# Of Infanticide and Abortion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695 "2010-01-05T00:07:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2010, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/241 "2010-01-09T13:42:35Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > If abortion is made illegal, regular birth control is next, guaranteed. That is not guaranteed in any way. prior to the legalization of abortion, many groups were quite happy with contraception. Even among the largest organized group protesting abortion, the RCC, the members are overwhelmingly in favor of contraception, regardless what the hierarchy might prefer. > [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > I’m far from convinced adoption is harmless. Every adoptee I’ve ever meet has been screwed up beyond belief. And yes, one extra baby can make a difference because if enough people get convinced to have that one extra baby, the result is profound disaster. People need to realize that actions have consequences. We can’t all cure cancer, but there are certain everyday actions, like not overreproducing, that each of us can do to make a better world. Well, regardless of your self-selected decision to regard all adoptees as screwed up, the rest of your claim is just silly. In developed countries, there is a natural tendency to reduce the birth rate even when there is no government intervention. Once people see that their children are not at risk of dying in great numbers and have an excellent chance to outlive the parents, people voluntarily limit their reproductive rates to ensure that their own children do not have too many competing siblings. Even in places like India, in those regions where industrialization has led to a strong middle class, the birth rates have fallen to levels that are only barely at replacement level. Claiming that infanticide is better than adoption to meet some ZPG goal is founded on baseless Malthusian projections that have already been demonstrated false. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2010, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/242 "2010-01-09T22:58:35Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > There are also people that claim they want to adopt, but can’t afford it. Well, not being able to afford the adoption fees, should be considered a sign that you are not in a financial situation to consider being a parent perhaps. Furthermore, children adopted into families affluent enough to afford infants will ultimately use more resources than children that remained in poor faimilies which is actually worse from an environmental standpoint. > > I’m far from convinced adoption is harmless. Every adoptee I’ve ever meet has been screwed up beyond belief. And yes, one extra baby can make a difference because if enough people get convinced to have that one extra baby, the result is profound disaster. People need to realize that actions have consequences. We can’t all cure cancer, but there are certain everyday actions, like not overreproducing, that each of us can do to make a better world. So, what, if they’re poor, it’s bad for them to have a baby, but if they’re rich, it’s…also bad? Also: one baby is not overrepoducing. 3 babies is overreproducing. And if one couple has none, another has to have 4 to make up for it. Unless you would have the human race die out…? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/243 "2010-01-10T06:43:43Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > You know, I find that hard to believe. In other threads you have offered that the rights of adults to enjoy entertainment or eating in a restaurant can be trampled over by the rights of children to be out in public. If you believe the freedom of children trample such minimal concepts as courtesy, it becomes difficult to believe you wouldn’t expect an adult to sacriface everything in a life or death situation for a child. Except I never said anything remotely resembling this. I said kids had a right to go out in public, being people and all. And I said that kids should be behaved and that parents have a responsibility to handle their out of control children. Your putting this up as some kind of ‘rights’ issue is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/244 "2010-01-11T14:25:47Z")
Telling a pregnant woman she should continue her pregnancy and give birth because couples need babies to adopt is a fucking outrage. It amounts to reproductive slavery. A lesbian friend of my sister got pregnant by rape. The anti-abortion crowd told her the “right” thing to do was to give birth and then give the child to a “real” family. She told them that would be a second rape, gave birth, and is now raising the child with her female partner. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/245 "2010-01-11T14:49:46Z")
Annie-Xmas, have you provided the data about adoption? I’d really like to see it. If I’ve missed the post, would someone give me a link? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/246 "2010-01-11T14:57:01Z")
[Here](http://www.crimemagazine.com/07/adoptionforensics,0919-7.htm) is crime magazine’s take. About 16% of serial killers are adopted, as opposed to 2- 3% of the general population. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/247 "2010-01-11T15:11:14Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > [Here](http://www.crimemagazine.com/07/adoptionforensics,0919-7.htm) is crime magazine’s take. About 16% of serial killers are adopted, as opposed to 2- 3% of the general population. Yes, we’ve already been linked to that article by **ZPG Zealot**. It shows no proof of causation at all. [Here’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11961334&postcount=116) my earlier post with a response to it. If you have any evidence of that adoption _causes_ people to become serial killers, please offer it…again, a link of _causation_, not _correlation_. If you don’t, please stop saying that there is such a link. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/248 "2010-01-11T15:15:07Z")
I have two issues with that cite. 1. The guy appears to have a vested interest in convincing people that adoption is big evil scariness since he’s trying to sell books. 2. Even if 100% of serial killers are adopted, that says nothing about adoption as a whole. Serial killers are rare. Adoption is common. So, do you have peer-reviewed studies or real data about the dangers inherent in adoption? From here, this just looks like paranoia and a rather obsessive fixation on true crime novels and magazines. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/249 "2010-01-11T23:15:27Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Telling a pregnant woman she should continue her pregnancy and give birth because couples need babies to adopt is a fucking outrage. It amounts to reproductive slavery. Who said that? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/250 "2010-01-12T06:09:59Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > So, what, if they’re poor, it’s bad for them to have a baby, but if they’re rich, it’s…also bad? > > Also: one baby is not overrepoducing. 3 babies is overreproducing. And if one couple has none, another has to have 4 to make up for it. Unless you would have the human race die out…? How are three kids “over reproducing”? We’re not talking about the Duggars, here! ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/251 "2010-01-13T00:38:40Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > How are three kids “over reproducing”? We’re not talking about the Duggars, here! You end up with an amount over what you had before. Reproducing is re-producing - producing what you had before. ---
**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:** [January 13, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/252 "2010-01-13T00:44:18Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > You end up with an amount over what you had before. Reproducing is re-producing - producing what you had before. Why that’s so crazy it’s brilliant! No, wait, the other thing… stupid. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/253 "2010-01-13T00:53:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Why that’s so crazy it’s brilliant! > > No, wait, the other thing… stupid. Who do you think you’re talking to? To acually analyze the thing, I was responding to the outraged objection that somebody said, “one baby is not overrepoducing. 3 babies is overreproducing” (sic). The person saying this was not arguing that “overreproducing” was a _bad_ thing - they immediately mocked the notion of arging for everyone having zero children. So clearly, they meant the term precisely as I defined it: that you are not “overreproducing” until you surpass replacement rate (in contrast to the batshit notion that having a single kid is doing so). Reading the statement as being a _criticism_ of having three kids, on the other hand, is an obvious misread when taken in context. So yeah - maybe you should think twice before you sling around “stupid”. ---
**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:** [January 13, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/254 "2010-01-13T00:57:18Z")
No,I’ll stand by my comment. “Reproducing” in this context means having children. In fact, in just about _any_ context it means making a copy of the original. The ultimate number of copies just don’t enter into it, no matter how many useless hyphens one wishes to jammably insertificate. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/255 "2010-01-13T01:06:40Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > No,I’ll stand by my comment. “Reproducing” in this context means having children. In fact, in just about _any_ context it means making a copy of the original. The ultimate number of copies just don’t enter into it, no matter how many useless hyphens one wishes to jammably insertificate. Not _this_ context, though… (This context being the definiton of the rather ad-hoc term “overreproducing”) Or do you have a preferred interpretation for the statement “one baby is not overrepoducing. 3 babies is overreproducing.”? ---
**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:** [January 13, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/256 "2010-01-13T01:16:21Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Not _this_ context, though… (This context being the definiton of the rather ad-hoc term “overreproducing”) Or do you have a preferred interpretation for the statement “one baby is not overrepoducing. 3 babies is overreproducing.”? “Overreproducing” suggests the numbers of copies is significant. “Reproducing” does not, hyphens notwithstanding. Personally, I don’t see what the big deal is if one couple produces three children. It wasn’t so long ago that they’d try to produce a lot more, with the understanding that three (if they were lucky) would survive to adulthood. _Societies_ can overreproduce, if their populations expand faster than their economies, but talking about individual familes in this manner is like blaming global warming on some guy who litters. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/257 "2010-01-13T01:52:51Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > “Overreproducing” suggests the numbers of copies is significant. “Reproducing” does not, hyphens notwithstanding. > > Personally, I don’t see what the big deal is if one couple produces three children. It wasn’t so long ago that they’d try to produce a lot more, with the understanding that three (if they were lucky) would survive to adulthood. _Societies_ can overreproduce, if their populations expand faster than their economies, but talking about individual familes in this manner is like blaming global warming on some guy who litters. I agree. But I was talking from a strict ZPG standpoint, since that’s where ZPG Zealot is coming from. My point was that, even when talking about ZPG, ZPG Zealot is still wrong. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/258 "2010-01-14T14:36:27Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > Not really. You believe in ZPG, right? That means 2.1 babies per couple. Places like Western Europe are having problems because they’re having children under that and the young can’t support the old. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the majority, even vast majority, of babies are not disasters. > > I do. All I’m saying is that most of us live in different circumstances than you, in which infanticide is much less debatable (that is, not debatable). So when you assume your circumstances apply to us, you come off as a raving loon (to us (even though you’re not)). Actually, I believe what we need is negative population growth. Sure the planet can support what we’ve got now and maybe a few more, but look at the standard of living (and not just in the Western countries). I happen to like running water, electricy, food security and a varied diet. I would also like to see more of the world have that also. Population control is the key. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/259 "2010-01-14T14:39:29Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > You’re putting an agenda before a human life. I, and most sane people, find that disturbing. Putting an agenda before a human life is how wars are fought and won. I find the idea of banning abortion even more disturbing and believe women in that situation should use any and every weapon at their disposal to fight the system. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695/260 "2010-01-14T14:43:41Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > “Overreproducing” suggests the numbers of copies is significant. “Reproducing” does not, hyphens notwithstanding. > > Personally, I don’t see what the big deal is if one couple produces three children. It wasn’t so long ago that they’d try to produce a lot more, with the understanding that three (if they were lucky) would survive to adulthood. _Societies_ can overreproduce, if their populations expand faster than their economies, but talking about individual familes in this manner is like blaming global warming on some guy who litters. Multiple the one individual family producing three children by 100 million and there is a problem. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-infanticide-and-abortion/523695.md?page=14)