This anti-abortion mentality is why we have so many large, poor families. Yeah, kids are nice. Yeah, life is nice. But knowingly bringing a child into a poor existence is just cruel.
I would have to argue that you have misdiagnosed the cause; if that were true then one would expect the number of large, poor families to have decreased over the last 50ish years as abortion has become more socially acceptable (not that it is now socially acceptable, but it is certainly more so). Education and economic status are more indicative; uneducated, poor individuals tend to have larger families. Educated, financially stable individuals don’t necessarily have more abortions than less educated, poor individuals; they have fewer pregnancies. Perhaps they are less likely to be taken in by the various urban myths of teenage contraceptives, such as douching with coke or that you can’t get knocked up if it’s your first time. Or perhaps having multiple children fulfills the old purpose of a retirement program. I am not widely versed in such areas and so my commentary on it must necessarily be limited.
Religion certainly isn't a stalwart in this regard either. While a number of Christian denominations/sects are fine with birth control, even if they are pro-life, not all are. Catholics, being well represented among Mexican immigrants (the first generation of which tend to be economically ill-off) and others, aren't just pro-life, they're anti-birth control. The use of a condom, pill, or surgery is a violation of tradition. As such, Catholics are more likely to have large families. To be anecdotal for a moment, a friend of my wife’s family is Catholic and had to specifically request permission from the Church to get a vasectomy, as his wife’s health was in danger if she became pregnant again (I believe they have either 7 or 11 children). He now takes flack from other Catholics who believe that such a dispensation should not have been granted.
Society in general isn’t much better as it generally endorses the concept that men can sex-and-run, that pregnancy is a female-only issue (indeed, that there is such a thing as female-only issues; it is generally expected that men are supposed to be grossed out by a woman’s period and menstrual fluid… a trait in no way unique to modern times, mind you; if I recall correctly, Hypatia of Alexandria once used a used menstrual cloth to scare away an unwanted suitor). It is curious that society has separated sex, intimacy, and responsibility.
I'm sure that kid would be real happy to know that you gave him away and he has no family.
While I certainly could be wrong, I'd suspect most people would rather be alive than not. Thus, I suspect that even most orphans would rather be orphans than to have never existed.
Denying abortion is blatantly sexist.
Ah, if only it were blatantly sexist, then things would be so much easier, but it is not (at least, not from an internal perspective). Calling someone a bigot is an insult and even people engaged in racist or sexist behavior will deny the claim; near no one willingly takes on such a title. Because of this, pointing out behaviors that are sexist or racist in a person can be an effective tool for motivating change. Very few people want to be engaged in behaviors that they believe are sexist or racist. The problem comes in making them realize those behaviors
are sexist or racist. If denying abortion is blatantly sexist, then it would be much easier to convince those who are against it to change their mind; one could point to the obvious and leave Jimmy Cricket to do the mop-up.
Remember, no one thinks of themselves as a villain. No matter how wrong someone might seem, they have reasons for what they believe. You might disagree with those reasons, you might find their reasoning to be flawed, but it is there nonetheless. There is little hope of being able to convince someone to change their ways unless you can understand why they hold to those ways in the first place. And, once you truly understand them, there is that terrifying moment in which you realize that it would have been a simple thing for you to have believed in them yourself. Generally, what separates us from those that we hate is a random chance of birth.
An inherently sexist attitude is revealed in this one line. "Irresponsible teenager" - singular. Last time I checked, women don't get pregnant on their own.
Women do get abortions on their own, however. It seems that there is a disconnect somewhere along the line; both sides drop men from the equation. Is it better to drop them from one side than the other?
You know, I've been watching this discussion for a couple of iterations now, and what bugs me is that most of the people posting here (not all, but most) seem to assume that birth control is 100% effective. Guess what?
That's because from the extremes of both perspectives (which is where people generally argue from), it is irrelevant. If abortion is fundamentally wrong, then it doesn't matter if you were taking preventatives. And if abortion is right, then it likewise doesn't matter if you were taking preventatives. There is no A for Effort, as it were. It is sort of like getting a speeding ticket then claiming that you should get out of it because you were using a radar detector.
One has to first admit that, if it is reasonable, abortion should be avoided, before allowing that birth control is an important factor. And, if in certain circumstances it should be avoided, then we’re quibbling over what is reasonable. Extremists on both sides would hate such a stance since it moves towards the middle.
I would NOT sacrifice my life and everything I've worked for because of some stupid mistake.
It is terribly interesting that this just happens to be one of the few areas in life in which people can reverse stupid mistakes. I wonder if people cling to it because it offers a degree of control in an otherwise chaotic world, and likewise if people reject it because that control isn't universal.
People ruin their lives because of stupid mistakes all the time. Here we have a chance to undo such a stupid mistake. It is a curious situation that isn't duplicated in many other places in life; one should expect that people would be unsure of how to handle it. Other stupid mistakes, if reversible, tend to take a heroic level of effort. There are, of course, stupid mistakes that aren’t reversible. The abortion issue is, ironically, treading virgin territory.
If my dog gets pregnant, is it cool with everyone that I have the puppies aborted?
But... puppies...
Seriously, I didn't know there were methods to cause dogs to abort. Makes a degree of sense, I suppose. I guess my answer would be that it depends; you should first make all due attempts to find these potential puppies homes before they are born. If you cannot, and you are unable to care for them, then an abortion might be the proper course of action, though certainly not something that is commendable or ideal (after all, a responsible owner should have their pets spayed and neutered, so this really should be a non-issue in an ideal world).
I played a role in that, by showing people more coherent ideas than what they were accustomed to. Oh, I suspect you and I would disagree as to whether it was the merit of my ideas or the strength of my rhetoric that won the day, but from my point of view it isn't even close. You've always been capable of equaling me in endurance and eloquence, and your appeals to antiquity I cannot match, but I don't know of anyone on these forums who ended up evolving in your direction.
To be fair, if someone did evolve towards Daniel’s way of thinking, they may have also learned in the process not to show it around you. You can be rather ruthless, when you want to be, and not everyone has Daniel’s (or your) endurance.
What do you suppose Thought would think of me if I went up to his wife, in his presence, and called her a fat, ugly whore to her face? What do you suppose he would do? Would he say “Let's debate this maturely?” No...of all the things he might say, I think that's not one of them.
(And Thought, if you're reading, I only concocted that example because your Mario-mustachioed wife is quite attractive and seems like an awesome person. Please don't kill me...)
Hmm... that is a very interesting question, from an introspective perspective. What would I do? I’d of course be angry, but would that anger overcome my natural passive-aggressiveness and the social-enforced aversion to violence? And of course would any violence on my part be successful? Honestly, there is a good chance that they wouldn’t be, and while allowing you to insult my wife is unacceptable, so too is failing to beat the crap out of you.
But all that aside, I'm fairly sure I know what my wife would do. So me not killing you may be the crueler of your options. Be warned: the short ones are the most violent.
However, your statement does contain several topics that, if presented in an non-insulting manner, I would love to debate. For example, I find it rather bigoted that “fat” is used as an insult, and I’d generally argue that apply the label “ugly” to any woman is sexist. I could also debate the use of “whore,” but that is a topic that gets more face-time anywho.
There's a word for “rape,” but there is not yet a word for forced birth. Maybe we need one.
I feel bad for thinking this, but that seems like an awesome premise for a work of fiction. Sort of reminds me
Gateway to Women's Country.
Whenever in all that I said did I advocate that men should be treated differently, hm? I have always maintained that equality, in fact added that if it were me, I would take that responsability instead of a wife or a girlfriend, showing that I do not even think that child-rearing unique to the mother.
The sentiments expressed there really needed to be hear-heared. Abortion debates often touch on this subject but seem to always skitter away from it quite quickly. Social conceptions regarding men's roles in sex, pregnancy, abortion, and child rearing need urgent attention. Admittedly, since men are the focus of so much is almost seems unfair for them to get attention in an abortion discussion as well, but it is necessary. It is unfair to say that women should abstain from sex and hold pregnancy as consequence without a similar situation for men. True, men have many advantages in society, but social expectations that require us to be good men are not one of those; indeed, it is so easy for us to be scum and get away with it. It shouldn't even enter a guy’s mind that it is acceptable to run and leave a woman with children; if men lack a physical uterus that ties them to an unborn child, then there needs to be a "social uterus" that ties them just as absolutely. This is not a comment on women (except, I suppose, insofar as that women should require better of the men in their lives), but rather a comment that men need to, well, man-up.
Zelbess' assumption is that sexuality is as integral a part of human nature as eating and drinking. Krispin's assumption is that sexuality automatically entails a chance of pregnancy, and extrapolating from that, a couple who do not wish to risk creating and destroying human potential should abstain from sex completely. The conflict is, asking people to forego an integral part of human nature entirely can be seen as an inhumane expectation.
Might I suggest moderation? Certainly, one who eats must accept the possibility that the consumed calories will be digested and used for energy and if that energy is not expended, it will be converted to fat. Furthermore, when one eats one also ingests hormones, minerals, and other organic elements that can have good or bad effects on them. A fine steak cooked medium rare is a wonderful dish, but one ought not eat it without realizing that there is a health risk associated to eating "undercooked" meats. One must thus eat responsibly, avoiding over consumption so as not to become fat, and avoiding food that can have undesirable consequences unless one is willing to accept those consequences.
The pro-choice side of the debate unfortunately dances rather close to the glutinous side regarding sex; stomach for food and food for the stomach!
The pro-life side of the debate unfortunately dances rather close to the ruthless side regarding consequences; you ate undercook meat and now you're sick? Bah, no medical treatment for you, you should have known better!
As one should expect from me, my stance on the issue is middle-ground. One might well say that I am both pro-choice and pro-life. On one hand, abortions should be readily available to women (with a few, extreme-case laws to protect against potential abuses but which do not impede the majority of women). But on the other hand, there should be very few abortions. Not because there are laws preventing them, but because the right to choose is a right that few women need to exercise. I’d much rather we live in a world where no woman ever became pregnant who did not want to be pregnant; thus I believe we should work towards such a word. Pro-lifers should defeat abortion by eliminating (or reducing) the number of rapists in society, by expanding sex-education so that birth control is effective and implemented. And pro-choicers should defeat anti-abortionists by ensuring that abortion is a spotless process; if problems arise, it should be the pro-choice crowd that brings them to light and addresses them.
