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.
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.
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…?
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.
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.
Yes, we’ve already been linked to that article by ZPG Zealot. It shows no proof of causation at all. Here’s 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.
The guy appears to have a vested interest in convincing people that adoption is big evil scariness since he’s trying to sell books.
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.
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”.
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.”?
“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.
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.
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.
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.