# Abortion: a different take on the debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 13, 2005, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057 "2005-04-13T00:55:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/141 "2005-04-15T17:12:56Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > [Sneering preamble _snipped_, going immediately to argument, which was actually intelligent.] > > Regardless if the exact method is abortion or birth control, dropping birth rates correlate tidily with increased education and employment opportunities for women. That’s absolutely true. But correlation is not causation, as I’m sure you’re aware. My view is that society hasn’t given women these rights out of thin air. Women have demanded them, certainly, but it was probably also necessary to educate women and get them into the workforce in order to sustain a technologically advanced economy (as others have pointed out, women certainly worked outside the home in the past too–in any case, raising children and doing housework is important labor in its own right). [quote] If anything, I’d exepct a technologically advanced society facing a critical baby shortage to use: [list=#][li]Increased immigration.[/li][li]Positive incentives (rewarding women for having babies)[/li][li]Improved health care (ensuring that all or most babies born will reach fertile adulthood)[/list][/li] #1 is problematic in that it can’t work to sustain populations once the whole world is developed. It also causes the above-mentioned culture clash issues. Two and three are definitely the wise way to go. But do you always “expect” countries to take the wise course? And there is also the possibility that they might not be enough. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/142 "2005-04-15T17:20:48Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > This opinion of yours is not the common one held by most specialists, who consider the average of 5.4 children per mother to great a burden on all (not just the natural) resources of most African countries. The overall consensus seems to be that they would be better off if they didn’t have to fight each other over basic things like food, and were able to concentrate the little resources they have raising a smaller amount of children to a higher level of education and a higher standard of living. We are not arguing the same thing. The above says that, in the aggregate, the people of Africa should behave in such a way for the good of society and the environment. What I’m saying, however, is that social and economic conditions nevertheless benefit the _individual_ who has many children. > [@](#): > > Your references to France are equally pointless - the colonial background of that nation ensured a deep connection with several mostly Islamic countries. Unsuccessful immigration policies are to blame, together with polarisation of the East-West relationships, in which the U.S. still plays a big part and to which it is still contributing. Saying that there is a problem there is “pointless”? Again, I don’t see how we disagree. > [@](#): > > Bringing in the Theo van Gogh reference is downright silly… That wasn’t me. Must I say it? **Read the posts.** ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/143 "2005-04-15T17:35:41Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > After calling **Blowero** ignorant for suggesting Japan was overpopulated, you admit that it is, and again you’re suggesting that preventing shrinkage is a bad thing. Huh? I called him ignorant for saying dumb things about Japan–“It’s wall to wall people over thar!”–without even caring whether his conjectures are based in fact. Some parts of Japan are crowded, some are not. There are parts of Tokyo-to (the metropolitan government) that are large chunks of forest with virtually nobody living in them. A lot of Tokyo-to is crowded, of course, much in the same way that Manhattan is crowded. And Japan outside of the big cities isn’t crowded or cramped at all. My feeling that the population of Japan is too high is based on unrelated reasons. One, the country is not calorie-sufficient and has to import a large amount of food. This is partly by choice–the country is a factory instead of a farm–but it still is a potentially dangerous situation. Second, regardless of how crowded the country _seems_ the humans there are trashing the environment. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/144 "2005-04-15T17:41:56Z")
> [@istara](#): > > So far you have defended this with: > > 1. one link to a garbled piece of rubbish on some far right wing site that contains about one statistic: “there are five million muslims in France” but nothing about their secondary citizenship that you have claimed muslims get in Europe. That “garbled piece of rubbish” was a clear transcript of symposium in which the issue you dismiss with hand-waving was discussed by educated and intelligent people. True, it was on a conservative site, so, when I noticed that I thought, “This will be dismissed out of hand,” so I then went and got a “better” cite. But then I went back and _actually read it_ and learned something. Try it sometime, I think you’ll like it. > [@](#): > > 1. this, from a more impartial site: > > that provides no evidence of their second class treatment. Wha’? That was about the whole headscarf controversy, in which the French government said that Muslim women couldn’t wear head scarves to public schools. No problem there? > [@](#): > > In fact unlike the US, all migrants to most European countries (if not all, under EU charters) whether illegal migrants or legal migrants, get access to free health care and legal aid. Most US citizens don’t get that. You’re now going beyond merely dismissing my cites to positing original claims of your own. Are you saying that things for Muslims in Europe (in particular, France) are better than in the US? To both sides, all is hunky-dory? Remember, you called me “ignorant” for saying that there were problems. You pretty confident about that position of yours? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/145 "2005-04-15T17:46:19Z")
Aeschines, As I said in post 130, it seemed unclear whether he was address me, or you, but looking thru your posts, it look like your asking him to “ **Read the posts** ” is a very hypocritical action for you to take, judging by your past responses. On a different subject, in your latest post, you asked Blowero not to call Japan overcrowded. Given the fact that it seems overcrowded, judging from the imported culture, how would you like him to state it. “Mostly crowded?” “Crowded in, (Insert name of region here), (Insert name of region here), and (Insert name of region here), but not (Insert name of region here), (Insert name of region here) and here.”, or what? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/146 "2005-04-15T17:49:32Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > Dear Og, I was hoping you’d leave India out of it. But seeing as you’ve dragged it in, if you haven’t lived there at least eight years, by your own analogy you’d do well not to mention it at all. I praised it. I made no factual claims about it. Nor did I ever say that one needs to live somewhere eight years in order to comment on it (post the quote if you’ve got it). Facts are facts, citable by anyone. BS is BS, callable by anyone, but especially by people who are knowledgeable about the topic being BSed about. > [@](#): > > And I’m reporting this post you made to \*\*blowero \*\* to the mods: > > > [@Aeschines](#): > > > > You’re ignorant–shut up while you’re ahead. > > > [@](#): > > > > “Ignorant” meant literally, “you don’t know what you’re talking about.” “Shut up while you’re ahead” was, fairly I think, directed toward a post that had a nasty, condescending tone and recklessly ignorant content. > > This is _GD_, we expect a certain amount of civility around here. Neither am I afraid to tell you I’m reporting it. A certain “amount,” huh? I suppose you also reported to the mods the post calling me “Bitler” and the few calling me a racist? You didn’t? Oh, how one-sided of you. I didn’t, either, because I don’t go running “Waaaaa” to mommy to defend me. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/147 "2005-04-15T17:53:07Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I’m mildly curious if, assuming that people who have never been to Japan are too ignorant to discuss that nation’s problems, the OP has even been to a Middle Eastern country. I’ve already admitted my ignorance–explicitly–in a previous post. Hence, I don’t go deeply into reasons and causes for what I and perhaps the majority of Americans see, including experts: countries with despotic governments, zero or paltry rights for women, and extremely poor economies. Etc. ---
**Author:** ![overlyverbose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9dc877/32.png) [@overlyverbose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overlyverbose)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/148 "2005-04-15T18:31:38Z")
For what it’s worth, I found an interesting transcript of an interview regarding the “population problem” in Japan. Here’s a [link](http://www.nira.go.jp/publ/review/98autumn/round.html). According to this piece, the feeling that Japan is overpopulated is about 50/50 among people living in Japan. And it seemed as though the de-population of Japan and indeed other developed countries was a mixed bag and offered both positives and negatives. > [@](#): > > Japan is a small island-nation with few resources. After the war, the country gave high priority to education, to improving its human resources, and to becoming an exporting nation. Many most correctly believed these priorities to be the road to wealth. If the country is overcrowded from a demographic point of view, we’re a little late to do much about it (laughs). > > I conducted a survey some time ago on the question of overcrowding. It turned out that about 50 percent of Japanese nationals felt that Japan is overcrowded. But over the longer term, many felt much more anxiety toward a population decrease and toward population aging. > > It is very hard to evaluate the full meaning of the population decline or the decrease in population density in Japan during the next 100 years. There will always be negative and positive things to say. On the positive side, a low population density means more space: more available land, greenery, and housing. These benefits might even create a spiritually affluent society. Furthermore, it’s probably better for the environment. I once attended a lecture by someone who said that a single person in a developed country uses roughly 20 times more energy than one in a developing country. He wryly cracked that the death of a person in a developed country would save enough energy for 20 people in a developing country! > > Still, it would work negatively on economics. Remember that each person is a consumer as well as a producer. In our projections, Japan will lose some 800,000 people annually around the year 2040. That means the national market will radically shrink. I can’t help but wonder whether Japan’s industries and the economy can take it. In a market shrinking at that speed, economic management would be hard, economic growth would plummet, and living standards would worsen. > > I think that the populations in developed countries would be better off by declining slowly. Not radical declines, but gradual ones. A one percent annual decline would have too big an influence. It should be less than that. It seems to me as though population decline isn’t necessarily a bad thing; however, _sharp_ population decline might not be good. Regardless, it doesn’t seem that population decline is a very good argument for banning abortion, given that the actual number of abortions prevented and therefore births wouldn’t make much of a contribution to a population. It’d be more like a drop in the bucket. Also, the rate of abortions in the U.S., while not dropping very drastically, appears to be decreasing steadily. Here’s a link to the data on the [Johnston Archives](http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html). The same information (though not quite as extensive as this) appeared on National Right to Life and Planned Parenthood web sites. The reported figures are probably kind of low; however, I don’t think that fear of a population decline is enough of a reason to ban abortions. It seems that, unless something drastic happens and sex education is eliminated (as the current administration seems to prefer), there’s less of a need for abortions. However, get rid of sex education and accessible forms of birth control, and the need for abortions increases, whether you’re in a developed country or not. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/149 "2005-04-15T18:39:42Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I was under the impression that you admired the Shogun culture of Japan. Contrary to speculation in my Pit thread (thank you, that was fun), I’m not into samurai and ninja. I admire the art of the period. IMO, it produced the best poetry ever written. After the Meiji Restoration, Japan essentially gave up most of the outer forms of its culture and much of the inner content as well in order to “modernize.” I think it took the wrong path. There was also a socialistic aspect to feudal society that was good IMV. The country was also, with a few exceptions, not aggressive to other countries. It was a good foundation to build on, but Japan took the route of militarism, nationalism, and fascisim instead. This was hardly an improvement. > [@](#): > > That was certainly a fundamentalist despotism with a comparitively crappy economy. Color me confused. Oh, I’ll color you a bunch of things. There was nothing “fundamentalist” about Japanese religion–then or now. Do you know what the word means? Crappy economy? Even in the 1850s and compared to the West, Japan was not doing too shabbily in terms of feeding its people, etc. > [@](#): > > Anyways two of the things on your list are attributes of the government and the country that the immigrants leave behind. In fact the people that leave are trying to escape the despotism and crappy economies. Certainly they aren’t bringing those values to the country that they emigrate to. It’s not just the values of the immigrants, it’s also the values of their new country that make a difference. Apparently in France and elsewhere the new country really doesn’t want to integrate them (or can’t, their numbers being so large), which in turn encourages resentment and fortifies the enclave. I said above that the problem in Europe was mostly the Europeans’ fault. > [@](#): > > As far as fundamentalism goes Muslims are no more fundamentalistic than any other religion. Not all religions are created equal, and not all encourage the same behaviors. Islam, despite comprising many fine and upright believers, is the problem religion of the world right now. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/150 "2005-04-15T18:50:07Z")
Thanks for the highly reasonable post. > [@hildea](#): > > As long as we’re in a predict-the-future-mode here, and speaking from my vantage point on a sparsely populated lump of rock on the outskirts of Europe: No, I don’t see much risk of that (= abortion ban to increase population size) happening in Europe, for several reasons, such as: I just want to point out that abortion IS controlled at least a few European countries (Ireland, Poland), so the “risk” is not entirely speculative. > [@](#): > > \*As others have pointed out, it’s extremely doubtful that it’d have much long-term effect on population size I agree. > [@](#): > > It would be an extremely unpopular policy among women. If you’re worried about your pop size, you’d be wary of policies which might make women in fertile age say: “Fuck this country, I’m moving to Canada.” In some countries, no doubt true. > [@](#): > > You’re right in that there is some uneasiness (both legitimate and not) towards the effects of immigration of people with different cultures. One of the legitimate worries (IMO, of course) is that people from some parts of the world (hell, most of the world) has a more restrictive view of women’s rights and freedoms than Europeans. Changing our culture for the worse in order to protect it seems counter-productive, to put it mildly Absolutely. > [@](#): > > Living in a small country, I see a lot of policies aimed towards protecting our culture - protecting our language, funding for various kinds of cultural activities, stuff like that. There’s also discussion about obligatory courses in our language and culture for immigrants. A thread with a more general view of the topic of changing cultures could be interesting. Yep, this was a sidebar, not really one I intended to get so big. > [@](#): > > But the abortion point of view is, IMO, a red herring. It looks like one of those “if all you’ve got is a hammer, all the world looks like a nail”-situations. If you put abortion out of your mind for a minute, and make a list of all the things a society might do if it feels threatened by extinction - do you really think an abortion ban would make it in the top ten? Or top fifty? It’s not a red herring per se–it’s the explicit topic of this thread. I _do_ think abortion would be in the top ten things a country would consider that really wanted to fight population shrinkage. If there were indeed a lot of abortions being performed in that country, it would come up, conceptually speaking, as a major category for consideration (obviously, under economic adjustments there are a million different “things” that could be considered). The effectiveness or unintended consequences of such a policy would be a different matter. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/151 "2005-04-15T19:03:29Z")
> [@overlyverbose](#): > > For what it’s worth, I found an interesting transcript of an interview regarding the “population problem” in Japan. … According to this piece, the feeling that Japan is overpopulated is about 50/50 among people living in Japan. And it seemed as though the de-population of Japan and indeed other developed countries was a mixed bag and offered both positives and negatives. > > It seems to me as though population decline isn’t necessarily a bad thing; however, _sharp_ population decline might not be good. Yep, pretty much what I’ve been saying here. Thanks for the link. > [@](#): > > Regardless, it doesn’t seem that population decline is a very good argument for banning abortion, given that the actual number of abortions prevented and therefore births wouldn’t make much of a contribution to a population. It’d be more like a drop in the bucket. I think the argument can be made that it wouldn’t be a cure and that it wouldn’t be tremendous, but I think referring to it as a “drop in the bucket” is hand-waving it away. I and another poster who disagreed with me overall seemed to agree that banning abortion could affect the birth rate by about 15%. Even if it’s just 5%, that’s big. > [@](#): > > Also, the rate of abortions in the U.S., while not dropping very drastically, appears to be decreasing steadily. Here’s a link to the data on the [Johnston Archives](http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html). The same information (though not quite as extensive as this) appeared on National Right to Life and Planned Parenthood web sites. The reported figures are probably kind of low; however, I don’t think that fear of a population decline is enough of a reason to ban abortions. “Enough of a reason” and “effectiveness” being two different issues, of course. One reason for the decline in abortions could simply be demographic: a decrease in the number of fertile women or teens. Not that you are saying otherwise. > [@](#): > > It seems that, unless something drastic happens and sex education is eliminated (as the current administration seems to prefer), there’s less of a need for abortions. However, get rid of sex education and accessible forms of birth control, and the need for abortions increases, whether you’re in a developed country or not. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/152 "2005-04-15T19:20:30Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > …but looking thru your posts, it look like your asking him to “ **Read the posts** ” is a very hypocritical action for you to take, judging by your past responses. When I say that, I don’t mean, “Read more carefully.” I mean that I suspect that people are doing what people often do in GD: Jump into a thread and start commenting literally without having read the other posts or enough of them to comment pertinently. You know that people are doing this when they make blatant mistakes (quoting the wrong people, etc.) or simply don’t take into consideration “major” things you have said in the thread. You may not like my answers, but I’ve read every post in this thread and I quote people when I respond to them. There is no hypocrisy. > [@](#): > > On a different subject, in your latest post, you asked Blowero not to call Japan overcrowded. Given the fact that it seems overcrowded, judging from the imported culture, how would you like him to state it. “Mostly crowded?” “Crowded in, (Insert name of region here), (Insert name of region here), and (Insert name of region here), but not (Insert name of region here), (Insert name of region here) and here.”, or what? Well here’s what he said, for the record: > [@blowero](#): > > Have you been to Japan? It’s freaking WALL-TO-WALL people. The population density is over 10 TIMES that of the United States. I assure you they are in no danger of dying out. This is about as stupid as a post can get. “Have you been to Japan?” shows he hasn’t been reading, since in the OP for crying out loud I had written: > [@Me](#): > > …and Japan is setting itself up for an outright demographic disaster. Keep in mind also that a population can be growing but still shrinking long-term. In Japan young people aren’t having babies while the oldsters are all living into their 80s; once this older generation starts dying off, the population will shrink by tens of millions in just a few decades, while the burden of working people to support the elderly only gets worse. > > I know from personal experience how people feel about raising children in Japan, having lived their eight years. It is now “common sense” that two children is the absolute maximum that the average family can afford, and even having one child is a significant financial burden. Of course, with “common sense” like this, you will halve the population within a century. His saying that the population density in Japan is 10 times that of the US (may be true but he’s too lazy to back it up with a cite) is totally irrelevent, since the US has large uninhabited areas and a population that really isn’t that big compared to the land mass it occupies. You could say similar things about Russia, Canada, Australia, and China with similar irrelevance. “I assure you they are in no danger of dying out” is probably the stupidest part of that ultra-densely stupid quote. Population density has nothing directly to do with birthrate, for one thing, and he demonstrates that, while either not knowing or caring about the topic at hand–population shrinkage in Japan–he feels confident enough just to deny that it’s a problem. If you don’t find that to be a problematic post, I don’t know what is. In fact, I think it embodies GD debating at its very worst: Rude, flagrantly ignoring what other posters have written, poorly reasoned, and cavalierly dismissive of the truth. ---
**Author:** ![overlyverbose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9dc877/32.png) [@overlyverbose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overlyverbose)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/153 "2005-04-15T19:53:14Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Yep, pretty much what I’ve been saying here. Thanks for the link. > > \ > > One reason for the decline in abortions could simply be demographic: a decrease in the number of fertile women or teens. Not that you are saying otherwise. > Agreed. You’re quite welcome, though I don’t think that link necessarily supports your position. It basically says that under-population may be a problem if there’s a sharp decline; however, a decreasing population can be positive as well as negative. Also, a lot of the declining abortion rate has to do with the fact that women are _choosing_ not to get married until later, to stay in the work force, and not to have children. Women who do get married later in life, but still wish to have children often can only have a more limited number of children than women who marry earlier. I’m not sure it’s anything to do with a shortage of child-bearing-age women; rather, it seems to be a shortage of women who _want_ a lot of children. In fact, according to this link from [Simplicity.com](http://guide.symplicity.com/resources/industry_article.php?id=39), the number of women of child bearing age, while increasing slowly, is nonetheless increasing. > [@](#): > > The rising demand for child-care services reflects demographic trends. Over the 1986-96 period, the population of women of childbearing age (widely considered to be age 15 to 44) increased by over 2 million, accompanied by a rise in their labor force participation. The interplay of these forces increased very rapidly the number of women in the labor force with children young enough to require child care. These demographic changes are projected to slow over the 1998-2008 period, and projected employment growth in the child-care services industry—while rapid—represents a slowdown from the previous 10 years. The number of women of childbearing age is expected to grow very slowly and the number of children under age 5 will decline during this period before rising to just above 1998 levels. In addition, it’s becoming increasingly common for women at age 35 or above to start having children later in life, which increases the number of women bearing children. Here’s a link to that information: [Science Week](http://scienceweek.com/2005/sa050218-5.htm). And this isn’t just a localized phenomenon - having children later in life is becoming more common in virtually all developed countries, which I would imagine adds significantly to the “uterus pool,” or number of women of child bearing age. P.S. Hopefully I haven’t posted this three times - the boards keep timing out on me, dang it. ---
**Author:** ![overlyverbose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9dc877/32.png) [@overlyverbose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overlyverbose)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/154 "2005-04-15T20:02:04Z")
I’m sorry **Aeschines** - I just realized that, in my frustration with the boards timing out on me (my connection seems to be slow today, or maybe it’s the boards), I hadn’t made myself all that clear. My points on the demographics were that: I don’t think that a decline in abortion is related to fewer women of childbearing age because 1. Women seem to be having fewer children because they simply do not want to have so many children, and would prefer to keep working, marry later, or whatever it is they would like to do and put off having them. 2. More women are choosing to have children when they get older (the women, not the children), which would actually add to the pool of women of childbearing age instead of decreasing it. 3. Also, according to the information I was able to find, it appears that the number of women of childbearing age hasn’t decreased at all, though it continues to increase at a more modest rate than it did before. To me, this indicates that the increase in childbearing women plus the number of women who were previously considered older than childbearing age, yet who have now decided to have children far past what is considered childbearing age, would instead result in an _increase_ the pool of childbearing women instead of decreasing it. I hope that makes more sense than my earlier post. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2005, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/155 "2005-04-16T03:52:56Z")
Thanks for the stats and the clear reasoning, **Overly**. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/156 "2005-04-18T18:26:26Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > This is about as stupid as a post can get. Wow! You’ve got the balls to say _my_ post is stupid? That’s just astounding, coming from a guy who lived in Japan for 8 years (a fact which you never tire of reminding us), and DIDN’T NOTICE that it was crowded. Sheesh. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > “Have you been to Japan?” shows he hasn’t been reading, since in the OP for crying out loud I had written: I was being _sarcastic_ - genius. We’re all PAINFULLY aware that you’ve been to Japan. I’m just astounded that you apparently didn’t see all the people there. > [@](#): > > His saying that the population density in Japan is 10 times that of the US (may be true but he’s too lazy to back it up with a cite) Are you disputing it? Guess you’re “too lazy” to find a cite to refute it, huh? You strike me as one of these guys who just argues for the sake of argument. You aren’t really disputing that Japan is crowded; you just want to bellow about nothing. You’re just angry that I shot down your ridiculous OP, so you’re flailing about, lashing out at nothing. > [@](#): > > is totally irrelevent, since the US has large uninhabited areas and a population that really isn’t that big compared to the land mass it occupies. You could say similar things about Russia, Canada, Australia, and China with similar irrelevance. Again, are you _disputing_ that Japan is crowded, or just flailing? > [@](#): > > “I assure you they are in no danger of dying out” is probably the stupidest part of that ultra-densely stupid quote. Ad hominem. > [@](#): > > Population density has nothing directly to do with birthrate, for one thing, and he demonstrates that, while either not knowing or caring about the topic at hand–population shrinkage in Japan–he feels confident enough just to deny that it’s a problem. You have not demonstrated that it IS a problem. Also, I never said anything about how population density and birthrate are connected. The fact that you believe I did shows that you lack reading comprehension. If a country is very, very crowded, and the population pulls back a bit, this is NOT a problem. It’s probably a GOOD thing. This should be obvious to a third-grader. Apparently it is not obvious to you, however. See, we don’t HAVE to pack people into every square inch of land, and wring our hands at the tiniest reduction in any spot. > [@](#): > > If you don’t find that to be a problematic post, I don’t know what is. In fact, I think it embodies GD debating at its very worst: Rude, flagrantly ignoring what other posters have written, poorly reasoned, and cavalierly dismissive of the truth. You’re kidding, right? This is coming from the guy who just used the following words? > [@](#): > > stupid > > lazy > > stupidest part > > ultra-densely stupid I’ll admit you don’t have much of a vocabulary, but still, it’s quite rude. And you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in the ass. Honestly, didn’t the fact that you got PITTED over this very thread give you ANY kind of a clue? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/157 "2005-04-18T18:48:27Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > A certain “amount,” huh? I suppose you also reported to the mods the post calling me “Bitler” and the few calling me a racist? You didn’t? Oh, how one-sided of you. Oh, missed this little gem. You know perfectly well I did not _call_ you “Bitler”. I said the _ideas you are espousing_ are _similar_ to _some_ things that he said. Specifically, I find the idea that any one culture is more “deserving” of existence than another to be distasteful. And I’m not the only one who pointed that out. This is amazing as well: > [@](#): > > I called him ignorant for saying dumb things about Japan–“It’s wall to wall people over thar!”–without even caring whether his conjectures are based in fact. You really don’t acknowledge hyperbole AT ALL, do you? Did you really think that I LITERALLY meant “wall to wall”? If you had thought for even one second, you would have realized that couldn’t possibly have been a literal statement, since entire countries do not have walls around them. But apparently, it never occured to you that what I was saying was simply that Japan is overcrowded, a fact with which YOU HAVE AGREED. Again, you’re just arguing for the sake of argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/158 "2005-04-18T20:53:02Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I’ve already admitted my ignorance–explicitly–in a previous post. Hence - Hence by the standard you have set, you’re not qualified to comment on Middle-Eastern demographics, just as someone who has never been to Japan is not qualified to comment on that nation’s demographics. Of course, that only leaves us with a thread in which you discuss your eight years in Japan. Did you see any Godzilla-related activity in your time there? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/159 "2005-04-19T00:11:56Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Wow! You’ve got the balls to say _my_ post is stupid? Yeah, it was really stupid. > [@](#): > > That’s just astounding, coming from a guy who lived in Japan for 8 years (a fact which you never tire of reminding us), and DIDN’T NOTICE that it was crowded. Shall I repeat? I shall. I disagree that Japan as a country is crowded (Shibuya on a Friday night is crowded, sure). I said it was “overpopulated” because of its lack of resources. A huge desert could be overpopulated (but not crowded) if it only had one little spring for water. I know the difference is tough for you to understand, but maybe others will be edified in your stead. > [@](#): > > I was being _sarcastic_ - genius. We’re all PAINFULLY aware that you’ve been to Japan. I’m just astounded that you apparently didn’t see all the people there. You seem to harp on my accomplishments a lot more than I do. Perhaps I detect a wee bit of resentment? > [@](#): > > Are you disputing it? Guess you’re “too lazy” to find a cite to refute it, huh? You strike me as one of these guys who just argues for the sake of argument. You aren’t really disputing that Japan is crowded; you just want to bellow about nothing. You’re just angry that I shot down your ridiculous OP, so you’re flailing about, lashing out at nothing. Simmer down, son. I already disputed this point with logical argument; I did so again above for your reference. > [@](#): > > Also, I never said anything about how population density and birthrate are connected. The fact that you believe I did shows that you lack reading comprehension. You said that Japan was “wall to wall people” = crowded. Then you said that they were in no danger of dying out. What’s the implication there, champ? > [@](#): > > If a country is very, very crowded, and the population pulls back a bit, this is NOT a problem. It’s probably a GOOD thing. This should be obvious to a third-grader. Apparently it is not obvious to you, however. See, we don’t HAVE to pack people into every square inch of land, and wring our hands at the tiniest reduction in any spot. Yes, this is correct. Its pertinence to Japan is… what? > [@](#): > > I’ll admit you don’t have much of a vocabulary, but still, it’s quite rude. Just trying to stay down there at your level. > [@](#): > > And you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in the ass. Oh my gosh, report this post! REPORT THIS POST!!! > [@](#): > > Honestly, didn’t the fact that you got PITTED over this very thread give you ANY kind of a clue? Hee, I thought it was cute that my pitters in that thread got _owned_ by my defenders. Ta ta, **blowero**. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/160 "2005-04-19T00:16:12Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Oh, missed this little gem. You know perfectly well I did not _call_ you “Bitler”. I said the _ideas you are espousing_ are _similar_ to _some_ things that he said. Well, when you put it that way, I see that it wasn’t offensive or reckless rhetoric at all. Please accept my apology. > [@](#): > > Specifically, I find the idea that any one culture is more “deserving” of existence than another to be distasteful. And I’m not the only one who pointed that out. Other people pointed out that you find it distasteful? > [@](#): > > You really don’t acknowledge hyperbole AT ALL, do you? Did you really think that I LITERALLY meant “wall to wall”? If you had thought for even one second, you would have realized that couldn’t possibly have been a literal statement, since entire countries do not have walls around them. Nope, I just figured you were just blabbing about something you knew nothing about, and that I was correct keeps getting clearer and clearer. > [@](#): > > But apparently, it never occured to you that what I was saying was simply that Japan is overcrowded, a fact with which YOU HAVE AGREED. No, see above point about overcrowding vs. overpopulation. Toodaloo, **blowero**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057.md?page=9)