In case we haven't beaten the abortion horse to death yet

[Orlion]

I've bolded the point that I believe is being forced. The plain and simple matter is that pregnancies can happen, even if you follow steps to try to prevent them.

and exactly how does this happen? Let's see, the woman just happened to be fertile on that day, the birth control pill she was taking happened to fail, as did the condom she insisted that her partner wear failed.

What's the likelihood?

No, what happens is that the steps necessary to prevent pregnancy as a result of copulation were not followed, thus there was an abdication of responsibility by the mother (and probably the father).....therefore, the innocent party here, the fetus, get's the ultimate penalty for the parents irresponsibility.

{sarcasm}sounds like a plan to me. {/sarcasm}

Not at all. Such pregnancies happen do to lack of education (like you have to take the birth control pill for a few weeks before it is "effective"). What causes this lack of knowledge? It's certainly not this mindset that people should accept nebulous parameters of responsibility so why have sex-ed class because the responsible thing to do is to go against your nature and abstain from sex (as a point of order, I don't think anyone here holds this idea in its entirety).

We talk about responsibility, but then we talk about liberty, and then we run around and contradict ourselves. Is it responsible for a sixteen year old to raise a child? Does that matter if she wants to exercise her liberty to do so? Should responsibility factor into law making?

Some say it should if it harms somebody. But an embryo or fetus is not a somebody, it is a something. It doesn't have hopes, dreams, or personality in of itself that we come to expect from somebodies. On the other hand, forcing the pregnancy through terms does interfere with one's hopes, dreams, and personality. It's a form of coercion, and is not based on anything substantial. "Better safe then sorry" arguments have no realm in the political sphere, otherwise we ought to support exporting anyone of Muslim faith because, hey, they may not be terrorists but it's better safe then sorry. And thus, tyranny is institutionalized and given the holy baptism of law. In fact, wouldn't you want to "be safe" and preserve people's liberties rather then "be sorry" that you've enslaved the population in the name of an organism with dubious humanity? You'd say such an argument is fallacious, and rightfully so. In that same spirit, I deny that it is "better safe then sorry" because there is nothing that points to a fetus as being a human being, there is no reason to think that it is alive in any meaningful way, and is therefore not murder. In cases like these, erring on the side of caution seems too much for me.

[sindatur]

Can't buy that Orlion, you have to get a prescription for Birth Control pills, and they quite clearly tell you how they work when they write the prescription. There is no excuse for someone who is prescribed Birth Control Pills to know how long they take to take effect

[Orlion]

Can't buy that Orlion, you have to get a prescription for Birth Control pills, and they quite clearly tell you how they work when they write the prescription. There is no excuse for someone who is prescribed Birth Control Pills to know how long they take to take effect

Damn, somebody found that hole in my argument

[sindatur]

LOL, nice try, though

[Tjol]

Contraception is an action to obstruct life too.

--A

I don't know, I mean I see what you're trying to get at, but it's a bit different. You're comparing a possibility to an actuality. There's a bit of a difference between not making life, and actively stopping life. Someone who does not sculpt is not equivolent to someone who vandalises sculptures.

[Avatar]

*shrug* I see the embryo as a possibility too. Technically, only upon birth does the possibility becom an actuality, but as I said, I'm willing to compromise at 12 weeks or so.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

I've bolded the point that I believe is being forced. The plain and simple matter is that pregnancies can happen, even if you follow steps to try to prevent them.

and exactly how does this happen? Let's see, the woman just happened to be fertile on that day, the birth control pill she was taking happened to fail, as did the condom she insisted that her partner wear failed.

What's the likelihood?

No, what happens is that the steps necessary to prevent pregnancy as a result of copulation were not followed, thus there was an abdication of responsibility by the mother (and probably the father).....therefore, the innocent party here, the fetus, get's the ultimate penalty for the parents irresponsibility.

{sarcasm}sounds like a plan to me. {/sarcasm}

Not at all. Such pregnancies happen do to lack of education (like you have to take the birth control pill for a few weeks before it is "effective"). What causes this lack of knowledge? It's certainly not this mindset that people should accept nebulous parameters of responsibility so why have sex-ed class because the responsible thing to do is to go against your nature and abstain from sex (as a point of order, I don't think anyone here holds this idea in its entirety).

We talk about responsibility, but then we talk about liberty, and then we run around and contradict ourselves. Is it responsible for a sixteen year old to raise a child? Does that matter if she wants to exercise her liberty to do so? Should responsibility factor into law making?

Some say it should if it harms somebody. But an embryo or fetus is not a somebody, it is a something. It doesn't have hopes, dreams, or personality in of itself that we come to expect from somebodies. On the other hand, forcing the pregnancy through terms does interfere with one's hopes, dreams, and personality. It's a form of coercion, and is not based on anything substantial. "Better safe then sorry" arguments have no realm in the political sphere, otherwise we ought to support exporting anyone of Muslim faith because, hey, they may not be terrorists but it's better safe then sorry. And thus, tyranny is institutionalized and given the holy baptism of law. In fact, wouldn't you want to "be safe" and preserve people's liberties rather then "be sorry" that you've enslaved the population in the name of an organism with dubious humanity? You'd say such an argument is fallacious, and rightfully so. In that same spirit, I deny that it is "better safe then sorry" because there is nothing that points to a fetus as being a human being, there is no reason to think that it is alive in any meaningful way, and is therefore not murder. In cases like these, erring on the side of caution seems too much for me.

If the 16 yr. old adolescent is old enough to be engaging in sexual activity designed to engender pregnacy, then certainly the 16 yr. old adolescent is old enough to accept the responsibility that goes along with this. If not, then the adolescent should not be having sex, since they are obviously not mature enough to accept the ramifications of what they do.

Another adult lesson: Sometimes you have to delay your gratification in order to recieve the greater reward later.

[Vraith]

If the 16 yr. old adolescent is old enough to be engaging in sexual activity designed to engender pregnacy, then certainly the 16 yr. old adolescent is old enough to accept the responsibility that goes along with this. If not, then the adolescent should not be having sex, since they are obviously not mature enough to accept the ramifications of what they do.

Another adult lesson: Sometimes you have to delay your gratification in order to recieve the greater reward later.

I had to respond, cuz I always have to when I find myself agreeing even a little with people I normally disagree with a lot. And I agree with the theory behind this. I'm just not sure how we get there from here. The biology of human breeding is as old as people. But the nature of human society is utterly different. The absolute necessities of survival 'back in the day' are very real impediments to success today: but the body doesn't know this, and has extremely powerful weapons for overcoming the mind's rational resistance [even if the particular mind is mature enough to resist...which is far from certain]
When a body is ready to mate, it is ready. It's the modern structure of society that makes it problematic.

[Kaydene]

If the 16 yr. old adolescent is old enough to be engaging in sexual activity designed to engender pregnacy, then certainly the 16 yr. old adolescent is old enough to accept the responsibility that goes along with this. If not, then the adolescent should not be having sex, since they are obviously not mature enough to accept the ramifications of what they do.

Another adult lesson: Sometimes you have to delay your gratification in order to recieve the greater reward later.

A body is old enough to engage in sexual activity from a pretty young age. While the argument sounds nice, it's not logical. If the logic of 16 year olds was sound, we would call them adults at 16. They still need a lot of parenting and guidance at this time in their lives. Some haven't been made aware of contraceptives. Some parents won't talk with their kids about sex AT ALL. It's a huge taboo in some families. In other families, you aren't an adult until you are pregnant, regardless of whether or not you're ready.

The second part, if they aren't ready, they shouldn't have sex...sounds nice on paper, but sixteen year olds are going to have sex. Whether it's right or wrong, it's going to happen.

[Fist and Faith]

When our bodies become able to reproduce, they develop an extremely strong urge to reproduce. In general terms, humans can reproduce when they're 13. And for some of human history, that's when we did reproduce. And only a few years older was the norm for other chunks. The president of the United States - one of the most scrutinized people on the planet - someone who certainly has seriously important things to do - and who's married, btw - couldn't manage to keep it in his pants. These feelings are the driving force of animal species. Even when the male of a species knows he's gotta run for his life - literally - afterwards, he takes the chance. And, so, the species goes on. Not a one of us would be here if not for a pretty good number of our ancestors being born out of wedlock, or as a result of extramarita affairs. This is strongest stuff we feel. To expect 16 yr. olds, who are far newer to these raging feelings than Clinton was, to calmly consider putting off their gratification is unrealistic. And I don't mean that in the sense of "silly," although it is. I mean it in the sense that it isn't going to happen. Ever. Humanity hasn't survived that way. We don't wait until we're ready. Until we're old enough. Until we're financially stable, and able to support a child. We survive because we seldom manage to control ourselves.

[Tjol]

We should aim to emulate the best of us, not the worst of us. So the fact that Edwards and Clinton and Frank and whomever else acted a certian way isn't reason to set our sights lower. Different topic though, the whole 'we should aim for our lowest common denominator, because it's what comes natural' argument.

[Fist and Faith]

I'm not saying we should aim lower. I'm saying that, by and large, 16 yr. olds will fail to control themselves. Just like 16 yr.olds, and every other yr. olds, have throughout human history. It is not aiming low to say we should prepare for what happens when teens do get pregnant, rather than tell them, "Well, you were old enough to have sex. Now be old enough to deal with being pregnant." That solution will not help anything in any way. Some are adult enough to deal with it, and become fine parents. Others do not. They abuse, or abandon, or ignore, or make terrible mistakes with their kids, because they are still kids, and can't handle the crying and lack of sleep and constant, constant, constant responsibility. "Shoulda thought of that before you took your pants off!" doesn't help the abused kids. Let's not forget that older parents do those same terrible things. Age doesn't always bring wisdom.

Sure, by all means, let's emulate the best of us. But let's not kid ourselves. No society has found a way to have only physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially sound people become parents. Looking down on the "worst" of us - which, in this case, means those who behave like normal people - won't stop it from happening.

[Avatar]

Sure, by all means, let's emulate the best of us. But let's not kid ourselves. No society has found a way to have only physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially sound people become parents. Looking down on the "worst" of us - which, in this case, means those who behave like normal people - won't stop it from happening.

Agreed. And punishing a 16 yr old by forcing it to have a child isn't really productive. Apart from anything else, chances are the responsibility will be taken up by the child's parents anyway. Not teaching a lesson, in other words.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

I'm not saying we should aim lower. I'm saying that, by and large, 16 yr. olds will fail to control themselves. Just like 16 yr.olds, and every other yr. olds, have throughout human history. It is not aiming low to say we should prepare for what happens when teens do get pregnant, rather than tell them, "Well, you were old enough to have sex. Now be old enough to deal with being pregnant." That solution will not help anything in any way. Some are adult enough to deal with it, and become fine parents. Others do not. They abuse, or abandon, or ignore, or make terrible mistakes with their kids, because they are still kids, and can't handle the crying and lack of sleep and constant, constant, constant responsibility. "Shoulda thought of that before you took your pants off!" doesn't help the abused kids. Let's not forget that older parents do those same terrible things. Age doesn't always bring wisdom.

Sure, by all means, let's emulate the best of us. But let's not kid ourselves. No society has found a way to have only physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially sound people become parents. Looking down on the "worst" of us - which, in this case, means those who behave like normal people - won't stop it from happening.

I agree, however, there were certainly fewer cases when it was "not OK" to have sex at a young age, and even less "OK" to be pregnant out of wedlock. Parents and society used to help prevent these things, and then the 60's came along, and all of the sudden it was OK, despite the proven harm to society as a whole.

[sindatur]

Were there really fewer young pregnancies, I'm not so sure? Population was much smaller before the 1960s, so you have to look at per capita, not sheer volume. It's hard to believe that as soon as abortion was made legal everyone just ran out and had one for kicks

Then we had girls being sent away to have the baby and have it adopted out, so no one knew they were pregnant, throwing themselves down stairs, back alley abortions, and shotgun weddings, no way to really gather statistics on those things.

[Fist and Faith]

Yup. As sindatur says, it happened a whole lot before the 60's. Coat-hanger and back-alley abortions were more common. And more girls died from things like infections and bleeding. They were old enough to have sex, and they were old enough to accept the consequences. Pretty harsh consequences, though.

[Avatar]

Not to mention the fact that available abortion has not made it ok. I would guess that a least some social stigma attaches to having an abortion too, apart from anything else.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

It's not just social stigma. Lots of women who have abortions later regret it. They come to think of it as murder. Some even think it's murder and regret it as they're doing it. But, it would seem, they believe the guilt of that will be less than the guilt of giving a child up for adoption.

[Kaydene]

In many cases though, a woman knows that during pregnancy, there develops a profoundly strong bond between mother and child, making adoption less of an option. However, that doesn't mean that somehow that woman magically becomes capable of providing for that child, or capable of becoming a healthy mother for him/her.

[Orlion]

How much of the later guilt is directly a result of having performed the abortion and not the cultural view of abortion?