|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 10, 2007 01:12 AM |
|
|
Hmm . . .
Youth . . . I was once as you describe. I wish it weren't so but in fact I was exactly as you have described. Beyond this I do not know what to say. I couldn't tell you that I can convince others to stop it. I think a contribution must be made . . . an inspiration . . . to the primary care-givers of children. This is the only thing I can possibly think of to attempt to even begin to combat this behavior.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
the_gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
posted January 10, 2007 01:31 AM |
|
|
So a long time ago I knew someone, a fourteen year old who started having sex with her steady boyfriend. When she was pressed her about whether or not she was using protection, her answer was a meek 'no'. Mind you, the girl was brilliant. She was a straight 'A' student with a mind for math and science. She scored 1500+ on the SAT.
But for all her talent and brightness she was taking a terrible and unnecessary risk. Why? You ask teenage girls that question and very rarely will you get an honest answer from them.
In this case this fourteen year old didn't think it could happen to her. Couple that with the embarrassment of talking about sex with adults and you have the double joy of having sex and being deceitful about it. It's all fun and games until they're reading the results of that test and they're saying 'oh s***.'
In this girl's case her older sister ended up ratting her out, telling their mom that the teenager needed to be put on the pill STAT. Mom did and she never had an unwanted pregnancy. But the betrayal of confidence and trust the teenager felt.... The two of them don't speak to each other much to this day.
What the older sister did took courage. Normally it ain't cool to be a rat. I don't know I would have risked being a rat given the same circumstances.
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2007 02:03 AM |
|
|
Third person, first person, we were all stupid when we were young. I still do stupid things, I just don't do them nearly as often.
Only a couple people around here know this, but I have a son who turns 26 next month. I didn't raise him. I haven't seen him since he was 3 months old. He was taken away and put up for adoption without my knowledge or permission. Men don't have much say in these matters.
Even after a couple false alarms, my gf and I were still stupid. The third time wasn't a false alarm, it was real. "Oh ****" doesn't begin to describe the feeling when reality finally hits. Yes we did briefly discuss abortion, but didn't do it for several reasons. As it turned out he was my only child. I'm sure glad we never aborted....and I'm sure he is glad is well.
His name was Michael Anthony and I knew him long enough to change his diapers what seems like hundreds of times. I honestly don't know when he became a "person", but he was a person then and he's a person now. If we had aborted, this person who is my son would not be alive.
I wonder if I'm a granddaddy? I wonder what my grandchildren would think about the idea that their father could have been aborted because he was "inconvienient". I don't even know if I have any, but it brings tears to my eyes thinking that I cold have killed my own grandchildren......
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2007 02:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I wrote it to avoid flames.
Does stating beforehand that something is your opinion reduce the likelihood of being flamed for it?
It might.
Quote:
Let's see. It's inside her. It is attached to her via umbelical cord! It developed inside her.
1. Just because it's inside you, doesn't make it part of your body.
2. Just because it's attached to you, doesn't make it part of your body (a pacemaker is attached to you AND inside your body, but it's certainly not PART of your body). And if you want to take the example to the extreme: what about conjoined twins?
3. It's not always so clear cut as "it developed inside her". Things get complicated when you start talking about surrogate motherhood, egg donation, and fertility treatments. And even so, what does developing inside her have to do with anything? *I* developed inside someone, so does that still make me part of my mother's body?
1. True.
2. True, but a pacemaker is not made of biological matter that developed from you.
3. If you are a surrogate mother, you shouldn't have an abortion. If you have fertility treatments, why would you want an abortion? You developed inside your mother, but you stopped being part of her body when you were born.
Quote:
I disagree with that. She could have sex, but she shoould have used contraception of some sort. However, if she didn't use it for any reason, she can have an abortion.
That doesn't really explain how you are disagreeing with my statement. My statement was, in essence, "if she wasn't prepared to face the consequences, she shouldn't have been having sex in the first place." You say you disagree with that. Why? Are you using the option of abortion to basically condone unprotected, casual sex? That's what it seems like from your statement.
No, no. Not at all. Abortion should always be the last resort. I do not support casual unprotected sex. However, abortion is a valid, if last, method of avoiding children.
Quote:
Quote:
The basic problem is that nowadays sex is not respected at all. It is an intimate affair that should not be entered into lightly (for both physical and emitional reasons),
I sort of agree.
I sort of don't understand what you mean by "sort of agree".
I'm sorry. I can't really clarify on this.
Quote:
Let me make an analogy. Let's say there's an expensive diamond necklace at a local store that you really want. You DO have enough money to buy the jewelry, but you know that if you do make the purchase, you will have no money left over to buy other things you enjoy, like cable television, movies and video games. Thus, if you purchase the necklace, you will have to sacrifice these other things for a period of time. What you really want is to be able to own the necklace AND have your spending money still in reserve. Unfortunately the way of the world is that sometimes to get one thing we want, we have to risk sacrificing other things that we want. One who goes to the store and buys the necklace does so with this knowledge in hand - he knows that if he makes the purchase, the amount of money he has left may not be enough for other things. But that is the CHOICE he makes. He weighs the consequences beforehand, understands the risks of his action, and decides what he wants to do. Afterwords, he should accept the consequences. He doesn't whine and complain that he has no money later on because nobody FORCED him to buy the necklace. You learn about the risks of your actions, you make choices, and then you accept the way that time unfolds. If you blow all your dough on a necklace and have nothing left for other goodies for a year, then next time you probably won't be so reckless with your hard-earned case. That's called learning from your actions. It makes us better people.
Of course it is. But, as you say
Quote:
But you don't like this. You're not stupid - you know the consequences of buying the necklace, but you don't want to have to accept them. You tell this to a buddy of yours, and the buddy tells you that he knows a way for you to have both the necklace AND your money. All you have to do is STEAL the necklace. "But won't I get caught and go to jail?" you ask. (After all, the reason people don't steal necklaces all the time is because there is the risk of a CONSEQUENCE to this action. Some people feel the risk is worth it and steal anyway.) Your friend, a lawyer, tells you he knows a loophole in the law and that if you steal the necklace under a certain set of conditions, he can get you off the hook when/if you get arrested.
The question is, knowing beforehand that you can get out of the negative consequences (prison) of stealing the necklace, do you steal the necklace?
In your metaphorical example, yes, I would. I would be careful so no one would find out. I wouldn't care about expending the resources of the justice system. I wouldn't care about the jeweler. Should have been more careful.
Quote:
In a broader sense, what I'm asking is: if there is a way around the physical consequences of an action, does that justify the action? In the case of abortion, which is basically nothing more than a loophole in the law of nature (and thankfully science offers many), you are saying that this is so - that it's ok to steal the necklace because you know you won't be punished for it later on. Unfortunately, what you neglect when you say "YES, I can steal the necklace if I can get around the consequences!" is whether the act of stealing is morally right or wrong in the first place. I.e., you need to separate the issue of whether or not you should engage in an action because of morality and whether or not you should engage in an action because of what might happen to you afterwords. They are really separate issues.
They are seperate issues. But I'm not concerned about right and wrong. I don't care about morality. One should always evaluate the risks and benefits of every action, and the probabilities of each. Then, one can make sound judgements. For example, if I knew 100% that I wouldn't be caught, I'd go ahead. If, for example, there was a 50% chance of getting caught, I wouldn't do it.
Quote:
If you can get away with stealing, is it still right to do so? And don't forget, just because YOU can get away with stealing, that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt SOMEONE ELSE. Never forget that there are consequences to every action that go beyond what happens to YOU. In the case of stealing the necklace, just because YOU have a way around prison, you also hurt the jewelry store owner, who no longer has a necklace to sell and cannot feed his family. You hurt the legal system, which has to deal with your trial (even though you know you will be innocent), sapping resources that could go to other purposes. You hurt your family and friends, who disapprove (morally) of your actions.
One's first concern should always be oneself.
Quote:
You may even still hurt yourself in unforseen ways - future job applications, etc.
This is why you consider every consequence.
Quote:
The same is the case with abortion. Just because YOU have a way out of pregnancy, doesn't mean there are not consequences for other people: your family (again), the father, health insurance costs, etc., etc. It's not always a good idea to engage in an action, even if you know you can get around the worst, immmediate consequences.
You should always consider all the consequences, and then act.
Quote:
There's another problem with this attitude that goes beyond the matter of consequences that you maybe need to consider, and I touched on it earlier. And that is: suffering brings enlightenment. We humans learn from our mistakes. More specifically, we learn from the negative consequences of our mistakes. Evil and "wrongness" only has meaning in context. Just as good and "rightness". If we can perform an action without facing the risk of negative consequences, then we as humans will eventually lose the ability to morally judge the action in the first place. I find that a scary prospect. If we make no mistakes - or rather, if we do not have to pay debts from our mistakes, then how do we learn from them? If a person steals - whether it's justified or not - and gets caught, and then society tells the person that there is no penalty for stealing, what do the person learn? What does his children learn, who witness the fact that their father can do something supposedly wrong and get away with it? They learn that it is OK to steal, that there is no moral ambiguity to the action. Eventually the justification of small crimes leads to the justification of larger crimes on the same grounds. They learn that earning/saving money is worthless and a waste of time(because you can just steal what you need). They do not learn to take pride in what they have. They do not learn to be grateful for what they can afford, and the value of a hard-earned dollar. Sure, maybe you can get around prison. But there are more, far worse consequences down the road if you take that option. And they take a toll on society as a whole. Abortion is a similar road to follow if you do not respect it and if you use it flippantly. For what do you learn about the physical and emotional value of sex if there are no risks involved? How can you learn to respect life if you can so easily get around the bumpy spots that must be involved when living it.
Of course. It's like the saying, "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger." One has to strike a balance between avoiding suffering and getting strength through suffering.
Quote:
The funny thing is that we are speaking of consequences to abortion here and are not even discussing the issue of abortion itself. I have not even once stated my opinion on the moral question of abortion, which should indicate to you that maybe you are focusing on the wrong part of the question.
Then what is your moral standpoint?
Quote:
If you are having sex, you KNOW there is a risk of becoming pregnant. Just as if you are stealing something, you KNOW there is a risk of getting caught. Yeah, you might not, but there's a chance that the dice will roll against you and you have to pay the price for your actions.
Evaluate all consequences.
Quote:
What separates us from animals is our ability to use logic to determine what is right or wrong.
IMO, there is no right and wrong. What seperates "persons" from animals is the ability to reason logically to squash instincts that may be harmful and evaluate consequences. Animal predators kill all prey, and then starve. Humans keep some alive so they will have something to eat later on.
Quote:
"Acting according to your instincts" is not an excuse for an immoral action, just as being drunk is not an excuse for an immoral action. You can't kill a person and say, "I was just really mad and my instincts took over."
However, instincts are what created morality. The human instinct to function as a group led to a contract of "I won't kill you for your prey and you won't kill me." Later this evolved into "I help you and you help me." Later, morality evolved out of this. However, morality was one of the things that spawned religion, and religion caused many acts that could be called immoral.
Quote:
The issue of sex/pregnancy/abortion is largely an issue of young people. We hear it said all the time how young people feel they are immortal or invincible. When we hear or say that, we don't mean it literally, but understand the point. When an action is fun or pleasurable, the risk associated with the action is often overlooked. The risk is not much more than words, "it's not gonna happen to me" after all.
It is the nature of young people to be addicted to adrenaline. While they often don't consider consequences, they often enjoy the risk.
Quote:
"Not gonna happen to me." Yea, right. But you have a convenient way out don't you, you stupid idiots.
Of course, such an attitude as "Not gonna happen to me." is idiotic, but abortion, thankfully, works. Convenient way out? Good.
Quote:
I think a contribution must be made . . . an inspiration . . . to the primary care-givers of children.
Caregivers should encourage children to become "persons", instead of encouraging illogicality (not a word).
Quote:
I don't even know if I have any, but it brings tears to my eyes thinking that I cold have killed my own grandchildren......
You wouldn't have killed them. You would have prevented them. And good. You got rid of your son instead of getting an abortion. If everyone who got abortions did that instead, you know what kind of strain that would put on the adoption system? There wouldn't be enough willing parents. The attitude of most parents is this, "Why adopt when we can make our own, our blood kin?" I realize not all parents think this, but many do.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted January 10, 2007 02:30 AM |
|
|
I normally read all threads that Consis puts out but this one slipped by. I will state my view in a short text.
Abortion: I’m pro choice, however I feel that it should be made with great thought and proper support. I think that it is sad when the father has no say and they have no choice. I believe that a women that has been forced to have sex and is impregnated or those involved in incest have every right to abort if they desire. All others still have the right by law and I have no say in that matter. I knew a woman that lived in my hometown in Washington that used abortion for her idea of contraceptives. She had four of them in two years. She should be forced to get tied.
Contraceptives: I’m completely in favor of these but be warned that some will really mess you up. I have had two children while taking the pill and Depo shot, so for all you who think that they are fool proof, there not. Abstinence is the only guarantee for that and sometimes for your emotional sanity.
Stem Cell: No comment, our world is moving much to fast for me to even contemplate why we find a need for some of these things.
The real reason was I’m responding was because I was so disturbed by a comment on here that me fingers were burning to use this blank page to slap someone.
Quote:
2. Even if the fetus was not considered part of her body, the fetus is far from being a person. I define a person as one who can reason logically. I realize that my definition alienates many humans who are already born, but I don't care. For me, not all humans are "persons". The mentally ill are not "persons".
Are you serious? At first I thought it has to be some twelve year old writing this that still picks on the mentally retarded boy in his special ED class, as if he is cancelling out why he is there. Then as I went to look at his profile I realized that he was of age to legally vote, marry my step-daughter, and possibly have some say in a major political field within the next few years. WTF are you talking about??? The mentally ill are not “persons”? Reason logically, did you read your post before you posted it? No of coarse not because that would require logic and a mature mindset.
I can’t believe that you contaminated a thread that Consis wrote with this psychobabble you call a response. My son has Cerebral Palsy and my oldest was born early and has always been a little slow. They are both well functioning “persons” and are considered “humans” on this planet. On your planet however they may not match up to your level of intelligence and for this I apologize for bringing them into this world and inconveniencing your sensitive people. God forbid that your mother ship come and take you home soon.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2007 02:41 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 02:44, 10 Jan 2007.
|
IMO there are two wrong answers to the question of when Life begins...and the people who give those answers both insist they are right. IMHO the only correct answer is "I don't know". But then again, I might be wrong.
edit: VF, that comment wasn't directed at you. I haven't read your post yet. (I won't tell you that you're wrong until after I read it )
____________
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted January 10, 2007 02:55 AM |
|
|
edit: VF, that comment wasn't directed at you. I haven't read your post yet. (I won't tell you that you're wrong until after I read it)
Thanks babe…
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted January 10, 2007 03:53 AM |
|
|
taking mod hat off for a moment...
Abortion: like some of the previous posters, I believe it should be an option, even if not to be used lightly... last resort kind of thing and only for cases where there is a health risk or perhaps the child is the result of a rape (although in that case, i'd rather have them go with adoption) ...as for who makes the call? ...the mother, or both parents, if the father sticks around (as he should, in most cases) ...those using abortion as their version of contraception may not be mass murderers, but they are nearly as messed up
Contraception: yes please... anyone willingly having unprotected sex (yes, one night stands and quickies included) automatically loses any right to *****, whine and moan about a child coming... its simple as that... its irresponsible, even if we ignore the various STDs out there ...if you go through with it, you either are too stupid to raise a child (give it for adoption, or grow up) or you want one (in which case, congratulations its... hopefully human)
Stem Cell Research: deffinitely an interesting concept... lots of potential here and there are ways to do it without destroying embryos... of course at the moment they are not as efficient, but things are moving on... those that either suffer from one of the things SCR can help with or have relatives that do, can appreciate this more than you imagine
and now... the cherry on top... are embryos persons? ...that depends on your definition of person... can an embryo live on its own? ...no, it cannot... at best, an embryo has a symbiotic relationship to the mother ...can an embryo make decisions? ...none that actually matters, if able at all ...can an embryo use reason? ..uh, probably no, but that must be one of the most idiotic things to ask... first you have to define reason... else, soldiers, inmates, mentally ill, slaves, all fall into the same category
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted January 10, 2007 04:05 AM |
|
Edited by Aculias at 07:16, 10 Jan 2007.
|
Too bad most women dont share your views Violent.
Also
Mvassilev your ideals on people are ignorant.
I have no respect for your kind who judges people who dont even control thier own destiny on how they are born or What thier parents did.
Maybe when you grow up you will have more of an understanding on people & the way they are when they are born.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted January 10, 2007 07:22 AM |
|
|
I am talking about that William.
I am talking about a reply he made about certain catagory of people.
SOmeone who judges another human being because he is different is a hyprocrite.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2007 01:44 PM |
|
|
Corribus, if we discuss on the basis of the perverse statements mvasilev makes this discussion will never get anywhere.
We agree that the process itself a woman goes through when deciding to have an abortion is not by any means easy, and therefore I think most of them learn from their mistake and become more responsible in the future. Do they really need to have the child to learn this?
About the diamond-analogy: I don't think you understood what point I was trying to make. The person is fully aware of the consequences of his actions, he's considered them and weighed the pros and cons. He knows exactly what he goes into. He intends to steal the diamond knowing he can get away with it; he knows that he might go through a lengthy trial, but that he'll ultimately go free.
A woman that has unprotected sex is not necessarily in the same situation. She might not have considered all the possible consequences (unlikely), but I don't think she would use "but I can always have an abortion" as an excuse or as the argument that just made the pros outweigh the cons, no way, that would be too cynical.
Again you need to consider intent. If we see a carcrash would we just shrug and say "they knew the risks", or would we help? If a person gets himself into an unwanted situation should we help? Certainly the person could have behaved very irresponsibly; it could be his own fault, he should have known better and perhaps he'll be more aware of this in the future. But should we leave people to themselves because
'that'll teach them the lesson'?
I am not defending those who do not take responsibility for their own actions and lives; too many people don't do that.
And please don't chop up this post.
---
mvasilev, look into the mirror, and tell me, do you really see that grinning skull that is your avatar?
Quote:
When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily,
joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible,
logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
clinical, intellectual, cynical.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 10, 2007 04:35 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:39, 10 Jan 2007.
|
mvassilev wrote:
Quote:
They are seperate issues. But I'm not concerned about right and wrong. I don't care about morality. One should always evaluate the risks and benefits of every action, and the probabilities of each. Then, one can make sound judgements. For example, if I knew 100% that I wouldn't be caught, I'd go ahead. If, for example, there was a 50% chance of getting caught, I wouldn't do it.
Then we have really nothing more to discuss. When you emerge from your sheltered, myopic, ego- and self-centric view of the world, then we can talk.
Ecoris wrote:
Quote:
Corribus, if we discuss on the basis of the perverse statements mvasilev makes this discussion will never get anywhere.
We agree that the process itself a woman goes through when deciding to have an abortion is not by any means easy, and therefore I think most of them learn from their mistake and become more responsible in the future. Do they really need to have the child to learn this?
About the diamond-analogy: I don't think you understood what point I was trying to make. The person is fully aware of the consequences of his actions, he's considered them and weighed the pros and cons. He knows exactly what he goes into. He intends to steal the diamond knowing he can get away with it; he knows that he might go through a lengthy trial, but that he'll ultimately go free.
A woman that has unprotected sex is not necessarily in the same situation. She might not have considered all the possible consequences (unlikely), but I don't think she would use "but I can always have an abortion" as an excuse or as the argument that just made the pros outweigh the cons, no way, that would be too cynical.
Again you need to consider intent. If we see a carcrash would we just shrug and say "they knew the risks", or would we help? If a person gets himself into an unwanted situation should we help? Certainly the person could have behaved very irresponsibly; it could be his own fault, he should have known better and perhaps he'll be more aware of this in the future. But should we leave people to themselves because
'that'll teach them the lesson'?
I am not defending those who do not take responsibility for their own actions and lives; too many people don't do that.
And please don't chop up this post.
Resisting urge to chop up post. So I will use numbers.
1. Agreed. mvassilev is whacked. on that we can both agree.
2. You ask if a woman must have her child to essentially learn her lesson? Interesting question. Probably depends on the woman. As we both agree, abortion is not a free pass. Life probably doesn't go back to normal for most woman. Perhaps after having an abortion, the woman does learn about the necessity to practice safe sex. But does she learn the value of life? Hmm, I don't know. Maybe only having a child will teach this.
3. Well of course the analogy does not make sense when you consider that abortion is not an "easy way out", as the one the lawyer offers for the jewel thief. Recall I made the analogy for mvassilev's benefit, because he was insinuating that abortion was an easy way out of the consequences of unsafe sex. Since we agree that this is not the case, the analogy no longer really applies. Certainly, I believe that, when a person makes a mistake (and we all do) and needs help, help should be offered. But despite the fact that we might help them in their situation, the person does need to take responsibility if the mistake was made as a result of their own actions. If the person knows that making a mistake has no consequences, then what is to prevent them from making the mistake again?
The car example is a good one. After I was in a bad car accident, I learned to really respect the automobile and concentrate on driving, and that a car is not a toy. I was lucky and was not injured, but I severely damaged my car and had to pay a lot of money to my insurance company (over time, through higher premiums). My parents were glad that I was not injured, but when it came to money, since I was in an accident (and that's what it was - just pure bad luck), I had to sacrifice my own salary to pay for the damages. They did help but they also made sure that I had to accept most of the responsibility. That was about 10 years ago, but to this day I still drive much more carefully and pay attention, particularly when I'm pulling out of parking lots. If my parents had just paid the money themselves and told me not to worry about it, what would I have learned from the experience? I would have learned that someone will always be around to get me out of the consequences of my actions. Which is a bad thing to learn because it's not true.
So, no, we shouldn't just abandon people in times of need. But on the other hand we should not just pay their debts for them. There's a fine line to be walked between helping someone in a down time and also letting them learn a valuable lesson. I think the ability to walk that line is partially what constitutes a good parent.
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2007 04:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So, no, we shouldn't just abandon people in times of need. But on the other hand we should not just pay their debts for them. There's a fine line to be walked between helping someone in a down time and also letting them learn a valuable lesson. I think the ability to walk that line is partially what constitutes a good parent.
I agree.
Turning back to the abortion issue, I wonder how you think society should 'walk the thin line'? This, of course, assumes that you're not against abortion from a moral standpoint. However, that is not my impression.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 12:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Turning back to the abortion issue, I wonder how you think society should 'walk the thin line'? This, of course, assumes that you're not against abortion from a moral standpoint. However, that is not my impression.
I will try to sum up.
You are mostly right. I am not against it from a moral standpoint. That doesn't mean I like abortion or think it is morally good, but I recognize that there are situations where it is called for. I believe it is up to the parentS (capital S, see below) to determine what these situations are. It is certainly not my right, or the state's right, to make that decision for a woman. In cases where the life of the mother or the life of the child is jeopardized, it is certainly an important option.
In cases where the abortion is being considered because the child is an inconvenience, that's a more difficult area. People can argue forever about when the fetus is "alive" and make some arbitrary cut-off as to when you have and have not progressed in the pregnancy to abort, but that's all it will ever be: arbitrary. Is it alive one day after conception, or five months? This is just semantics and it's pointless to argue. Certainly as the pregnancy progresses, arguments against abortion become more salient. But since any "point of no return" must invariably be completely arbtitrary, I don't see how the pro-life argument really holds any water, even though I certainly am sympathetic to their view that life and the rights of the unborn should ideally be protected. But, lacking any sensible criteria for when it is too late to have an abortion, I feel the people best suited to make a rational decision are the parents, since they ultimately deal with the consequences, even though it is far from an ideal solution to the problem.
That said, I do feel that abortion should be viewed as a last resort. I don't think abortion should be premitted to be an option until the parents have been presented with all the facts (unless the baby presents an immediate health risk). Abortion should certainly not be viewed as another means of birth control. AND, they need to somehow learn from the experience and accept responsibility for their actions. How can the parents be made to learn the gravity of unwanted pregnancy? I don't know - but forcing them to have a child that they will not love does not seem to be the right answer, I agree. But I feel that parents electing to have an abortion should be made to undergo some sort of therapy or treatment after the fact, to try to help them understand what they have done, what led them to the situation, and methods to avoid making the mistake again. They need to learn from the experience. But I'm not certain what is the best way to make that happen, short of establishing laws, which is not always the best solution either.
Finally, I would like to add that I really hate the answers of many men, who say that abortion is a woman's issue, because it's not. "It's the woman's body, let her decide!" is a poor attitude, because it absolves the man of any responsibility, and makes women feel alone in the situation - which invariably will lead them most likely to select abortion as their option when maybe that's not what they really want to do. Though the woman carries the child, and thus biologically she's the one who has to bear the burden, the pregnancy was caused just as much by the man as the woman, and they BOTH have to bear the burden of the consequences of sex and pregnancy (that is, a child). To hear a guy say, "The woman carries the child, she should sort out the whole abortion issue" really angers me. Abortion is a problem that society must face, because it has repurcussions that go beyond the woman carrying a child. These problems affect men, too. The man needs to learn from an unwanted pregnancy as much as a woman does, and if they deal with the problem together, they are much more likely to choose a solution other than abortion, which is almost always a positive in my mind.
Hmm, maybe that was a bit incoherent but I wrote it quickly. I will consider more a better way to frame my thoughts and add more later.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 12:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
mvassilev wrote:
Quote:
They are seperate issues. But I'm not concerned about right and wrong. I don't care about morality. One should always evaluate the risks and benefits of every action, and the probabilities of each. Then, one can make sound judgements. For example, if I knew 100% that I wouldn't be caught, I'd go ahead. If, for example, there was a 50% chance of getting caught, I wouldn't do it.
Then we have really nothing more to discuss. When you emerge from your sheltered, myopic, ego- and self-centric view of the world, then we can talk.
I am not insulted. I don't believe that I am the most important person in the universe. I believe that I am the most important person in the universe for me. Everyone, whether consiously or unconsiously, believes this. For example, take the person that aids the poor every day. He does this to feel good. His helping others of his species (something written in human genes) makes him "feel good", and he feels encouraged to do it again, to bring pleasure to himself. Remember that, often, to benefit yourself, you often have to benefit others. That's why I, in the necklace hypothetical situation, would steal the necklace (if there was no chance that I would be convicted), but I wouldn't go around the country, stealing necklaces, even if I wouldn't get caught for that, unless I had to. Why?
1. Jewelers would become more careful, making it so that if I ever had to steal again, I couldn't.
2. The law would be fixed, and there would be no more loophole. I could no longer steal.
3. Even if the above 2 didn't happen, jewelers would become poor from my thefts, and go out of business. Less jewelers mean less jewels, until (hypothetically), there are no more necklaces left. I would have just dug myself into a hole.
4. However, if I steal many of the jewelers' jewels, I would be unlikely to need to steal more. However, the jewelers would go out of business. They wouldn't have any money with which to buy jewels. They would be unable to have businesses. Thus, the companies who cut jewels would go out of business as well. The people who work for the companies would become unemployed, and be unable to spend money. Then, various goods and service industries would slowly begin to suffer more and more, and begin to collapse as well. Unemployment soars. The economy fails. Suddenly, even though I have many jewels, I am unable to sell them for money, and cannot buy food. I would have dug myself into a hole. (I realize point 4 is greatly simplifying, and that 1 person's thefts would be very unlikely to crash the economy). Thus, it would often benefit me best not to steal more than I need.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 02:27 AM |
|
|
I promised myself I wouldn't respond to him any more.
I promised myself I wouldn't respond to him any more.
I promised myself I wouldn't respond to him any more.
Narrow escape!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 11, 2007 05:05 AM |
|
|
LoL . . .
A simple "LoL" from me. Hang in there Binabik! You can do it!
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 07:20 AM |
|
|
Thanks for the support Consis.
Takes a deep breath. Back on topic
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 11:53 AM |
|
Edited by Ecoris at 11:55, 11 Jan 2007.
|
Quote:
AND, they need to somehow learn from the experience and accept responsibility for their actions. How can the parents be made to learn the gravity of unwanted pregnancy? I don't know - but forcing them to have a child that they will not love does not seem to be the right answer, I agree. But I feel that parents electing to have an abortion should be made to undergo some sort of therapy or treatment after the fact, to try to help them understand what they have done, what led them to the situation, and methods to avoid making the mistake again. They need to learn from the experience. But I'm not certain what is the best way to make that happen, short of establishing laws, which is not always the best solution either.
If all parents could "learn from the experience and accept responsibility for their actions" there would really not be any problem. And we would be happy because the world fitted with our moral views. But the world is not ideal, far from it.
I am no idealist. Ideals are good, but they should not be the starting point (rather the aim) when dealing with the problems of the people. We can't distinguish those who will 'learn' and those who won't, and even then a discriminating law would be unacceptable; I guess we will have to live with the fact that some people may take too lightly on this issue for our liking; it is an inevitable consequence of free abortion. Making it an economic problem (e.g. if the parents have to pay; though I don't know how this is outside Denmark) won't help either, it will just hit poor people.
The discussion of abortion from a moral basis is interesting, and perhaps many people would agree on an 'ideal' solution; how it ought to be, but the practical difficulties should be considered as well.
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 02:30 PM |
|
|
mvassilev says:
Quote:
I don’t’ believe that I am the most important person in the universe
orignal...
You need an award for that statement!!! Here I thought that you could not say anything intelligent and there you go blowing me away with all your wisdom!!! So tell me do your people give out special awards for that? I shall bask in the comment and know that all is right with the world now..
[Edited from above]You need an award for that statement!!! Here I thought that you had a very high IQ, I mean above that of a genius. Now I know that you have just blown me away with your wisdom. Great statement!!! So tell me do your people give out special awards for that? I shall bask in the comment and know that all is right with the world now. I look forward to your next post…
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
