Why won't any pro-lifers ANSWER this question? (Page 1)

I have answered that question and just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it is an acceptable answer. If you are so worried about population and the effect on the economy, why not put yourself where your mouth is? Why condemn others to death for your convictions?

All right, if you've answered my question before, then please forgive me and repeat yourself. I do not remember you response and would really like to consider your theories.

You're no better than I am in that you're willing to condemn others to various degrees of suffering (instead of quick death) for your convictions. Both of us could walk away and leave the world alone, minding our own business and taking care of our families, but we don't because we believe in our cause. Somewhere in the whole mess is probably a solution everyone will be willing to work on.

I'd really like to hear a solution to this - one that will take into account the current public apathy for unwanted children. Maybe I'm being dense, but I genuinely don't see how the situation could be improved by forcing society to add - what was it....4000 a day? - MORE children to the equation.

I think that my challenge has proven too great for the pro-life camp to tackle. Sure, there are many theoretical solutions, but none of them can stand up to the fact that we ALREADY have more children in this world than adults who want to care for them. Advocating ANYTHING that will increase this anomaly seems viciously short-sighted to me. To me, the philosophy sounds remarkably like, "It doesn't matter how many children might suffer neglect and deprivation - so long as every single one of them is forced to crowd their asses on an overpopulated planet, people will see that I was RIGHT about my beliefs and God is on MY SIDE. See? Behold my mighty compassion and moral superiority to all those murderers who thought more of society's needs than an embryo's right to be born!"

Most prolifers have the mentality of locusts. They won't see a problem with overpopulation until their children are choking on air-born toxins and wasting away from lack of food.

In America we throw away TONS of food daily. It is a crime how much we throw away and we consume way more than is required.
I have said again and again, if you advocate the death of other humans for economic, population, environment concerns, why not do for yourself what you advocate for others? It's called "putting your money where your mouth is" in my neck of the woods. There is a way but it is harder than just deciding to kill off the weaker of our society. It actually would take sharing. unselfishness and cooperation, something I don't see any of you willing to do. Easier "getting rid" of your offspring through abortion, I guess.

Anyone who produces more than two children needs to be sterilised. Just my opinion.

And you are willing to kill thousands of human lives because of the possibility they could suffer. Do you wear a black robe and carry a scythe? 100% mortality for the possiblity of the suffering of a few?

Well instead of aborting unborn humans who still have much potential, why not conveniently and compassionatly end the lives of everyone, say, 65 and above. After all, they consume and no longer are productive, in most cases AND are a drain of medical resourses and money. They may end of getting confused or having a debilitative condition due to age that may cause them discomfort. I don't think I would like to live like many of them do so my vote is to end their lives for their own good and the good of the rest of us.

Aborting unwantd fetuses alone isn't going to be enough to stop overpopulation. We really need a way of stopping people "wanting" so many babies, who grow up to reproduce more and more. The trouble is the obsession with reproduction, which is also characteristic of the anti-choice nobbos.It is two sides of the same coin -- stop women aborting/babies are wonderful and must make more! Lunacy. Absolute head-in-the-sand-reality-denying lunacy.

Here's a good link that relates to what I just said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienz a/nadia-suleman-the-duggars_b_165890.html

"Clown car vagina" made me fall out of my chair!

I think it's because the average female tends to have a seemingly innate desire to produce at least one child, those who don't are considered abnormal, in denial or bitter over being female.

At least, that's been my experience as a childfree woman.

No, I don't hate kids; I simply don't like long-term exposure to them and have no desire for any of my own. It's like accusing someone of hating cats just because they don't want any.

No, I don't hate being female. I sometimes hate certain parts of my femininity because they give me so much grief, but I have no desire to be male.

No, the desire to remain childfree does not mean I am immune from the desire to share sexual intimacy with my husband. Just because I refuse to welcome pregnancy each time we sleep together doesn't mean I hate my husband, myself, children or those who have them.

I can tell people what I DO hate though, and that's people who refuse to believe any woman would want to limit the number of children they have or outright not have any. I hate people who think the most important function a woman can fulfill is childbirth.

In short, I hate people that try to push their own reproductive and sexual preferences on everybody else because they believe if it's right for them, it must be right for everyone.

If every fertile woman on the planet wanted children or subscribed to the more radical idea that their worth depends on how many offspring they have, there wouldn't be a tree left in sight and everybody would be living like roaches in garbage.

It's just as natural to NOT want children as it is to want them. It's called balance, and I for one am tired of certain kinds of people (I'm sure I don't need to explain which kinds I mean) treating women (and men) who do NOT wish to reproduce like abominations.

I would also like to point out to the birth peddlers that every child I and my fellow childfree people choose not to have leaves another slot open for THEIR children to have better opportunities. You'd think they'd appreciate their children having less competition in the future when they apply for college or work, or when they search for real estate. I don't think these ingrates need to be whining about our choice to decline reproduction.

Quality, not quantity.

Let's just be clear on one thing: there is, logically, absolutely no biological basis for an "urge to reproduce" in the sense of "wanting a baby". How can I assert this? Because there doesn't need to be any such urge in order for procreation to take place -- it is entirely superfluous. All you need is a desire for SEX. Until very recently, the desire for sex led, almost inevitably, to the creation of babies and hence the survival of the species. Do you think when a cat goes into season what she is thinking is "I'd really like a litter of kittens!" Nope -- she is hankering after that big old tom cat.

"Wanting children" is completely cultural and social, and perhaps psychological. And much of that was generated in order to control people's sexuality, particularly women's. If your only value in your society is your ability to produce heirs, then you want children. If your society has also determined that "sex is bad and a duty" then one way to get you to have sex is to make your role in life to raise children.

This isn't to deny that "wanting children" is a genuine feeling for some people -- but it is not a biological urge.