Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,350 Year: 3,607/9,624 Month: 478/974 Week: 91/276 Day: 19/23 Hour: 5/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1258 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 1 of 440 (92148)
03-12-2004 11:49 PM


Hi,
I honestly tried to go to sleep but I couldn't I felt so angry.
Why Abortion should be supported (supposed reasons):
1. Rape victims.
Do two wrongs make a right?
It's horrible that you were raped and it isn't wrong fault you're pregnant but is it ok to essentially kill a baby even though you didn't put your pregnancy on yourself?
2. If it is your fault. (by unprotected sex)
Isn't it your responsibility to have the child and at least give it to an adoption agency? Reminder: If you don't it will die from murder.
3. If you have the baby you will die
This is where it is your choice to have the baby or not. This reason is the crutch of pro-choice enthusiasts. This is a very rare occurence and is used to make murder look nice and the last resort type thing. I have a friend that says she is pro-choice. The only reason why she is pro-choice is because of this rare occurence. Why support something that is so much more broad than that.
If you are pro-choice you support all of these reasons, and even perhaps the more inhumane atrocities that are being committed outside of this country. Although you can't get more inhumane, just more gory, to the point where you can see the baby so it makes you feel like you're are ordering murder. If they're just cells than you don't feel this way. It's not what the cells are, it's what the cells will become. You who support abortion are killing off future youth, maybe future geniuses who can better our world. But it shouldn't matter what they become either, you don't know anyway. All you know and all you need to know is that babies are dying by murder and you are partly if not all to blame.
What will you say to this?
They're just cells not a baby.
What will those cells become? What are you denying those cells and what are you denying what is the future of those cells of?
I am frustrated by how anyone can not see abortion as cold-blooded killing. If you don't see it as such please respond.
Most of the time when people say "you are blinded from the truth!" it isn't absolutely true, if not at all but if you think abortion is morally sound and ethical, if abortion isn't murder, death and killing another human being to become (at the least) then you truly are blinded and it's so tragic. It just doesn't make sense to me how someone could feel that way. Lord help mankind!

-chris

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-13-2004 12:44 AM Trump won has not replied
 Message 3 by Macavity, posted 03-13-2004 12:56 AM Trump won has not replied
 Message 4 by Reef, posted 03-13-2004 1:29 AM Trump won has not replied
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 03-13-2004 2:17 AM Trump won has replied
 Message 7 by MrHambre, posted 03-13-2004 7:27 AM Trump won has not replied
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 03-13-2004 5:16 PM Trump won has not replied
 Message 13 by nator, posted 03-14-2004 12:44 PM Trump won has replied
 Message 23 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-16-2004 10:14 PM Trump won has replied
 Message 27 by docpotato, posted 03-17-2004 1:49 PM Trump won has not replied
 Message 28 by :æ:, posted 03-17-2004 2:03 PM Trump won has not replied
 Message 341 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-07-2004 6:23 PM Trump won has not replied
 Message 417 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-20-2004 9:59 PM Trump won has replied

Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 440 (92153)
03-13-2004 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
03-12-2004 11:49 PM


1.) rape victems
Whatever happened to rights to your own body? If you can't expect privacy for your own body, then why should you expect any other right to be upheld? A victem of rape is violated, and their personal choice is taken away. As a further burden, you are expecting them to carry to term the product of that rape. In fact, you are condoning the act of rape as a legitimate way of passing on genes. True, that rapist might go to jail, but from a genetic perspective, he has successfully spawned. Many women may well be able to come to terms with the rape and carry the child to term, but for many others, it would seem like additional punishment on top of being violated.
2.) Personal choice: On this regard I do agree to some extent. I think people are not cautious enough about protection. I also thing that sex education needs to stress all alternatives, ie absitince, safe sex practices, realisitc medical advice, etc. That being said, this portion of the pro-choice vs pro-life arguement seems to be were the real crux of the arguement lies.
3.) Health and welfare of the mother.
As a happily married man, I am planning on having children soon. however, if my wife has complications and is hospitilized, or something occurs during birth that threatens my wife's life, and the doctor asks me who to save, its my wife every time. My wife don't see eye to eye on this debate, but she knows full well if I have a choice who it would be. That isn't to say I wouldn't be grieved about the decision, but the choice for me is clear.
In normal circumstances, I would say that I support a pro-choice stance, however I must say that I have problems with an abuse of the practice. Likewise, I think anything after 3-4 months should go to full term, unless it is related to health issue or serious defect in the child (ie lungs don't form, unrepairable congential heart defects ect.) That is only my opinion of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trump won, posted 03-12-2004 11:49 PM Trump won has not replied

Macavity
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 440 (92154)
03-13-2004 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
03-12-2004 11:49 PM


Re: Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters
Chris:
You are aware that, according to some studies, approximately 50% of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort?
Miscarriage: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
Is this cold-blooded killing? This is certainly an abortion. But is this murder too? If so, who's the killer?
--Macavity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trump won, posted 03-12-2004 11:49 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-16-2004 10:18 PM Macavity has not replied

Reef
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 440 (92163)
03-13-2004 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
03-12-2004 11:49 PM


There are millions of eggs and sperm frozen in sperm banks throughout the world.
Everytime a man masterbates or a woman allows an egg to pass through her body naturally they to are killing cells that could become children. if you take this argument to a cellular level then you are accusing every man woman and child who has passed puberty of murder.
You cannot justify your accusation of murder by condeming people who destroy cells because you and most the worlds population are guilty of this.
On top of this you allow every human cell to grow into a human, then laborities around the world will be churning out more babies then Mcdonalds is churning out happy meals. Th world would be over populated in a matter of weeks and thus the end of the human race by starvation. You have just condemned the entire human race to death for its crimes against human cells.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trump won, posted 03-12-2004 11:49 PM Trump won has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 440 (92168)
03-13-2004 2:06 AM


Thread moved here from the Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution forum.

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 440 (92171)
03-13-2004 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
03-12-2004 11:49 PM


I am frustrated by how anyone can not see abortion as cold-blooded killing.
There's nothing cold-blooded about it. It's a medical procedure with vast emotional impact for the mother.
Who among us can know the future? Let's talk about what is. What is is a group of cells with nothing resembling humanity. If you think a few cells are equivalent to a person, would you mind if I took a few of your cells and destroyed the rest of you? Surely that's not murder if a few cells are equivalent to a person?
Or maybe there's a little more to a human than a few cells?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trump won, posted 03-12-2004 11:49 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Trump won, posted 03-13-2004 7:51 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 179 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-06-2004 6:52 PM crashfrog has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1411 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 7 of 440 (92204)
03-13-2004 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
03-12-2004 11:49 PM


quote:
I am frustrated by how anyone can not see abortion as cold-blooded killing. If you don't see it as such please respond.
I'm pro-choice, only because I think it doesn't matter how I regard the issue. It's a woman's body and that's it.
My twin brother and I were put up for adoption at birth by a woman who presumably got pregnant without having planned to do so. I think she did the right thing by carrying twins to term, though certain members of the board will no doubt disagree with me. Screw you in advance, Dan.
I have two kids of my own, and they're the greatest gifts I've ever received. I'm glad that both of them were healthy, normal pregnancies and there was never any concern about their well-being or their mother's.
I can also name three women I know (and I wasn't involved, make that clear) who have had more than one abortion, for no better reason than that they are too stupid to use contraception or keep their legs shut. Do I consider this irresponsible? Reprehensible? I sure do.
An old boss of mine (a Catholic and a pro-lifer) and his wife chose to have an abortion because the life of both mom and child were in danger. I can tell he regrets it (it would have been his only son) but it was necessary.
A couple of friends of my family had a daughter who was born with massive deformities (the mother was older and had not had an amnio): severe developmental problems, no eyes, organs on the outside of her body, etc. They didn't expect her to live more than six months, but she survived to nearly two years old. When she finally died (in great pain), the parents were bankrupt and estranged.
We have to realize that there are a lot of things involved in the issue. I think the entire abortion subject should be seen in the context of a wide variety of reproductive choices, and the current definiton of the debate is too narrow and emotional. However, even in its present state, I support the pro-choice position. The mother isn't just the incubator for this precious fetus. Her pregnancy itself should be the product of informed, conscious decision-making, and whether or not she elects to continue the pregnancy should be carried out without coercion as well. If she decides she's not having the child, the choice has to be hers.
regards,
Esteban "No Life" Hambre
[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 03-13-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trump won, posted 03-12-2004 11:49 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by joshua221, posted 03-17-2004 10:03 PM MrHambre has not replied

Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1258 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 8 of 440 (92206)
03-13-2004 7:46 AM


Ok, I was wrong to say cells, how about whatevers inside the woman, when she has an option for a legal abortion. At the point where there is enough clarity to define what it is or what it will become, so it gives her the option of abortion.
Also I think Mrhambre's point on the baby will die in pain, will not live long and will be deformed, then I think you should have a choice there too.
I apologize for saying cells, seeing there's no way to tell what those cells will become.

-chris

Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1258 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 9 of 440 (92208)
03-13-2004 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
03-13-2004 2:17 AM


quote:
There's nothing cold-blooded about it. It's a medical procedure with vast emotional impact for the mother.
Who among us can know the future? Let's talk about what is. What is is a group of cells with nothing resembling humanity. If you think a few cells are equivalent to a person, would you mind if I took a few of your cells and destroyed the rest of you? Surely that's not murder if a few cells are equivalent to a person?
Or maybe there's a little more to a human than a few cells?
But in the abortion if they're just a group of cells why are they being eliminated? Do you think it may be that those cells would become something soon? Why would the procedure of abortion be done if there are just cells there. It's normal to have cells in your body. There must be something special about that group of cells and the doctor can tell she's pregnant soo?

-chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 03-13-2004 2:17 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Quetzal, posted 03-13-2004 8:14 AM Trump won has not replied
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 03-13-2004 4:35 PM Trump won has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5891 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 10 of 440 (92211)
03-13-2004 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Trump won
03-13-2004 7:51 AM


Hi messanjah.
One possible approach to your question would be to attempt to define the point at which an embryo becomes "human", rather than "potential human". IMO, I think the line is a little hazy, but an operational definition might be the point when the neocortex begins functioning. After all, it's our brains that make us human (at least as compared to other critters). Of course, this definition probably won't satisfy either side of the debate, but it's at least a place to start the discussion on a rational vice emotional base.
BTW: For reference, my position on the subject is nearly 100% congruent with Mr. H's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Trump won, posted 03-13-2004 7:51 AM Trump won has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 440 (92267)
03-13-2004 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Trump won
03-13-2004 7:51 AM


quote:
But in the abortion if they're just a group of cells why are they being eliminated? Do you think it may be that those cells would become something soon?
If a person said I want to kill these cells because they will become a baby and I want to kill babies, then your argument may hold some water. But this is not what is happening in abortion.
Perhaps you should think seriously about where those cells are, and what relationship the cells hold with relation to the entity that is currently containing them. Without question the "vessel" is a full human being, whether those cells are a "being" is debatable.
This is not to say that your POV is wrong. If one feels that a soul enters at conception, and so makes it identical to any other grown human being, then clearly killing an embryo is murder to such a person, and that POV is valid. However, that belief is not shared by everyone and it is so far unproven that such a thing as souls even exist, much less are measurable during gestation, and so their POV is equally valid.
In light of this, isn't the best way to handle the situation to allow each person to make up their own mind regarding the metaphysics of life and reproduction and treat their own situation accordingly?
Interestingly, you have already started shifting toward the proChoice position.
You have identified that, even if an embryo has a soul and so is a person, it is not a complete person and so the owner of that gestational being might have good reason to end its gestation. For example if its growth will kill the owner, or if it will not grow properly and end up torturing the soul until its death.
With just those two reasons alone, even if rare, if abortion is outlawed then they will have no option in those cases.
But let us go further. What about a child that will be born into a situation that is not good for it. For example a child born into poverty, especially if the parent had been raped and so may be psychologically hostile to the child. You say the parent should just give it up for adoption. Is this "adoption" a particular place that takes all babies and treats them well? Why couldn't a parent decide, much like if their child would be born deformed, that they would not want their child born into a situation that they themselves consider needless suffering?
And this is getting closer to the real point, is it not their own child? Is it not an extension of themselves borne from THEIR OWN REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS? Who are they reproducing? Themselves. An embryo is not some divinely manufactured entity separate from its host, but a product of an organism that is reproducing itself in a new form. Why should a reproducer not have control over that which it is reproducing?
Some people even view their offspring as a literal continuation of their own soul or existence. Do these people not have a right to decide into what conditions their soul or existence enters? Perhaps abortion is as much mercy for themselves as it is for a potential child. They are seeking only the best conditions for their child's and so their own future.
I do not see the advantage of encouraging people to have children that at their outset are not desired to finish gestation, even if they may get adopted at some later date. Especially in a world where population is an issue, this seems sort of an odd fantasy solution.
How does forced childbearing REALLY help the potential child or the already existing parent? I understand it makes busybodies feel better about their ability to control other people's choices, but ultimately you are simply telling the parent they must shoot dice with their own life in order to guarantee some dice shoot for their kid's life. It is not like the kid is guaranteed anything in their life besides death, not even love.
And on that note I have a series of questions, which I have never understood about the antiAbortion side of the debate:
1) Often the argument is (as you have used) based on teleology. The cells will someday be a baby, so embryos are babies. Ignoring for a moment that that is not a guarantee at all, why are we stopping at that point? The end point of cells growing is not a full grown human, but a dead and decaying body. Especially for people that believe in a soul, and that our best place is in heaven, how do you differentiate the baby from the dead body as a teleological endpoint?
2) The next argument is that it is harming an innocent soul when it is unable to defend itself. Most fertilized eggs do not make it through to becoming full babies. Why are we then to believe that the soul enters at the beginning, or along most of that gestational period? If souls are a part of this process then what is happening to all of those souls (the majority) that are not born?
3) One possible answer is that God does not bother to put souls into children that will not be born, or another is that it is just a physical death and the soul is left untouched. In either case, how can abortion be viewed as doing anything harmful (along the lines of murder) to the unborn? Either God knows it will be terminated and so does not put a soul in, or whatever we do it is not unlike an end that could just as easily have happened later during gestation.
4) Finally there are appeals to what it costs the world, or God. It is an odd idea that man's ability to perform abortions could somehow challenge God's plans. I realize you are not saying this but some do, arguing we may kill the next Jesus. This almost sounds like blasphemy to me. In the end some babies will be born that will go on to do good things, some will go on to do bad things. If God has a hand in anything then this cannot be stopped. And it seems odd to demand a woman not control her own biological and perhaps spiritual destiny, just so WE can see what things her baby MIGHT do, if in fact it does come to term.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Trump won, posted 03-13-2004 7:51 AM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Trump won, posted 03-17-2004 6:56 PM Silent H has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 12 of 440 (92275)
03-13-2004 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
03-12-2004 11:49 PM


messenJah,
Isn't it your responsibility to have the child and at least give it to an adoption agency?
I've always taken a middle line on abortion, whenever I've strayed onto the abolitionist side I've got slaughtered by good arguments. But if I recall, Schrafinator came out with this argument, & it is a good one.....
If it is someone elses responsibility to have the child & have society adopt it, isn't it you're responsibility as a member of that society to adopt it? Or would you make exactly the same excuses as the potential aborter?
I think it's a fair point.
Mark

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trump won, posted 03-12-2004 11:49 PM Trump won has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 13 of 440 (92407)
03-14-2004 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
03-12-2004 11:49 PM


quote:
1. Rape victims.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Is it "right" to force a woman to incubate a child?
Why does the fetus' rights trump those of the woman's?
quote:
It's horrible that you were raped and it isn't wrong fault you're pregnant but is it ok to essentially kill a baby even though you didn't put your pregnancy on yourself?
Is it OK to force a woman to incubate a fetus, complete with all of the health risks, including death and future infertility?
Also, what about young girls who are impregnated by rapists, such as relatives? Do you feel OK with forcing them to incubate the fetus?
quote:
2. If it is your fault. (by unprotected sex)
Isn't it your responsibility to have the child and at least give it to an adoption agency? Reminder: If you don't it will die from murder.
Is it OK to force a woman to incubate a fetus?
quote:
3. If you have the baby you will die
This is where it is your choice to have the baby or not.
Why? Why is it OK to force women to become incubators in some cases, taking away her right to control her own body, but in this caase it isn't OK?
quote:
This reason is the crutch of pro-choice enthusiasts. This is a very rare occurence and is used to make murder look nice and the last resort type thing.
Can you please explain when a fertilized egg becomes human, and is therefore "murderable"?
quote:
I have a friend that says she is pro-choice. The only reason why she is pro-choice is because of this rare occurence. Why support something that is so much more broad than that.
Because it's inappropriate to dictate to individual women what should be a private matter between her, her family and her doctor.
quote:
If you are pro-choice you support all of these reasons, and even perhaps the more inhumane atrocities that are being committed outside of this country.
This does not logically follow.
Just because I support every woman's right to control what happens to her own body, it does not follow that I support infantacide, for instance.
quote:
Although you can't get more inhumane, just more gory, to the point where you can see the baby so it makes you feel like you're are ordering murder. If they're just cells than you don't feel this way. It's not what the cells are, it's what the cells will become.
So, I assume then that you wish to control what happens to every single egg and every single sperm, because these are the cells that have the potential to create human life.
Also, are you going to want to examine all of the menstrual fluid of women for all of the fertilized eggs that don't implant themselves in the uterus? Most fertilized eggs end up this way, but according to you, they are potential human life and should be saved, right?
quote:
You who support abortion are killing off future youth, maybe future geniuses who can better our world.
...or, we are killing a future Hitler or Ossama bin Laden.
Your argument might be more powerful if there were no starving children living in poverty on this planet, but I think it's much more important to focus on making the lives of the destitute and damaged children who are already here better rather than trying to add more to the tolls.
quote:
But it shouldn't matter what they become either, you don't know anyway. All you know and all you need to know is that babies are dying by murder and you are partly if not all to blame.
So are religions and governments which make birth control and family planning services difficult to get, and also actively resist the empowerment of women to be the social and sexual equal of men.
quote:
They're just cells not a baby.
She's just an incubator, not a human being.
quote:
What will those cells become? What are you denying those cells and what are you denying what is the future of those cells of?
What will that girl/woman become? What are you denying that girl/woman and what are you denying what is the future of this girl/woman?
quote:
I am frustrated by how anyone can not see abortion as cold-blooded killing. If you don't see it as such please respond.
I have never known anyone who is pro-choice who also thinks that abortion is a wonderful, lovely thing. It is to be avoided as much as possible.
Don't you think, if one wanted to avoid abortions taking place, one would focus on teaching men to keep it in their pants, and if they can't do that, perhaps teach them to use condoms?
Did you know that adult men are the cause of the majority of underage girls' pregnancies? Who is on their case?
The fact is, it's much easier to lay blame after the fact instead of working to prevent it in the first place.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-14-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trump won, posted 03-12-2004 11:49 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 03-14-2004 5:51 PM nator has replied
 Message 21 by Trump won, posted 03-16-2004 9:15 PM nator has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 440 (92465)
03-14-2004 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by nator
03-14-2004 12:44 PM


Everything you said regarding women's rights I agreed with, but as usual you lapse into some anti-male agenda which ends up hurting your case, and/or potentially alienating people that might agree with you.
quote:
Don't you think, if one wanted to avoid abortions taking place, one would focus on teaching men to keep it in their pants, and if they can't do that, perhaps teach them to use condoms?
This is truly a sexist comment. Obviously if we are talking about RAPE, then the problem is RAPISTS RAPING and not men keeping their cocks in their pants.
Are you seriously suggesting that rapes make up all abortions, or that women should be given a free ride on sexual responsibility when it is not rape?
If anything this supports messenjaH's position. He is not arguing that women are worthless, just that every life is equally precious and so women do have the potential to get put into positions where they do not get to choose anything they want. If the child and the mother's lives are equal, and every life should be protected, then abortion is wrong.
It is as much a duty for a girl to give birth (under that ideology) as it is to not kill your kid after birth. I do not agree with that equation which is why I support choice, but that is not his position (or at least it was not in his first post) and so your argument ends up being a strawman.
And of course this is why the same people pushing the antiAbortion message often chime your line... abstinence education first! Keep it in or out of your pants, because it is everyone's responsibility to avoid women having to face that issue until they are ready. You will note they are also not too fond of rapists.
They care about women's rights, they just also believe in an embryo's rights too (as equals)
I guess the thing I like about those fundies (in opposition to feminist fundies) is at least they are equal opportunity finger pointers.
quote:
Did you know that adult men are the cause of the majority of underage girls' pregnancies? Who is on their case?
This is ridiculous. With the extreme witchhunt mentality regarding underage sex sweeping the globe, are you seriously telling me no one is one men's cases?
That such things still happen does not indicate no one is doing anything, or saying anything negative about it. It just means that humans do human things. They always have and they always will no matter how 1984 we go.
Frankly, I find the over "victimizing" by our culture of young girls who get pregnant, (viewing each instance as violator-victim) more harmful than helpful. More harmful in general, than the pregnancy itself.
I knew a girl (when I was young) that was bright and cheerful and she got pregnant by an older guy and was kind of shocked but still happy, but then people treated her so much like a victim that she became scarred into thinking of herself that way. It was really sad to watch that young beautiful girl fade away.
I knew another girl that got pregnant under similar circumstances and while the family was a bit scandalized they got over it and she did fine.
Heck I knew a family where ALL the women (at least from the great grandmother on down) had had their first kid at 13. They'd laugh about it and not make a big deal, just helped out where they needed to and in all other ways they were perfectly "normal".
Our current treatment is reminiscent of the "homes for unwed mothers" in the past. Scandalizing women for having been "used" by some "bad man".
This is not to mention society's destroying the men (adult or not) who may have fathered the child. Perhaps instead of imprisoning or publically flogging them, we could just make sure they knuckle down and act responsible for the resulting child.
But I guess it'll always be easier to point fingers when a young girl gets pregnant, making everyone feel bad for the rest of their lives, rather than just helping them out and feel good about themselves.
I wonder if we removed all the fear factor and societal pressure on young girls regarding pregnancy and sex, whether we'd naturally have less abortions or cases where young girls abandon their babies after birth. I'd love some stats on how much the fear of getting caught having "underage sex" has kept girls from using protection or getting the healthcare they needed once pregnant.
quote:
The fact is, it's much easier to lay blame after the fact instead of working to prevent it in the first place.
Yeah, let's work on castrating all men now! That way we don't have to blame MEN later. Heheheh.
Or maybe we could never "blame" ANYONE when pregnancies occur, except of course for blaming rapists for rapes.
Perhaps we could even calm down about sex in general and not freak out when looking at statistics, as if they are delivering moral messages about "where we are headed".
Pregnancies happen when PEOPLE choose to have vaginal sex, and it'll even happen with condoms. Being negative before during and after sex just isn't helpful, even if you tell them about condoms.
Beforehand, sex education ought to be positive, and show how to eliminate risks (including the obvious choice of abstention or masturbation for complete safety). That way during sexual activities everyone (even young girls with older men) know how to minimize or eliminate risk.
Then if someone takes a risk and comes out on the wrong side of the dice roll, have everyone deal positively with the situation. If the girl wants to keep the child then it ought to be a nonissue, and treated as something positive. If she doesn't want it, then it should be a health issue and taken care of calmly like any other medical procedure.
The momentum should be against making anyone feel bad, because they have to deal with the results of their choice. Beating them down doesn't help.
That goes for men and women, or boys and girls, alike.
But I guess that's my two cents, which may be just as alienating to others as yours.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nator, posted 03-14-2004 12:44 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 03-15-2004 8:35 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 74 by Taqless, posted 03-19-2004 6:52 PM Silent H has replied

DC85
Member
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 15 of 440 (92471)
03-14-2004 6:22 PM


I do view it as killing... I know that is odd for someone with my views... But it is a living thing not just cells... thats just my thoughts.. Heck I Have a problem with my cat killing mouse(unless it eats it) I guess I am weird

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024