Which issue is it that we’re having to address? I’m getting lost.
You’re the one who suggested it, and called it an “answer.” Are you changing your mind now? Why would you oppose it if pop growth is so alarming to you?
Your honor, I rest my case.
Have you READ the OP???
Rampant overpopulation growth. That’s over the next 10-20 years. In the meantime we have social problems that stem from too many births. Poverty, absentee fathers, lack of access to good education, lack of access to healthcare, the list goes on.
That was a change in attitudes, not a method. And I suspect that a lot of it was undone by AIDS.
History doesn’t work that way.
“Unfortunately,” forced abortions are monstrous. And who died and made you the chief of population control, I might ask?
This is a tough problem. I’m going to suggest you square the circle first, as a warmup.
Which numbers?
“Unnatural” is a meaningless term, but people have been using contraception and having abortions for ages.
It’s going to get there anyway.
What the hell are you talking about? Where do you think rabbits came from, a laboratory? People having sex indiscriminately would be the most natural thing in the world just by definition. What’s not “natural,” if we have to waste our time arguing about that, is the idea of controlling our own numbers. That’s a fairly new idea, which is not to say it’s a bad one.
Population numbers don’t work that way.
You are dramatically, drastically wrong, and should do some research on the subject. I haven’t read up on this in a while, but when last I checked, the global population was expected to peak at maybe 10 billion to 12 billion in the middle of this century.
Stop and read that again and you’ll notice I said peak. After that it’s expected to go down.
If you want to do anything about population growth, sex education is a good place to start, and in the longer term I would say you need to fight poverty. Greater prosperity is just about always associated with declining population growth.
It depends on how many resources the people consume.
What are you looking for here? A magic pill that will prevent all pregnancies with 100% effectiveness?
Here’s how it works. You can tell people not to have sex. Some of them will listen and obey - they won’t have unwanted pregancies. Many, perhaps most, won’t listen though.
Of those that won’t abstain from sex, you can tell them to get neutered. Some will listen and obey - they will have very few unwanted pregnancies. (I hear it’s not totally guaranteed, though.) Most people won’t do it though, especially if they have to pay for it themselves.
Of those that won’t abstain or get sterilized, you can tell them to use various kinds of contraception. Many will listen and obey - they will have fewer unwanted pregnancies. Sometimes the protections will fail and let a pregnancy through. And sometimes they won’t use protection. And some of them won’t use it at all.
Of any of the pregnancies that get past all of the above measures, you can tell them to get abortions. Some will listen and obey - their unwanted pregnancies will cease. Some won’t listen though, and some others won’t if they have to pay for it themselves.
For people who refuse abortions, I would reclassify the pregnancy as a wanted (though accidental) abortion, and stop worrying about it. What, you don’t like that? The only way around it is to force a prevention or correction method on them. If you don’t like that, then too bad.
What?!
The beauty of the modern world is that sex need not have anything to do with pregnancy if you don’t want it to. That is, assuming you have financial means, which is why I support government funded abortions on demand for those who cannot afford them. Because if you can’t afford an abortion, God help you with a child.
So what? You’ve pretty much said that zero unplanned pregnancies is unrealistic. You’ve admitted that we should get the rate of unplanned pregnancies “as low as possible.” So what if 100,000 unplanned pregnancies per year is the lowest rate possible?
According to the Internets, there are 4 million live births every year in the US. 100,000 unplanned ones are a blip on the radar. Seriously, you’re fixated on this as though the number of PLANNED pregnancies for parents who aren’t ready for them isn’t a much bigger problem.
Weeeeellll, it depends on how bad things get, but no, I was being facetious. If things got desperate, forced sterilization would be the mosty obvious and practical strategy to take, if easily available abortions, morning-after pills and easy access to contraception is no longer enough.
Abstinence is not a possibility.
Who should be allowed not to abstinent, by the way? Married people? Married people can over-reproduce as easily as anyone. They even get fertility treatments to have huge litters of babies all at once.
I think you’re getting yourself mixed up. I’m the one who first brought forced abortions into the discussion, not that I support it as a real solution.
Post #49.
Sounded like it to me:
You called it one of two answers.
Was posted by someone other than me. So why did you say that I brought it up?
“Respect” for sex? Looking at sex as evil and filthy isn’t respect.
The former is both evil and would create a guerrilla or outright civil war. And the latter is impossible short of a totalitarian state.
So are all sorts of other good things. I wear unnatural glasses that let me see much better than without them; screw nature.
And we aren’t; we aren’t nearly as fertile. And having sex for fun, which you want to stop is not remotely what rabbits do. We ARE built to have sex whenever we have the opportunity, whether you like it or not. We have a constant sex drive, not tied to a fertile season; we have low fertility; and we have no built-in means of telling when women are fertile. We aren’t like, say, cattle who have sex when the female is fertile and something like an 85% chance of impregnation with one sex act.
I say we do what we do whenever there’s a social phenomenon that’s overshadowed by a bigger and more obvious one: ignore it. Without picking its battles, humanity could not survive.
Sorry. For some reason I took you for SmartAlx in that first post.
Ouch.
In any case, it’s been a while since I’ve seen someone really bent on the overpopulation angle. It seems lately I hear more about the slowing down of birth rates.
I think I can quite safely say that nature intends for quite a goodly plurality of her creatures to suffer pointlessly and die before their time. Sorta puts a million extra babies in a fairly well-to-do society into perspective.
Exactly my point. This ATTITUDE that sex doesn’t equal procreation is the problem. My point in the OP is that your thinking is completely wrong. The only viable solution is abortion. This change in attitude towards sex is the sole reason abortion has been accepted by society. And yes I do mean only. I truly believe that if people as a whole didn’t change their attitudes towards sex they would think the idea of forcefully removing a fetus from the womb was monstrous.
Why not? Is it because abstinence only programs don’t work? They don’t work because we haven’t changed our attitudes towards sex. The problem with many overweight people isn’t that they eat too much or that they don’t exercise. It’s their lifestyle. It’s their attitude. Without changing someone’s attitude you will never get them to lose weight. Same thing here. Without a change in attitude, people will continue to find ways to get pregnant.
If married people are the only people having sex, we’ve immediately knocked out half of the population from the problem. And married people are more likely to get sterilized after they have had a couple of kids.