Your argument would hold more weight, gbaji, if we were talking about anything other than sex and procreation. Unfortunately, the Malthusian argument also holds for human beings: we will continue to grow in population so long as our resources continue to allow us to survive.
Yup. And interestingly enough, availability of abortion doesn't tend to decrease that growth much at all. People tend to have the same number of kids. Availability of abortion tends to statistically just affect the number of abortions people have along the way. It's a pretty circular thing when looked at across the whole society.
The level of sexual education necessary to arm men and women with the information needed to make correct choices regarding their reproductive health is continually undermined by the very same forces that claim to hate abortion.
You're putting a lot of your own assumption on what the "correct choices" are. The same folks who oppose abortion would tend to argue that teaching people to not have sex casually with people they would not be willing to marry and live the rest of their lives with in the event of a pregnancy is the "correct choice". They would argue that the absence of easy outs for making the wrong choices, will make them more likely to make the really correct choices in life.
Your argument appears to be that the correct choice is to use birth control and take advantage of abortion when you're involved in a sexual relationship with someone you have no intention of forming a family with.
The counter argument is that the really correct choice is to not waste so much of your life being involved in sexual relationships with people you have no intention of forming a family with. There's a pretty good set of arguments that the latter is really a much better "correct choice", especially in the context of life stability, poverty rates, upward mobility, and all sorts of other social indicators.
Every time I see a pro-life billboard, I have to wonder how many people in a soup kitchen that $1000 would have fed.
Why don't you wonder the same thing when you see *any* billboard. Seems like an unfair assessment to me.
Of all the causes to get attached to, the pro-lifer movement is probably one of the most selfish ones. Care for the living first.
Dogmatic, yes. Selfish? I disagree. They honestly believe that it's much better for the living in the long run to adopt the positions they hold. And while I don't agree to the dogmatic aspects of it, I can see their point. There are consequences to choices in your life that go beyond just whether you end out raising a child you didn't want. There are self esteem issues, relationship issues, and ultimately financial/job issues involved.
I could drag out the statistics for women who've had abortions for you if you'd like. They are pretty dismal though. The liberal claim that an abortion just makes a problem go away for the upwardly mobile woman on the go is a bogus myth. Edited, Nov 3rd 2011 2:47pm by gbaji