Well Dave,

Here is a population graph:

Estimates of population evolutio n in different continents between 1950 and 2050, according to the United Nations. The vertical axis is logarithmic and is in millions of people.

Any sort of limitation on the number of pregnancies brought to successful term would bring down the population. Limitations can include contraception or abortions or, for example, the one child policy implemented in China between 1980 and 2016, or sexual abstinence, but given the "sexual revolution" of the last century I personally think that that is unlikely in developed countries at least.

As one article I read stated, with the overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision in the US it is possible that another item on the political agenda might be constraints on the use of contraceptives.

Assuming that a similar number of people continue to have sex at the same or similar rate as at present, the population would be likely to grow in the absence of contraception and/or abortion.

There would also be an increase in adoptions or children placed into orphanages. There would be an impact on the social environment, and on government services required.

None of this takes into account the emotional, economic and social toll on the parent/s of these children if the pregnancy was unwanted.

Personally, I would favour the contraception method where possible, but abortion should be available where needed. That's my opinion. I have strong views on the sanctity of life, but I also have strong views on a woman's right to choose in decisions about her own body and her own life.

Personally, I think an effective method to make the Supreme Court judges rethink their decision is to abandon all those unplanned babies on their doorsteps and see how long it takes before they change their minds.

(I'm only half serious about that. Think of the poor babies!)