View Single Post
Old May 20th, 2013 (12:03 PM). Edited May 20th, 2013 by Belldandy.
Belldandy's Avatar
Ice-Type Fanatic
Crystal Tier
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Nature: Timid
Posts: 4,000
Essentially, from the statistics on that post, it is clear that the majority of these women are young, single, and indigent, not yet establishing themselves in careers or otherwise. Thus, having a child would likely inhibit the woman from going to college or sustaining long-term employment, and then, we either supplement the costs of childcare through social welfare funding (which increases tax burdens or inflation) or we simply do not assist the woman and child; this would incite riot and violent political dissidence.
And I think this is a sound argument for allowing abortions to occur. There is no societal gain if people just reap the benefits of welfare, etc. It would deter society not to allow a woman planning to be a doctor or a working professional (and who has the mindset, ambition and potential to become such a professional) simply because she or her partner messed up and she got pregnant.

For society, this is a good thing, and it makes sense, but even if it does make sense logically (as to promote more working professionals, say, and less taxes going towards avoidable situations / causes), it's unfortunate for the foetus in the sole case where the mother was pregnant due to irresponsible sex and now said foetus is a "burden" to her even though in a way, she chose that route for herself. Now, it becomes grey if the father was irresponsible and it's now screwing up the woman's life because he put the condom on (or something similar), but again there are ways for women to prevent it without relying on the man for "protection" all the time via condoms. That's foolish.

Now, something against abortion may be the demographic transition model. Canadian society has steadily become "less babies" and "more old people," making the possibility of higher taxes per Canadian a valid idea for the future (as to cover the taxes lost by an abundance of non-tax paying (retired) seniors). Putting limits and "conditions" on abortions would allow our society to go from the curious and new "Stage Five" (an unknown, new stage where the population is not replenishing itself and there are tons of seniors - think upsidedown pine tree) back to the healthy mid-Stage Two and Stage Three (my idea of growing population, but not expontentially as seen typically in Stage Two).

Conditions and limits would allow for Canada (and the States, probably, given we share similar histories) to jump from decreasing / stable population, pending year of data, to slowly increasing, which IMO I think is healthy. It would definitely relieve the impending tax burden when war veterans and "baby boom" kids (and the subsequent mini "baby boom") all retire. Who will replace that tax revenue? The much lower working adult population that's left. That's more tax per person, and it'll definitely make life harder (and reduce maybe the frequency or availability of social services i.e. road work, hospitals, schools, "free" systems like health care) for the average individual.

Between 2-3 will allow us to at least replenish that population, but the obscure Stage Five is awful. Stage Four is dubbed "contracting" = decreasing population... Stage Five is worse than that due to a sudden jump in a few decades of lots of babies to not even two babies per person.

1.59 children born/woman (2012 est.)

That's not even high enough to replace the mother and father. If some cases of abortions were restricted by limits and conditions (case-by-case) we might be able to change that at least.

Then there's the idea of: do we even need more humans? 7,000,000,000 is enough, too.

So much to think about and consider.

Maybe I'll do a T-Chart later, but I think I've made the conditions (from my own standpoint) known above i.e. abortion is OK in cases of rape, financial instability (can't support kid), <18... Among the many others.
Reply With Quote