the meat of the question. Or, a better rule would be to require that they be sold perscription-only, like the pill is. I support banning contraception, though. I think contraception causes more teanage pregnancies than it prevents.
The pill does not do anything to slow the spread of Aids. Barrior methods, such as condoms are not very effective either. It is easier to get aids than to get pregnant (aids virus is smaller, can infect at any time; while pregnancy is only possible part of the month). Further, condom use, already not very effective against many STDs has NO, I repeate NO effect on reducing aids transmitted via the blood supply, the use of drugs, etc. If you accept the assumption that people will engage in sexual relationships outside of marriage, then you must accept that Aids and STDs cannot be completely prevented at this point in time. Condoms and other methods do not 100% prevent the transmission of aids. They are effective only part of the time. Thus, they are not a 100% solution. Given that they are --at best, if used 100% correctly 100% of the time-- less than 80% effective at stopping aids transfer, you get to the following situation: if every person thoughout their life had 10 different random partners, within a short period of time -- even if condoms are 80% effective -- the whole world would have aids. Your only solutions are scientific research and reductions in sleeping around. Scientific research, by-the-way, may or may not be a full solution (we don't know).
So, abortion is murder but you want to ban contraception? Oh, that's going to lower the rate of abortions... We don't live in a "perfect" society, and people are going to have sex outside of marriage, period. Limiting or banning access to contraception is only going to add to the amount of abortions performed each year. People are not going to suddenly say, "Oh, we can't get contraception so I'm going to stop having sex." That's just not the way the world works. I completely disagree with you, as well. I don't believe that contraception causes more teen pregnancies than it prevents, just like teaching sex ed in schools does NOT cause teenagers to be promiscuous. It's all false.
Did you know that there is a warning label at the end of each condom that says "causes more pregnancies than it stops"? guess someone never needed to unroll it that far