neo-x wrote:I find abortion wrong in the same way you find it wrong, that it is unlawful and immoral to take human life, which obviously the human fetus is. The point is not when life is conceived enough to be called a person, the point is what life is it? I have always find this a bit baffling, the human fetus is in nature, a human being...and some people have a hard time understanding that.
Thank you for answering and clarifying why you see abortion as wrong.
neo-x wrote:Having said that, I have seen women aborting children because they have too many already to feed, like really poor homeless, illiterate people (most who wouldn't know what birth control or abortion is), slaves etc. India, china, pakistan, are prime examples.
Ok, it is this sentence here I think is of utmost importance as it really personalizes matters.
This here is not an over-population issue, but rather a very real and sad issue caused by complex social issues. The woman being homeless and having too many to feed is ultimately a government caused social issue, since they're failing to look after all their citizens. Her aborting, or perhaps even infanticide, is not a form of her own population control. It is a moral dilemma caused by the de-valuing of human life, people's attitudes and ultimately a society governed by people at the top who don't really give a damn or are incompetent.
Take India, which still very much have their caste system that in a way justifies a higher caste ignoring lower ones such that Dalits aren't even really human. Or Pakistan which has religious, historical and sociocultural factors that might contribute to a devaluing of human life of those outside not ones own. To say that this is all caused due to over-population is too simple. No, it is caused due to attitudes, selfishness, greed and false beliefs and religions that have deceived a great deal.
When I reflect on Scripture, in particular those parts that say to let our light shine, a city on a hill cannot be hidden in darkness (Matthew 5:14-16). Or John 18:2 where Jesus says, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life." All this conjures up a picture of the world clouded in total darkness. Not just when it comes to sin, but when it comes to truth. And sadly, many are caught up in regardless of population.
So, re: the woman, I feel for her situation. The moral dilemma, particularly so if she was raped as sadly so often happens by those preying upon the weak, is does she risk all her children's lives or the one she is unable to herself feed? Now there are just hundreds or people who'd love to adopt. If the government put in place good adoption processes, even boxes where unwanted babies could be placed (as a man in South Korea is doing), than many children could be saved. That is at least a partial solution. Christian Churches has often helped in this manner.. but the lists of those wanting to adopt who may be unable to have children are very long in Western countries.
Idealistic? Perhaps since there will always be a veil over the world. Common sense? I think so. Should we try? We are called to be a light so most definitely. Over population the issue? I don't see how. Reducing population a solution? Unrealistic. Not to mention it is kind of a reverse idealistic view to think mass abortions can be provided, let alone everyone would just socially accept enforced abortions for 30 years (as some propose
) which devalues human life and freedoms that governments ought to uphold. And as such, I'd expect people would rightly protest, even violently so, to eventually rise up and topple their government. I mean isn't it to this massive scale that'd be needed, and isn't this unrealistic itself that 1) it could be affordably rolled out to such an extent and 2) there be no backlash?
So at the end, I'd much rather be idealistic over moral methods to help people and the government to fix issues, rather than be idealistic over immoral methods that de-value human life, human rights and would lead to further injustices simply to get the human population down which probably wouldn't fix matters anyway.
neo-x wrote:I am sure there is some truth to what you are saying e.g better governance but frankly, don't you think its so idealistic that its near impossible (perhaps not in the west)...like in countries as india and china and pakistan?
You keep assuming that over-population is the issue, but that's the whole point. I disagree that over-population is the issue, and therefore if you want to reduce the population (via birth control or abortion) then you're still going to be left with the same issues. Only you've compounded them with further devaluing of human life where birth control entailed an abortion.
neo-x wrote:There is one fact, that the population is rising. No matter how much space we currently have, it will eventually run out. That is the problem. Now I admit that abortion is not a solution to this, but it looks like a restraining factor.
As FL pointed out, Singapore is quite dense. I again disagree that reducing human life (via abortion or some other means) will restrain issues.
neo-x wrote:Now FL gave a nice comparison of population densities. Netherlands' population is 16.77 million, pakistan's population is 169 million. But what if Netherlands' population triples in the next 80 years within the same space they currently have...what then? Would a solution like birth control or abortion be viable then? Even if you have good governing, eventually will it fail? Sadly as much as I don't like abortion, in a situation like that, I don't see how mass birth control could be avoided. I think that is something I would like your thoughts upon, how you see this in the long run and in the big picture, given that abortion is morally wrong.
Again, assuming over-population is an issue.
To take your education example. With higher population, you should have a higher number of teachers and not just students. Something is wrong with the governing process if you're in a situation where there are 150 or so students in a class to one teacher. As such, decreasing population you'll still have 150 students in a classroom because it is the accepted norm. Change isn't going to happen because there are less people. Change will happen when your government decided to fix the issue and encourages hiring of more teachers. The government needs to invest its money more into its people -- which costs money -- bit an investment in education should see greater economic return to the country later on.
As for space? Julian Simon argues, "higher population density leads to more specialization and technological innovation, which in turn leads to a higher standard of living.... [human beings possess] "productive and inventive minds that help find creative solutions to man’s problems, thus leaving us better off over the long run". Now, the only barrier really, is that human life is not valued. Money is placed before the person and bad governing and economic policies largely cause the issues, not over population. And given this, reducing the population isn't going to fix matters at all. It may just exacerbate matters if done in a de-humanising and immoral way via negative eugenics or the like.
So "abortion" is not even a solution in my head to over-population, because I don't agree that over-population is the issue.
neo-x wrote:Moreover, abortion today in the west is a choice, in the east like china, its a forced policy...now do you think that sterilization (one way to avoid abortion at all as you mentioned) should be a choice or should it be forced?
If over-population is considered to be an issue, then I did propose sterilization as being less immoral than abortion. For sterilization can not result in the taking of a human life.
China given its one child policy which the government even enforces through forced abortions, it would be better forcing women/men to become sterile after one child. Obviously, it's a matter of which is the lesser of two evils. Why opt to go for a human corpse no matter how small, when you can just enforce contraceptive methods?