I disagree... it's the babies of the developed world who impose the largest eco-footprint upon the world's ecosystem. What is the number? something like a 12-fold difference. Us Canadians have an even larger eco-footprint than the USA due to our extreme heating energy demands and huge travel distances between us. Third world babies have little impact on the world compared to us.
There is the political problem of our governments refusing to touch anything regarding family planning in developing nations, in order that we may "import" them to our nations to feed the cheap labour needs of our greedy economies... but that is another matter.
Births are on the rise in developed nations, this is unacceptable. The downward trend stopped last decade.
This is a disagreement without any absolute right of wrong. It is an entirely personal value discrepancy.
From the epicurean principle of avoiding harm to individuals, every woman, who is spared the agony of raising unwanted children is important, and her moral right to be spared is independent from where she lives. If she has no choice to avoid a pregnancy, she lives and suffers now and there is no god in the afterlife to reward her. And the ecosystem does not any more for her than a god to alliviate her sufferings or reward her. I cannot accept to discard a god as a justification to make people suffer, if they are supposed to suffer instead to save the ecosystem.
But from the point of view, that the earth, the ecsosystem, nature etc. is more valuable than individual's life and wellbeing, then of course this leads to a different evaluation.
This is a link to a table comparing different countries concerning the birth rates defined as "the average annual number of births during a year per 1,000 persons in the population at midyear; also known as crude birth rate. "
The highest rate is in Niger with 50.54, in other African countries it is not much lower. In Germany the rate is 8.30, in the USA 13.83. By taking some people's instinctive urge to procreate in account, it is certainly much easier to help people avoid having more children than they want themselves instead of preaching those people, who are motivated and able to raise the children, whom they really want.
We could start by boycotting the companies that sponsor the Duggars' TV show...unless the last episode shows him having a vasectomy, and her having a tubal ligation.
They just announced that she's three and a half months pregnant with #20...they're running out of J-names. Maybe they ought to name this one "Jesus" ("Hay-soos"), if it's a boy.
They are disgusting.
I've never even heard of that show... so I'm already boycotting it :)
But it could make for a good atheist campaign...
There is one abortion charity that I know of, but it's based in Madison, Wisconsin...but they do offer financial help to anyone they can, no matter where the woman in need lives.
After writing the first editorial in the state calling for legalized abortion in 1967, she began receiving calls from desperate women and turned to volunteer activism.
Among her feminist activities, Anne founded the ZPG Abortion Referral Service in 1970 and, over the next 5 years, made more than 20,000 referrals for birth control, abortion, and sterilization. In 1972, she co-founded the Women's Medical Fund charity to help low-income women pay for abortions. She has run that charity as a volunteer for 32 years and helped more than 14,000 women.
Her Abortion is a Blessing was published in 1975. "There were many groups working for women's rights," she realized, "but none of them dealt with the root cause of women's oppression - religion."
She needs to branch out somehow. It makes me sick when I think of the millions (billions?) of dollars that naive people have donated to that old fraud Mother Teresa...money that is still sitting in the Vatican's bank accounts...that could have paid for every 3rd world woman to have access to contraceptives. But, of course, the Crap-lick Crutch LOVES starving babies and lots and lots of orphans.
I was mistaken about one thing, most of the women who have been helped by the Women's Medical Fund have been Wisconsin residents.
Other resources, at least for information, are NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
One thing I don't understand about abortion opponents is that they also oppose contraception. That's the most bass-ackward kind of thinking IMO.
If every female had access to The Pill, if she wanted it, there would be fewer abortions. Fewer unwanted children (I have known people who were told by their mothers that they were "accidents"...and more than one ended up committing suicide). And more women able to educate themselves, work, and appreciate the families they already have.