I mean, I'm all for killing babies, but then again giving women a choice isn't that swell.

(Rewrote my thing like 50million times before posting)

Short to the point version
Private matter and should be chosen by the girl if she wants an abortion or not and no one else can make the choice for her.

Longer version
Abortion like several things people try forcing their religion beliefs onto others mainly Christianity or some form of it to get them to not have an abortion. Like most things I believe religious things should just stay in the church and nowhere else but alas that is impossible this day in age especially where you live. Like where I live it is a small town that is very religious and you are basically shunned if you don't believe in god.(Luckily no one knows I am not religious but I don't go to church regardless) If you tried to get an abortion you would most likely be shunned from the town being forced to move to avoid all the problems.

My only exception sorta is if the kid is under 18 no matter what she should have an abortion even if she has parents that could support the kid.
Lastly if people were like me although not a female I would give the fetus to science to help improve stem cell research.

Another short to sum up of longer version
Make it a private choice don't bring in religion to it.

No evidence of mine to support because just my opinion on it. Give the choice of abortion and don't restrict access to it.

Maguc : Choice to kill isn't respectable or civilized.

Oldschool777 : I didn't say that moving city folks in to towns would be immediate... That would be a process, but a doable one. Moving factories and other large employment opportunities outside of cities would attract population, meaning that the cities would naturally decrease in population. My point with that, is that it's not overpopulation that is the issue, it's concentration. Populations are clumped together in concentrations instead of spread out. We could easily fit the entire world inside of the state of Texas. All 7+ billion people. 

I don't see how we can't save everyone being an argument to kill babies inside the womb. If I got a gunshot, that doesn't mean I'll die. Maybe you couldn't save me. That's alright, at least I was given the chance at life that thousands haven't due to abortion. Life is the most precious thing we have. Why should we take it? Especially from those that have no choice either way? We are supposed to protect the weak, not kill them. They have no defense, and we manipulate that, calling it whatever we desire. Chances are, with how many children we have aborted, we could have had at least one that would have made an important scientific discovery. Maybe even, the next Isaac Newton, Galileo, Einstein, etc. The resources that you hold so precious could have been preserved, cause the potential of discovery was lost when we aborted that child. Isn't it worth the chance? 

So, in essence, we should resort to mercy killing? Also, your talking about chance of them having defects. We don't know about most defects until they are already born, few defects show up early enough for abortion to be legal. That has nothing to do with it. Also, why is it different if I go and kill baby animals... Crows are overpopulated, lets go and destroy the eggs. It's a leap of logic, I know, but the same principles apply. They are the same.

Abortions are only legal up to the sixth month of pregnancy. This of course is by the legal system. There is no real reason I can see why that specific time frame as a reason. Just saying that we have no strict definition legally. That in and of it's self makes the entire process a vague mess... That's why I believe it's easy to have abortions, if we had a strictly legal definition that would couple with science, I'm sure many abortions wouldn't have been done.

Just gonna get this out of the way. I'm entirely Pro-choice.

Accidental double, removed at request. Huh... Didn't really shrink it much, did it?

darthyoda :

1. If you did fit all of the world into an area the size of Texas,you better pray your neighbors have very good hygiene and manners. You could not stretch out your arms without hitting someone. There is a reason big cities are big. They had natural features that made them ideal. Most of the world's largest cities were near a large waterway or body of water. It would take almost the will of God to make smaller places rival that of already existing cities. And some places would outright refuse. (Case in point: Where I live,the town was considered for a major manufacturing giant to move in. The official reason they refused was the waterways were too shallow. The town refused because they did not want to destroy its small town feel. And for most of the 20th Century,we lost out on growth and prosperity. Now,in retrospect,it may have been a good thing,since the original company was downsizing and then was forced to abandon the town.)

2. Life is precious,but we have to be realistic. There are too many people and we could spare people heartache and money,as cold hearted as that might be if we allowed abortion up until the 9th month. Now,a lot of abnormalities can be detected in the womb and if the call to abort the fetus was made,we could save the family time and money and heartache by sparing them the hell their lives would become. Now that line of thought,as interesting as that might be,is a long shot at best. The reality is: That kid would be forced to live when they cannot care for themselves,is robbed of a normal life because people force them to exist. Now,let us think about that for a minute: The supply of anything medical is finite. Would it not be better to terminate something that was going to be severely compromised,and thus spare those resources for those of us that will need it much later in life? Just something to think about.

3. Mercy killing should be allowed. I personally think  Dr. Jack Kevorkian,(the doctor that invented the suicide machine),was trying to help people. Would you want to exist,against your will,knowing that you will be forced to live with unbearable pain,a prisoner inside your own body? Crows might be a nuisance species,but they fulfill a role in life. Now,it would make more sense to kill disease carrying insects en masse,because of the threats of disease.

4. Now if we did allow abortion up till the ninth month,we would spare the world a ton of grief. Now hear me out,I do not want to make it easy for people to get it. I do not want to make it easy for people to say,"I made a mistake,let me kill the fetus." But if we did allow it,would we not save on the resources that would have been needed for that life and thus extend our lifespan? I know,it seems cold hearted,but damnit,we must think long term. As the Vulcans would say:"Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the one?" I know,it seems silly to quote a fictional race,but consider this,any progress that was ever made,required sacrifice.

Now,maybe I am a cold hearted bastard,and I can live with that,but sometimes we must think of the whole instead of the few. Maybe you and I will just have to agree to disagree. This next bit is off topic,but bear with me here. I voted for Trump,does that make me a bad person? Or does that mean,I voted for the person I think is better suited for the job? Sometimes,we must put our emotions aside,and just use logic. That is never easy to do.

Oldschool777 : You do get the point of me saying that we could fit the population in Texas, right?It's a way to show how we don't have a space issue. We are no where near the point of concern with food, water, air, or just resources in general. We have millions of years or resources right now. YEARS upon YEARS of resources, many of which are renewable. My point is that there is no problem with pure population issues. As far as cities becoming cramped, that was due to factories and the industrial revolution. Until then, the majority of populations were in the country, small towns... you know, farmers. But, once innovation made it easier to harvest, fewer farmers were needed, and cities became the new opportunities. And, that has been true to this day. 

Here's a link about population that would fit in a space: http://snapzu.com/geoleo/how-much-room-the-entire-world-population-would-take-up-if-standing-side-by-side

I know many disabled people, none of them wish to die, or want to stop being with family. The parents don't wish for the child to stop living, it's not a burden to them. The child is a gift! Disabled has nothing to do with contributions able to achieve. It may be emotion, but many things are done because of passion. Passion is a key in advancement. Passion has been used to help inventions come. People have passions and they use it to "obsess" about a certain thing. Emotions are what make us different from animals. It's what makes language, music, art. Logic and Emotions are needed to balance each other out, with pure logic, we lose compassion, and with that, we lose our humanity. Without humanity, we are no different from any animal out there, mindless beasts just wandering around trying to survive. It's a little off topic but it all leads to the decision, who am I decide if he (a baby) should live or not. I shouldn't have any choice to decide whether another human wants to live. I can encourage others to make the best of their circumstances, but I should have no choice in the life of others. 

While I don't really want to talk about Mercy killing, it shouldn't have been my or a doctor's choice. If something like that would ever be a thing, it should be left to the person dying, not anyone else, and in the case of abortion, I am making the choice to end another's life. That is why abortion, in my opinion shouldn't be an option, again, it's moral, not emotional. (It uses logic, yes. But, it also uses a sense of right and wrong, and that goes beyond the confines of logic.)

As you said, we can agree to disagree. I don't think either of us will change our opinion, and that's fine honestly. It's nice to have a friendly debate though.

darthyoda : I get your point. But we are getting to the point when we need to figure out new resources and as m0ssb3rg935 and I have said,any new resource would need to be accessible and be able to use existing infrastructure. If it does not mesh perfectly and does not work seamlessly,it would be impractical. You will always need factories or industry for jobs,friend for jobs and taxes,just as you will need farms for food.

I never said that a child,disabled or not was not a gift. Maybe I seem harsh. Only because the world is a terrible place to the best of us. Imagine that multiplied by a large factor and you will see that it will be far harsher to those of us that are disabled. Things that you and I take for granted,like driving to McDonald's for a bite to eat,would be harder or almost impossible for those of us that are disabled. Passion can be a double edged sword. It can drive us to be our best,but can bring out the absolute worst as well. Nothing is 100% safe or good,there is always a dark side. Take for instance piano or picture wire. In decent hands,it is used to beautify our homes,make minor repairs,or arts and crafts. In devious hands,it can be used to maim or kill. It could be fashioned into a booby trap. It could be melted down and poured into open wounds. (Okay that last one is a little much,but you get the idea.) Sometimes,we must make a choice that we would rather not have to make.

I would agree with you,except in a few cases. What if the person that is terminal,is not in the right mind to make that decision? Or they cannot make that decision? Sometimes,you have to leave it to loved ones to decide. I know,if I was in a horrible wreck,and the doctor said that I would have the IQ of a splattered vegetable for the rest of my life,I would hope my family would end my life. Abortion should always be an option,but an option that is of last resort. I do not want abortion to be used as an excuse for stupidity or risky behavior. I want it to be used to save the life of the mother or if the baby is going to be born with some sort of defect or something along those lines.

I know what it says in the Hippocratic Oath. That a physician will not perform an abortion. But at the same time,it does become a medical necessity and I would rather see a trained physician do it than someone with a f--king coat hanger.

We will agree to disagree,neither of us are completely right or wrong,we have different views. It is nice that we have a debate and that neither of us is lashing out in personal attacks. There will never be an easy answer,nor an answer that everyone agrees with. (Kind of like the last election.)

Oldschool777 :
darthyoda :

Perhaps these two links below would be helpful.

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/

https://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city/

Txgangsta,let me ask you something. Would you really want population to keep rising?  And if we all lived in one place,you better pray the guys next to you have good hygiene and manners.

Oldschool777 : You do get the point of that mathematical statistic, right? It has nothing to do with actually moving everyone into any of those areas, it's just to show that there is not population problem. Also, populations are only partially rising... Think about how many people don't have kids, how many don't want to, how many can't, and then add the death tolls into it. On the grander scale, we are only increasing at a slight rate. It's not like we are multiplying by, excuse the phrase Catholic Rabbits. The study merely shows that we could easily have enough room for all 7 billion to live on one continent, and there is more than plenty space in the world for everyone. We don't have to start searching for ways to decrease population, cause we can't handle that many... Those thoughts come from liberal people, who have never lived in the country, or those who have no care for human life. There are many who are on a self-righteous crusade about saving the earth from huge populations, that would gladly kill off many people, but would never consider themselves low enough for such a need. Others are expendable, while they aren't, not a great philosophy of life. 

Please, look in between the lines, neither he nor I have suggested such a move. No one said, let's move the entire population of the world into Texas. It was stated that it's possible, by means of pure statistics, and cold math, yes it is possible. Should we ever do that? No, never... I wouldn't want to live like NYC. No thanks... Not really looking for an apartment, the size of a large truck. Please, see things as what they are, arguments against the ideas of overpopulation.  

Txgangsta : Thanks for the links! It's slightly different from the older statistics I've seem, but still about the same idea.

Sorry, the entire post was off topic. But I needed to address some things. 

darthyoda : I know neither of you suggested a move like that. I was just pointing something out in humor. -1 for failed humor. Still,we have a lot of people on this planet. And yes,in some places the population is going down,I am saying overall. Liberal? Me? Hardly... I am not saying act like a conqueror and wipe out humanity,I am just saying we have more people than we know what to do with.

Oldschool777 :
Txgangsta :

As the links txgangsta provided explains overpopulation in terms of the population rising uncontrollably is a myth. I know because I used to adhere to the idea as well before taking some more in depth geography classes. We're actually approaching a peak in the total world population after which it will start to sink and eventually stabilize. The problem is not overpopulation but rather a combination of unsustainable practices such as pollution levels, the heavy reliance on finite energy sources as well as the degradation of soils and land in general. Which is all in large part enabled indirectly by the idea of consumerism we see in developed countries.

My two bits...

If a woman wants to have an abortion, she is either unable or unwilling to properly provide for the child.  Refusing to let her abort will not magically produce the resources required.  Nor does it seem likely to magically reverse a disinclination toward parenthood.

Oldschool777 : Yes, I want the population to keep rising. Yes, I will gladly pay people to be hygienic in densely populated areas. These things aren't problems, they're developments.

Zlinqx : Yes, without innovation, a rising population and an increase demand for energy will end up causing major problems. I do trust people enough to innovate a bit before that happens, or at least expand the infrastructure to compensate (and not kill off the planet).

Noyb42 : I would gladly subsidize birth control, pregnancy care, and child care for moms before supporting abortion.

I would definitely say that abortion is still going to be a personal choice. You cannot tell how better the child would be if he lived or died and if there are any consequences that you would regret from doing either. I believe it's up to the person to decide how they want their life to be after that abortion if they want to keep the child and either live with it or put it up for adoption which isn't always the better of choices or simply abort it and forget about it or feel guilty for doing so for the longest period of time.

In my opinion, I accept the idea of some religious beliefs where abortion still seems close to murder and people shouldn't do so. However, they still allow abortion if it is still a piece of flesh without life (still can't be considered a creature) which was said to be at least 120 days. Another case is risk which would harm the mother of that child and I don't think anyone would want to take a life to save another except the mother herself.

All that being said, It's still a difficult decision to decide what's best for someone and if someone chooses to have an abortion then maybe that was the best choice for them to have.

Lovelesscatxxo : If it wasn't aborted, it would at least be alive...

Txgangsta : That only brings to another problem, which is suicide. There are a lot of causes for suicide and one of them is abortion either by background or physical appearance like a deformity. Sure you gave that child a life, but you didn't give him the things he needed to live like a family or a real home. You cannot say that every life can be saved by not aborting it because not everything can be solved by good merits.

One extra fact, did you know that most crimes come from difficulties in life? Who knows, maybe someone will shoot you because he was trying to rob a convenient store and you happened to be there when he panicked.

But I still go back to my original opinion. There's never a correct answer because you never know what's going to happen if you save that life or not.

Txgangsta : Would you also pay to live in a refrigerator-sized home? That is what you would get. Please know it is a joke,I see what you are saying.

Look,I know there is no right answer. We all have our ideas,some of us just want the world to stop reproducing like crazy. Some of us want people to keep going. Some of us will not use cheap and commonly available contraceptives and we would be stuck footing the bill for raising the kid.

I support abortion. Does that make me a monster? Or does that make me a realist? We could go back and forth and none of us would gain a solid advantage or answer. It should be the choice of the woman to do it,and the states should at the very least give her the option.

There is nothing wrong with abortion. It does not make that woman a monster. I am not saying let's it do it,assembly-line style,let us have some decent limits and terms. But I would rather a trained doctor do it than some jack@$$ with a coat hanger or the old donkey punch method to kill the fetus.

Lovelesscatxxo : Suicide is a very complex and diverse issue. You can have the world at your fingertips,want for nothing,and still want to end your own life. You could have nothing but the clothes on your back,and you will still strive for life. It is not an easy subject to quantify and predict.