Throughout my life I have never actually met someone who told me that they would not mind killing people to abate the "problem" of a rising world population. I finally met someone with that very belief in 2003: my first year in college. I met this person while riding the city bus. On this bus, I ran into an old classmate from elementary school and, somehow, we started discussing abortion. At first he claimed that the unborn were not actually human beings. After some debate he conceded that therapeutic abortion was indeed the killing of innocent unborn human beings (and even agreed to call them "babies"). I asked him one of the questions I asked him earlier in the debate: "do you agree with legalized therapeutic abortion?" He answered "yes" with an unwavering tone. He elaborated further by saying "I don't care if abortion kills children, it is needed to decrease our world population." I was shocked to hear this coming from his mouth! He agreed that abortion was the direct and malicious killing of unborn children yet it was justifiable to him by some unproven theory that we were going to overpopulate the world!? I bid him farewell. I really did not want to see him ever again. Come to think of it, I never did.
Today I was looking over some comments to a news story about abortion protesters displaying abortion photos when I cam across this very same argument:
I'm all about choice. If a woman decides not to have a child by all means kill it. The world is over populated as it is, and it would be one less mouth to feed. (1)
Many who state this belief also understand the biologic and scientific proven fact that human life starts at conception. It cannot be denied that these people consider the theoretical problem of overpopulation to be more important than human life itself. This is also very telling of many of those who consider themselves pro-choice. Many pro-choice people will certainly agree with pro-lifers that human life starts at conception. For them, the only reason to remain pro-choice is because of the supposed benefits of killing an unwanted child: continuing an education, having extra free time, the ability to go to parties, the ability to save and use more money for themselves, saving the environment, reducing world population, or one or more of any many other asinine reasons.
The biggest difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers? That's simple. Pro-lifers wish to defend unborn children while pro-choicers wish to destroy unborn children to their own personal gain.
I wonder if these pro-choicers would be willing to help further reduce the population by actively killing the "unfit" or "unwanted" born people in our society?
Keep in mind that I am referring to the ideological debate of those who SHOULD know better. I am NOT referring to women who have aborted yet have received little to no information regarding the facts of the unborn, offered little in the way of support in allowing the unborn child to live, and lead to believe the numerous lies that pro-choicers espouse.
1. abc15.com (of Phoenix, Arizona), "Billboard shows aborted fetuses outside Phoenix high school: Comment from ckaye02" published on October 13, 2009. URL LINK
1 comment:
Interesting post. I find the overpopulation argument for abortion to be one of the least reasonable. I think it's obvious to anyone with a brain or a heart that the answer to overpopulation is not to get rid of humans but change the way the resources we do have are distributed. We actually have enough resources; we just aren't distributing them evenly. People who argue for abortion in the name of overpopulation, like you said, would rather se babies killed than be inconvenienced.
Society is a structure created by humans for the benefit of humans. Killing people to benefit society is like cutting off your feet so your pants will fit. It's completely backwards, which is why it's gained a foothold in today's culture.
Post a Comment