Legalize Abortion?

[hush232002]

That's very easy for you to say. Let's put ourselves in the victim's shoes..It could be your mother, your sister, your beloved. Would you still stand for that notion? i doubt it.

bitaw sad lisud kau na oi labi nang rape grabe kau na kasakit sa babae ug iya family. pero para nako luoy ang bata.cguro mapahimungtan ang bata sa kalagot sa inahan pero naa ra gihapoy mo pangga anang bataa oi.kaluya.an ra gihapon na sa ginoo ang bataa di na niya pasagdan. kaysa i pa abort i pa adopt nlang nang bata sure ko daghan kau mo dawat anang bataa.

[benchanx]

stop abortion.. let the child live and have it adopted by a childless couple if you dont want it. THOU SHALT NOT KILL..... remember that always....

[fratbaxxx]

legalize it!!!

[fratbaxxx]

dpends bya jd sa situation

[mannyamador]

Take note that the author of this is a liberal atheist.

Thursday 19 November 2009
Too many people? No, too many Malthusians

Since 200 AD, scaremongers have been describing human beings as ‘burdensome to the world’. They were wrong then, and they’re still wrong today.

Brendan O’Neill

Last week, on 12 November, spiked editor Brendan O’Neill debated Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, at the Wellcome Collection in London. To kick off spiked’s campaign against neo-Malthusianism and all forms of population control, O’Neill’s speech is published below.

In the year 200 AD, there were approximately 180million human beings on the planet Earth. And at that time a Christian philosopher called Tertullian argued: ‘We are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate for us… already nature does not sustain us.’ In other words, there were too many people for the planet to cope with and we were bleeding Mother Nature dry.

Well today, nearly 180million people live in the Eastern Half of the United States alone, in the 26 states that lie to the east of the Mississippi River. And far from facing hunger or destitution, many of these people – especially the 1.7million who live on the tiny island of Manhattan – have quite nice lives.

In the early 1800s, there were approximately 980million human beings on the planet Earth. One of them was the population scaremonger Thomas Malthus, who argued that if too many more people were born then ‘premature death would visit mankind’ – there would be food shortages, ‘epidemics, pestilence and plagues’, which would ‘sweep off tens of thousands [of people]’.

Well today, more than the entire world population of Malthus’s era now lives in China alone: there are 1.3billion human beings in China. And far from facing pestilence, plagues and starvation, the living standards of many Chinese have improved immensely over the past few decades. In 1949 life expectancy in China was 36.5 years; today it is 73.4 years. In 1978 China had 193 cities; today it has 655 cities. Over the past 30 years, China has raised a further 235million of its citizens out of absolute poverty – a remarkable historic leap forward for humanity.

In 1971 there were approximately 3.6billion human beings on the planet Earth. And at that time Paul Ehrlich, a patron of the Optimum Population Trust and author of a book called The Population Bomb, wrote about his ‘shocking’ visit to New Delhi in India. He said: ‘The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people. As we moved slowly through the mob, [we wondered] would we ever get to our hotel…?’

You’ll be pleased to know that Paul Ehrlich did make it to his hotel, through the mob of strange brown people shitting in the streets, and he later wrote in his book that as a result of overpopulation ‘hundreds of millions of people will starve to death’. He said India couldn’t possibly feed all its people and would experience some kind of collapse around 1980.

Well today, the world population is almost double what it was in 1971 – then it was 3.6billion, today it is 6.7billion – and while there are still social problems of poverty and malnutrition, hundreds of millions of people are not starving to death. As for India, she is doing quite well for herself. When Ehrlich was writing in 1971 there were 550million people in India; today there are 1.1billion. Yes there’s still poverty, but Indians are not starving; in fact India has made some important economic and social leaps forward and both life expectancy and living standards have improved in that vast nation.

What this potted history of population scaremongering ought to demonstrate is this: Malthusians are always wrong about everything.

The extent of their wrongness cannot be overstated. They have continually claimed that too many people will lead to increased hunger and destitution, yet the precise opposite has happened: world population has risen exponentially over the past 40 years and in the same period a great many people’s living standards and life expectancies have improved enormously. Even in the Third World there has been improvement – not nearly enough, of course, but improvement nonetheless. The lesson of history seems to be that more and more people are a good thing; more and more minds to think and hands to create have made new cities, more resources, more things, and seem to have given rise to healthier and wealthier societies.

Yet despite this evidence, the population scaremongers always draw exactly the opposite conclusion. Never has there been a political movement that has got things so spectacularly wrong time and time again yet which keeps on rearing its ugly head and saying: ‘This time it’s definitely going to happen! This time overpopulation is definitely going to cause social and political breakdown!’

There is a reason Malthusians are always wrong. It isn’t because they’re stupid… well, it might be a little bit because they’re stupid. But more fundamentally it is because, while they present their views as fact-based and scientific, in reality they are driven by a deeply held misanthropy that continually overlooks mankind’s ability to overcome problems and create new worlds.

The language used to justify population scaremongering has changed dramatically over the centuries. In the time of Malthus in the eighteenth century the main concern was with the fecundity of poor people. In the early twentieth century there was a racial and eugenic streak to population-reduction arguments. Today they have adopted environmentalist language to justify their demands for population reduction.

The fact that the presentational arguments can change so fundamentally over time, while the core belief in ‘too many people’ remains the same, really shows that this is a prejudicial outlook in search of a social or scientific justification; it is prejudice looking around for the latest trendy ideas to clothe itself in. And that is why the population scaremongers have been wrong over and over again: because behind the new language they adopt every few decades, they are really driven by narrow-mindedness, by disdain for mankind’s breakthroughs, by wilful ignorance of humanity’s ability to shape its surroundings and its future.

The first mistake Malthusians always make is to underestimate how society can change to embrace more and more people. They make the schoolboy scientific error of imagining that population is the only variable, the only thing that grows and grows, while everything else – including society, progress and discovery – stays roughly the same. That is why Malthus was wrong: he thought an overpopulated planet would run out of food because he could not foresee how the industrial revolution would massively transform society and have an historic impact on how we produce and transport food and many other things. Population is not the only variable – mankind’s vision, growth, his ability to rethink and tackle problems: they are variables, too.

The second mistake Malthusians always make is to imagine that resources are fixed, finite things that will inevitably run out. They don’t recognise that what we consider to be a resource changes over time, depending on how advanced society is. That is why the Christian Tertullian was wrong in 200 AD when he said ‘the resources are scarcely adequate for us’. Because back then pretty much the only resources were animals, plants and various metals. Tertullian could not imagine that, in the future, the oceans, oil and uranium would become resources, too. The nature of resources changes as society changes – what we consider to be a resource today might not be one in the future, because other, better, more easily-exploited resources will hopefully be discovered or created. Today’s cult of the finite, the discussion of the planet as a larder of scarce resources that human beings are using up, really speaks to finite thinking, to a lack of future-oriented imagination.

And the third and main mistake Malthusians always make is to underestimate the genius of mankind. Population scaremongering springs from a fundamentally warped view of human beings as simply consumers, simply the users of resources, simply the destroyers of things, as a kind of ‘plague’ on poor Mother Nature, when in fact human beings are first and foremost producers, the discoverers and creators of resources, the makers of things and the makers of history. Malthusians insultingly refer to newborn babies as ‘another mouth to feed’, when in the real world another human being is another mind that can think, another pair of hands that can work, and another person who has needs and desires that ought to be met.

We don’t merely use up finite resources; we create infinite ideas and possibilities. The 6.7billion people on Earth have not raped and destroyed this planet, we have humanised it. And given half a chance – given a serious commitment to overcoming poverty and to pursuing progress – we would humanise it even further. Just as you wouldn’t listen to that guy who wears a placard saying ‘The End of the World is Nigh’ if he walked up to you and said ‘this time it really is nigh’, so you shouldn’t listen to the always-wrong Malthusians. Instead, join spiked in opposing the population panickers.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked. His satire on the green movement - Can I Recycle My Granny and 39 Other Eco-Dilemmas - is published by Hodder & Stoughton. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).) The above is an edited extract of a speech given at the Wellcome Collection in London on Thursday 12 November.

[AmorsoloX]

tsk tsk tsk..

regarding the article that manny posted above.. i say it is totaly irresponsible and downright stupid.. (no offense to poster). i give a thumbs down to the author..

my arguments:
1.) if infinite resources are available then why is there poverty, if there is enough food in the world, why is their hunger and famine in africa?... the problem of overpopulation is not the number of people in a certain area.. rather it is the capacity of an area to support a population.. regarding sa phils.. we are economically incapable of developing our natural resources.. so it is more logical to control birthrate..

2.) the article looks at the problem from an idealistic point of view.. it doesnt give a realistic view on the the problem... ideally, the whole concept is good... but sad to say, it isnt practical.. hell, it is even so detached to whats really going on the streets n barangays..

so what are you really proposing? that we all share? n work for free so that those irrespnsible parents can support their children at our cost?...

i find your communistic tendencies quite disturbing..

P.S. kadungof mo anang bill nga dapat daw suportaan ang ato mga tigulang?.. i say that is the worse bullcrap ive heard.. it is stupid and will destroy us.. mas mo samot kapobre ta ana.. MASA mentality ra au.. di ta moasenso kay ma burden man ta.. naa na gani anak buhion. apil pa jud ginikanan? sh!T... unsa nlang mabilin para nato?

as responsible parents, dili ta mag-xpect or demand nga magpaabuhi sa ato children.. di ta dapat selfish.. as long as we give them good foundation. bahala na sila sa ila kinabuhi.. walay ginikanan tarong utok ganahan nga mag-antos iya anak..

id rather be euthanised than place a burden on my children!

[AmorsoloX]

stop abortion.. let the child live and have it adopted by a childless couple if you dont want it. THOU SHALT NOT KILL..... remember that always....

what if walay childless couple? what if walay willing?

hehehe. saon ra storyahon nuh?.....

aw. pwede man ninu ibilin sa kalsada...

but for me, abandoning your children to a life of hell is worse than killing it..

[ju-Luis]

legalize... the less the merrier

[emow]

abortion is like murder....only, the victim is not yet born...and will never be... you should be "lucky"/ thankful to be alive... for me, each life should be afforded the right to experience this world....don't decide for its death....if you should decide so, then your mother ought to have aborted you...

[vipvip68]

Any legal expert here care to define unsay Abortion with respect to the rule of law?

The constitution equally protects the life of the mother and the unborn but according to my friend who is a lawyer, there are no enabling laws and specific law with respect to abortion.

Sa Catholic church, life starts at the moment of conception... I'm curious if there are any differences between church and the state's definition.