You've made this into an issue of "abortion" vs issues that you cite as being associated with "over-population". I believe both can be dealt with at the same time.
This is what I would like you to expound upon.
I don't get why abortion is seen as the solution to the issues that you cite as arising from over-population.
Abortion is a partial preventive measure, there is no proper solution yet of over population.
The majority of which I believe are mistaken correlation, and certainly the issues you state have not been demonstrated as arising due to over-population. Many of those issues occur regardless of population. Normally, it is corrupt and poor governing of the people. Normally it is selfishness and greed.
I understand. My only question would be, would a rise in population have any affect on such issues?
And the expense of abortions, and the fact it is unsafe to women even in Western countries... why not even sterilization which is much safer and doesn't result in the taking of human life? Or are human corpses the only solution.
That is a good point.
Let me ask you, would you endorse China's one-child policy in India? Or even across the world? Morality aside, you've stated what you consider to be major issues. In one of Australia's ABC programs, Dan Savage who support population control said that he thinks abortion should be mandatory for about 30 years.
Morality aside, what is it you are logically endorsing here, and what are your own views?
Endorse? no, but I understand why they do it. Actually I am endorsing nothing, neither abortion nor anti-abortion. I wanted to get your views that is all. I personally think that an abortion should be performed only when there is no other way to save the mother. I normally think that people who don't want children should give them to people who don't have children. plenty of childless people in the world.
I have a feeling that you have taken me the wrong way, perhaps I have come across the wrong way. However, I think you may be just countering my points as if we were in a debate, which we are not. For example, you cite "Come on. I understand that the solution I presented of killing those who are poor and cannot effectively contribute to society is immoral. But it is a viable option to resolve the ills that you see as being correlated with overpopulation, no? Not everyone can go all moral, and certainly, those that need handouts and assistance are a drain on those who can take care of themselves. So what is wrong logically with the proposed solution?"
I think the above may be a fine way to debate a pro-choice, but effectively as far as I am concerned, you are preaching to the choir.
"Without the poor there is no one rich"? Did you seriously write that with a straight face. So let's keep the poor around so they can be exploited? Hey, now you also have an argument to increase population. More population = more labor force. More population = more rich. Drug addiction is rampant anyway, so is drinking, and crime and social order is everywhere... so it seems population control won't remove these issues then, eh?
The poor will always be around, that is a fact unless you have a utopia.
The thing is I can humor you with answers to what you are asking me. But that will just push it in the wrong light because you are probably mistaking my being devil's advocate to something like, we should kill people to reduce population, should be fine with me too if I somehow could endorse abortion on a mass scale (which I don't actually).
My main question is, overpopulation is a growing problem, the earth resources are getting depleted, major changes are needed if in the next 40 years this planet's population is going to be doubled. Abortion at the current rate prevents this population to grow at 1/6th of the rate. So while abortion is not the solution, it certainly is a very important factor. In fact there are people like Dan Savage who say that the population should be drastically controlled for the next 4 decades otherwise there will be more problems in the future. If we stop abortions, as you say, then the population rises even more. Going sterile is an option but should that be enforced or should it be a individual decision? If its the latter than we have a problem.
I can't find the reference but I was reading that in the next 400 years, the population of earth would be enough that it would be impossible to sustain on this planet, that means less food, less space. ultimately if by that time we have no means to colonize another planet, humanity will face a challenge of survival.
In countries like china, while enforced abortions show moral decay, without it, that country will just collapse in the long run. India and china make almost 1/3rd of the world's population in two countries. As I said, I realize that forced abortions are wrong, but I don't see what else they should do?
That is what I was asking you to explain since you do think they should stop abortions.
This should clear things up for you.