Hell yeah I do, pro choice FTW
Us wicked feminist jezebel types ( or you know, anyone with a brain) recognise that having an 8bn+ population with millions of unwanted children is kind of a shit idea
Where women don’t have access to contraception, birth control and abortion, there is by and large enormous poverty. Look at the poorest groups of society. It’s usually the very religious groups with 7+ children, or the people who can’t afford an education/birth control. In fact, globally, all the poorest groups have loads of children and a much higher level of child fatality, hunger and gender division.
Why? Because when you have loads of babies you can’t afford to support, you end up with a lot of hungry mouths. And when you can’t choose whether, at 15, it’s a good time to have a baby or not, you lose out a lot of education and potential earnings. And when you have a population spiralling out of control due to millions of poor families having babies, you are going to have food, income and healthcare shortages. Even your average BTech* sociology student could tell you that. Rocket science, it ain’t.
To keep a population stable (the same) you need each couple to have two babies. To half it, as China has done, you need one child per couple. If you want it to rocket up uncontrollably so there isn’t enough resources to go round, by all means have 7 children with each of your three wives. Now, instead of splitting your resources between Holly and Jack, you can split it between Holly, Jack, Helen, Jim, Holly 2, Jack 2, Helen 2, Jim 2, Holly 3, Jack 3….all the way up to your 21st kid. Good luck. You’ll need it. I guess you can always pray that at least 2 survive the hunger and poverty. Or hope some don’t make it so you don’t have to pay for 21 school fees.
Infanticide is nothing new. We (humans and animals) have been smacking babies heads against rocks and leaving them to die in the snow since we worked out that investing resources (that we needed to survive or give to our other babies) in a kid that WOULD PROBABLY DIE was a stupid idea. I’d say it’s brilliant, if not incredibly ethical to have the technology to get rid of an embryo before it becomes a poor little baby with consciousness to be bashed against a rock. That’s actually much kinder.
Why not just let it live? I hear you whining. Isn’t that kinder? Well Children, let me tell you what happens to unwanted babies. Hansel and Gretel are left in the woods. The Babes In The Wood are (no marks for this one) LEFT IN THE WOODS. WE LEAVE UNWANTED CHILDREN TO DIE. THAT’S WHAT HUMANS DO.
Is that kinder? The modern equivalent of getting rid of Hansel and Gretel is leaving them in some godforsaken orphanage in Calcutta before Gretel turns 14 and becomes a child prostitute or Hansel is forced to work as a slave labourer in ‘payment’ for his upbringing. Ever heard of baby farming? Yeah, leaving your baby with a ‘loving’ foster mother was one of the biggest child murdering sprees of the 1800s (20,000+ babies murdered every year by baby farmers). Kind? Nope.
Well can’t we just be kinder to the millions of forcibly born children? Have better care systems and adoption pathways? Well you can definitely try but considering you want to ban abortion and birth control, you’ll have millions, if not a billion, new babies to care for. Fancy that on your bill? Your tax return? Not so kind now, are you? You aren’t actually bothered about the welfare of potential children, you just want to control women’s bodies. That’s the truth of it.
Look at the slums. Look at the hunger and pain and anguish of all those children around the world who are forced to live in meagre resources, while you wave your placard and go home to eat dinner with Holly and Jack, your children who you could afford to feed.
I’m the monster? Nah honey, that’s you.