Alchemist,
The subject is not overpopulation.

To restrict population growth, if that is your problem, we need proper forms of contaception that do not have health side effects. Abortion by any means is not a healthy or moral way to reduce the population. Beside currently three of every eight young women find they cannot fall pregnant even though they have tried many methods.

This seems to reflect a general position in our society today. Too much social and career stress and low sperm counts in males. Besides the 1.8 replacement of the current population is not meeting future maintenance.

Overpopulation, occurs when the ecology of the planet begins to breakdown under the strain of the populance. Unless you want wall to wall people that the environment can't sustain, but I don't suppose you consider other than in passing, the rights of other life forms that call this planet their home.

Either you have a short memory or a very bland youth. You can't stop people having sex and making mistakes. One of the main problems is religions desperate push to restrict sexual education in schools. In the last 2000 years you have tried really hard to control just about everything, in your desperation to control by suppression. None of it has worked. You could have a million different forms of birth control and you would still have many unwanted pregnancies, Thats people, they do it no matter what is said.

As to the growing infertility of people, you only have to look at diet and lifestyles to see the correlation. I worked in a Hospital that at the time, had one of the busiest in vitro units in the country, yet only 3-5% had success. When the others were directed to lifestyle coaching, rarely did they turn up, or if they did, they didn't take any notice. Those that actually did do something about their lifestyle and diet, normally had success within 12 months. Exercise, good decent food and less stress, works wonders on the human body and psyche.

As to the 1.8 replacement, why is that required, unless you are just trying to create cannon fodder to support religious aims. It does nothing for the environment or sustainability of the planet. If we took welfare of those that have a lot of children and don't contribute to society, we would have a much better situation and would stop what many can see, as a desire to populate and gather strength for their religious aims. Bigotry is a part of religious dogma. I'd stop all immigration and restrict economically unsupported child birth. No money, no babies that would slow down the religious a bit and help the ecology.

Dear Sneekeepete,Philo and Alchemist,

There is some truth in what you say, Sneekeepete. I concede Greg Barns was using some isolated examples of violence outside abortion clinics in relation to what he claims was a narrow and divisive focus taken by Peter Costello in his recent speech, rather than abortion per se. But I still say: 'Is not the greater example the violence "inside the clinics"? That is much more massive. Remember, there are those who call themselves Christians who have and do abortions.You are right about the incidence of obstetricians 'dabbling' in abortions.This is a distortion of the "pagan" (take note Alchemist!) philosopher Hippocrates' beautiful Oath: "First do no harm". These obstetricians are the dregs of the profession. When I read Alchemist's concern about overpopulation I was reminded of all those who were who were terrified by that great ZPG propagandist Paul Erlich's predictions that we would all be eating seaweed by the year 2000? And what is the emerging health problem instead? Obesity! And we have problems associated with population implosion, not explosion! Philo, perfect contraception just sounds like a good motherhood statement to me. The Family Planners made promises like Paul Erlich 33 years ago viz that sex education and contraception would eradicate the need for abortion. Instead we have more and more abortions...and incidentally more child abuse. The reason? Easy availability of abortion. It's a very competetive industry Philo!. Anyhow, the point of all of this is to head Greg Barns off at the pass (as he sits sipping his latte's at the Salamanca! Loved that one Sneekeepete!) before he tries to again belittle those who defend the defenceless i.e. babies in their mothers wombs.I think he just might be testing the water for an even bigger attack. I note you mention your children Sneekkeepete. Tell me, when their mother returned home from having her pregnancies confirmed did she say to you: "Guess what! We're having a fetus! Or did she say to you: "Guess what! "We're having a baby!" Nice talking to the three of you...and have a good life!
Denny