Anonymous, I’m so sorry that I didn’t respond to this when you submitted it. Tumblr has apparently not been telling me that I have new messages.

This is a question that is a response to my post on Abortion, which enjoyed a short bout of reading and even a few reblogs recently.

Our population issues are quite serious, I agree. Either we get control of it, or we’re going to be facing war and famine and disease on a global scale, and mass casualties to all of these and, undoubtedly, a variety of other factors.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe that individuals have the necessary will and desire to make their own personal sacrifices that are required to get this problem under control. Some, yes; but not most. It seems to be common practice for your typical person to expect someone else to do all the hard work and give up things in their place, while they continue doing as they please and enjoying the rewards of someone else’s sacrifices. Whether its to protect liberty, obtain liberty, or something else entirely, it’s always been a minority (minority of the group that is, even if it is a minority of a minority) fighting for it and putting their property, lives, and general well-being on the line. With overpopulation, it isn’t an issue of, say, some people being oppressed, and a minority of those people needing to get up and fight the machine. No, it’s an issue of every single human being on the planet and all of the institutions we’ve created being at risk in some form or another.  Our limited resources demand that we get ourselves in check or suffer the consequences.  Governments do not want to fail. They want to continue having power, wealth, and the good life for those who are the government. Facing collapse or tyranny and dictatorial behavior, which do you think most of the world’s governments will choose? My greatest fear isn’t just the possibility of mass starvation, disease, and war—it’s that governments, in seeking to maintain some semblance of order and remain in power over, and in control of, the people will take matters into their own hands and employ population control AND population reduction maneuvers.

Regarding population control and abortion: aborting unwanted babies isn’t an impractical solution to our population woes. Unless mass-abortions were forced on the populace, there aren’t enough abortions to save us from ourselves.  Regarding the ethics of  using abortion as a device to control population, there are two sides to be considered.

1.) The possibility that an innocent human life is NOT lost when an abortion is successfully completed. If this is the case, and it can be demonstrated to be the case beyond reasonable doubt, then there really are no major ethical conflicts that I can see, other than people escape the responsibility of their own sexual behavior—which isn’t a personal issue for me.

2.) The possibility that an innocent human life IS terminated—that is, that someone dies—as a result of a completed abortion. If this is the case, then it is similar to dictatorial governments slaughtering unwanted citizens to  maintain a desirable population level.

That children are neglected—even to death—and the world is becoming overpopulated with humans is terrible. Horrible. But they’re no excuse to kill people, should abortions be the unintentional killing of people.

Given that it has never, ever been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that an innocent human life isn’t being terminated, I see no reason to behave as if one isn’t.  If we see abortion as a possible tool to help aid our population issues—and it very well may, mind you—we need to first address the issue of whether or not someone actually dies during an abortion.

I know I don’t want someone to come along and kill me, my wife, or my kids—or you—simply because there are too many of us.  However, if it can be established that someone isn’t dying with an abortion, I see no reason to not use it as a method to terminate unwanted pregnancies or to help with our population issues.  But the question of someone dying must first be settled.