Actually the harm is altering little kids bodies before they are an adult. All the while when these children grow up, they will realize they screwed up. That's the harm you support.
they hate children.
Here's proof:
"...Planned Parenthood receives approximately
$500 million a year in taxpayer funds,
as a GAO report indicated last year."
How Much of Your Tax Money Does Planned Parenthood Get? A New Report Will Tell You | LifeNews.com
Well there is just no way to refute the simple fact this country probably has over twice the population we can sustain.
If we keep that up, species extinction is the only possible result eventually.
Humans have way too abnormally high of a reproduction rate.
It evolved when we were prey.
Like rabbits.
But now that we have enough technology so we are the predators instead of prey, we need a much lower rate of reproduction, like all other predators.
This is compounded by the increasing lifespan, and huge increase of the rate of consumption of each individual.
Just think about what we are doing.
It takes hundreds of millions of years for plants to concentrate sunlight into fossil fuels.
So then we are using up billions of years worth of concentrated solar energy, as if there was an unlimited supply.
People who say we should just switch over to wind and photovoltaic, just don't get it.
We would need to almost pave the entire planet with photovoltaic and batteries, in order to replace what we get out of fossil fuels.
We only have between 50 and 400 years of fossil fuels left, and a huge tragedy looms as that time approaches.
We really should reduce the population to put that off as long as possible.
"Well there is just no way to refute the simple fact this country probably has over twice the population we can sustain."
I have rarely seen anyone validate Reagan's statement about Liberals better than you do:
Here is the math that proves you a dunce:
. "The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it’d only have the population density of New York City!
The population of the world we will define as 7 billion. What is the density of a large US city, say New York City as a whole? Well,
New York City is 790 square kilometers, and has a population around 8.3 million people, giving us a density of (8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷) about 10,500 people per square kilometer. Now granted, NYC is not the wide-open spaces, but it is a density that millions live with in a space-loving nation like the US, so it shouldn't be considered too packed.
So how much land would we need to house all 7 billion of us if we lived in such density? Well, we would need (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷ ÷) 666,265 square kilometers. A big area, no? Well, let's look further...
Upon examining the US, we find out that Texas fits the bill nicely. In fact,
Texas has 261,797.12 square miles of land, and that is (261792.12<ENTER> 1.602<ENTER> 1.602 × ×) 671,877.17 square kilometers! Which is, in fact, more than the area we need to house all 7 billion of us at typical New York City densities. Meaning every man, woman, and child living and breathing on the face of the Earth could fit in relative comfort within the land territory of the State of Texas.
The other 49 states: empty. Canada? A wasteland as empty as the northern extremes of Nunavut. Europe? Empty. Asia? Nobody home. Africa, Australia, South and Central America, all the islands? None left. The entire world outside of Texas contains not a single living, breathing person.
But how realistic is that? Surely water would be a problem wouldn't it? Well, let's find out... It is recommended
that 50 liters per person, per day, be used as an adequate amount for consumption, sanitation, and cooking. That works out to (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 50 × 1<EEX>9 ÷) 350 billion liters of fresh water, per day, to keep all of us properly hydrated. That's a lot of water! Given there are 1000 liters per cubic meter, we need 350 million cubic meters of fresh water, every day. Yes, a large volume! But is it really?
Take the
Columbia River, the 4th largest in the US, and the main division between the States of Washington and Oregon. The average outflow of water is 7,500 cubic meters per second. How long would it take the Columbia to give us our 350 million cubic meters of fresh water? Well, it would take (350<EEX>6<ENTER> 7500 ÷) 46,667 seconds. Or (46667<ENTER> 60 ÷) 777.8 minutes. Or (777.8<ENTER> 60 ÷) just under 13 hours.
With just over half the daily average outflow of the Columbia River, we could meet the freshwater needs of the entire world's population. Now, that is a big pipeline to Texas, but if we could get everyone there in the first place, the pipeline is child's play!
To recap: so far, we can put every living person on the planet within the land territory of Texas, with density about equal to New York City (not just Manhattan; all 5 boroughs). And we can give them all adequate water with just over half the water from the Columbia River.
But what about food? Clearly that is of concern! Well, apparently
300 square meters will feed one person for one year. Since a kilometer is 1000 meters, we could feed (1000<ENTER> 1000 × 300 ÷) 3333 people per square kilometer. We'll call it 3000 people per square kilometer to make things even. And that means (7<EEX>9 <ENTER> 3000 ÷) 2,333,333 square kilometers to feed everyone.
The
total farmland in the US is about 922,000,000 acres. There are
247.1 acres per square kilometer, so that is (922<EEX>6<ENTER> 247.1 ÷) 3,731,282 square kilometers. Hey, that's more than 2,333,333! In other words, the farmland in the US could feed everyone!
So what have we ended up with? Well, every person in the world could live inside of Texas without overcrowding. We could all have water with just the Columbia River alone. And we could easily feed ourselves with just the farmland within the US as it exists.
Canada. Mexico. Alaska. Central America. South America. Europe. Asia. Africa. Australia. Greenland. All the islands. All the oceans. The Great Lakes. All empty, devoid of people. No need to farm or live there.
Now that we have the numbers, are we really overpopulated? I would argue a resounding "NO" and I think any who say otherwise are simply not adding it up.