Anti-Choice and Ecology?

Yes I agree.

They have no consideration for living beings and nature , the quality of individual life as you said it

Most of the time they will say >> But you can put the entire world population in Texas <<

Of course you can , but what about the quality of life ?? what about very limited natural resources ??

What about pollution , usurpation and destruction of nature ??

Human over population is the worst threat to life... it greatly reduce the quality of life for all living beings.

That's a dangerous argument right there.

I am not pro-choice for ecological reasons- I am pro-choice because I respect individual's rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and the right to make the reproductive health choices that they see fit for themselves.

Only decades ago, there was a very real fear that overpopulation was going to lead to mass chaos, and because of that, forced sterilization began to take place in governments, like India under Indira Gandhi. They waged brutal campaigns of mass forced sterilization against their own citizens- a huge violation of their rights, all in the name of "what's best for the world/society".

Being pro-choice or pro-life should never center on ecology, population, or anything other than individual citizens' rights, in my view. The funny thing is, we've known for a while now that when conditions are ideal, women have children in amounts that are sustainable. Women who live in egalitarian societies (ones that value men and women equally, allow them the same opportunities, and for whom a woman's worth does not solely come from her ability to provide children) and have access to the means to control their reproduction inevitably end up doing what is good for their communities, good for society, and ultimately, good for the planet in terms of population rates. No coercion necessary!