In Hawkins writing, it has come to my understanding that perhaps we are looking at abortion wrong. That maybe instead of saying every life deserves a chance, that we should consider that all the lives currently present deserve a chance. Essentially, allowing abortion allows for population control and in our ever growing population, we have not only allowed most of our fellow humans to suffer, but all other life is being displaced, diminished, and ignored due to our allowance on believe that the world is here for us. In environmentalism, one believe is being stewards, basically we are not owners of the planet, but we are responsible for our planet. we are able to change the face of our planet and yet we decide to further hurt our brothers and sister and let the planet be invested with a plague of humans rather than let it thrive with the God in every human.
I fully agree with Hawkins that we do have too many people and his argument on how it has curved population growth is a strong one. My personal stance on abortion has always been a mix. I strongly believe that life starts at conception, but it is still ok to abort. I would say the first trimester is the best time to do it, but the fact is if you do not believe you are killing a human, you have to at least believe you are killing a human potential. Also, it made me a little sick to read that the far left believe that the babies right to live may not even start immediately at birth. I can only think the argument is that the baby cant care for itself or is still not developed enough so it is still not allowed rights. Though where you draw that line is wild, because with the argument of post birth development, it could be stated until after puberty you could be aborted. If the argument is that the baby is not developed enough/ cannot care for itself, then yes, all children could be aborted too, as well as the bed written elderly and anybody injured. I would argue the real argument is not when is it a living human (because that is unarguably at conception) but when are people comfortable with killing a living thing. Though there is already so much life we are neglecting and not taking responsibility for, that Hawkins is basically arguing why should we bring more responsibility into the world, when we are not even being responsible for the life already here.
Overall, I would argue that humankind does need to start taking more responsibility not only for our fellow human, but all our brothers and sisters in the game of life. If that means taking more extreme measures, then maybe it is time to really step in and make people take responsibility for their actions rather than coming up with inefficient blanket solutions. Realistically there probably can be 12billion people on this planet with out as much of an issue as there is now. The people that are living in a big house, with all the newest gadgets and hoarding acres of land is a much bigger threat to the environment the the 10 person family living in one house reaping what they sow of the land. What we really need to learn is not each family needs its own house. That we are meant to share. That humans especially in this age can live in city like clusters with all the suburban and most of the rural area given back to the earth. Essentially I would argue that our population is a large issue, but the real issue is not that we cannot handle our population size, but that we are abusing our resources. That if we created city state like world, where people gather in the cities and all homes are apartments/ condos in huge sky rises, where businesses are in walking distance and we build large backyards that are shared and not private, that we could support our large size. of course we would need large chunks of land for farming, factories, and ect, but that space essentially rural areas are ok to have. Truly we could have less of it, but in truth we need to abolish the suburbs. The cities is where most humans belong, about 90% of humans should be in cities, the rest would be what is called the blue collar worker, being what allows the cities to be sustained and exist. In conclusion, Abortion is a step in helping curve population size, but that is not the only issue within it, because as we advance and consume more, we hurt our planet worse, so not only do we need to curve our size, but we need to change our way of life.
I think your points are very valid and true. The population at this point in time has not even reached its carrying capacity of the Earth, and most of the population growth won’t be seen in already industrialized countries like the US, most of Europe, Japan, and others. The truth is many countries have not only reach population capacity but have reached the forth maybe the fifth stage of the population growth according to the Demographic Transition Model. When you compare the immigrant population to the US population, the picture seems far less daunting. The immigrant population is increasing, but the US population is also increasing and has been significant since America’s industrial revolution in the 1850s. Despite a large number of immigrants per year, the population itself was growing large enough to maintain high citizen rates. But in 1957, in the US, the population growth rate began to take a sharp decrease. This decrease is significant because part of what gives the US and other global powers is having a population, to spend, labor, add competitiveness to the market, increasing buying power, innovate and help drive up GDP, along with other measures of well-being. “The remarkable success of Western economies in the past 200 years is therefore associated with strong population growth. Yet population growth is problematic if it outpaces increases in productivity.” (Gamble, 2014). If the US did not move away from quota immigration policies in the mid-20th century and increase the number of migrants into the country, America may have experienced stunted population growth. At the time America was manufacturing a lot of goods, without an increasing labor force they would not have been able to sustain growth. The population had more than enough resources to sustain itself, but people in the US moved away from having families of massive size. The application of large scale immigration has allowed the continued long term economic growth, with a strong and diverse labor force. As the number of people and GDP began to rise, things like education levels, health care, family planning, the status of women, and women’s participation in the workforce started to increase as well, while death rates and infant mortality rates were generally decreasing. Countries like the US if they completely closed off their borders would significantly decrease their population sizes after only a few decades, which could have great negative impacts on the countries ability to produce and technologically advance. The idea of stunted growth may not be a thing of the past, though for America, as the country continues to age, there is an increasing concern about the reproduction rate of the future generation. The current reproductive rate in the US is about 1.8 births per woman, meaning if every woman had a kid with a partner, they would not produce enough kids to maintain our current population. When examining countries like Germany, Japan, and England who have experienced significant industrial revolutions and population booms in the past, they now face problems with declining populations. Some of these decreasing populations are due to effects like low infant mortality rates, a general increase of education, increased contraceptive methods, sexual education, increased attachment to the labor market especially amongst women, and knowledge of family planning. People tend to start families at a later age. These factors are all prominent in the role they play in the decreasing number of children being born.
Present-day China paints a picture of the potential problems that may occur with low fertility rates or restricted birthing rights for a sustained period of time. For instance, China’s one policy implemented in 1980, the current population has a male to female ratio of 105:100 or 34.8 million males. China is currently experiencing its own industrial revolution of sorts, with an increased growth rate of GDP, which is now the largest in the world alongside the US. The people of China are now getting higher education, more attached to careers, contraceptives are readily available, and family planning knowledge is fairly common. The Chinese people now experience problems with having more elderly people than can be taken care of, as well as huge holes in the labor market. Women may now choose to have children later in life for a variety of reasons, which decreases the likelihood of having two children (the current limit of the Chinese government). Women hold a lot of power in terms of finding a mate, and poorer suitors who can offer a worse life may be disadvantaged. Leading to high rates of single men who die alone, and with no children to help take care of them in their later years. Since the economy is expanding and education is increasing, people may be more likely to move onto more and higher education; simultaneously, low skilled jobs may find a lack of laborers and increase demand potentially raising prices. They also face the problem that jobs that may have been previously seen have a female-dominated career that may not be filled by men right away. A decreasing population may have implications on how much money is being spent in the economy by the citizens and its overall size.
The problems that China now faces are potential problems that the US could face with a restriction of immigration into the United States. China brought the difficulties associated with a declining population, by isolating the country and restricting the birth rate artificially through legislation. China’s challenges are unique and exaggerated because they are also now dealing with issues associated with their industrial revolution, for example, massive labor rights movements and shifts in societal paradigms. The US has undergone its industrial revolution, and the changes that came with now faces the problem of a population that can not maintain its rate by itself. Figure 5 identifies the potential US population within the next three decades. The graph shows what the population is projected to look like if the US continues as anticipated by the Census Bureau. Still, with a reduction in immigration levels, the US could see massive drops in its projected populations. If the US were to become isolated entirely without immigration, the US could see a plateau around 2035, with declining numbers appearing just after 2040.
What most people argue about is if abortion is morally correct or not. But most people forget that the question does not ask would YOU have an abortion. Just because an abortion does not work for you does not mean it may not work for someone else. No one understands the circumstances that another person is living in. We all walk different paths in life, with different ideas, and resources. It is not fair to impose your views or situation on someone else. The question should be, “should someone have the RIGHT to have an abortion”. Whether they chose to do it or not is their choice. People tend to over express their views and forget the focus is on the right to do it or not. I do believe it is important that there are guidelines as well, as to when it is acceptable. Unless one did not know they were pregnant full term (those weird cases), I do believe the first 4 months are the times to do have an abortion. Anything after that the baby has developed and you as an adult, would have known for enough time, to make a decision. If someone is going to have an abortion it is not something that usually is pondered on. It is something most people KNOW in their heart that they have to do for themselves.