Abortion

[Wrightguy0 40]

i think we all need to step back from this and look at the reasons why people get abortions, if we can solve those issues then there would be less need of it, less women feeling afraid, that's what it comes down to is fear. fear of being reminded of a rapist, fear of hvanig your life destroyed, fear of not being able to care for the child, while not wanting it to go to adoption. if we could make things easier for families, then maybe lees people would consider the option,

that said, i am both pro life, and pro abortion, i think that we should allow abortion, it's a women's right as well, we decide for our children every day, up until they reach the age of 8, where they begin to decide for themselves. however, there are always circumstances beyond out control, medically needed abortions (ie. both the lives of mother and child are at risk, severe health problems) what's more cruel, aborting a child that you know is going to die soon after leaving the womb? Or carrying it to term, giving it it's first taste of wair and life, only for that to be taken away. although i do believe it should be regulated as part of a viable family planning program, but as a last ditch alternative, women have a coice, but what good is a choice without information to help you reach a logical conclusion. there are two sides to every coin, one equally sad choice to make, and we all need to look at the ramifications of every option, abortion can leave a woman filled feelings of remorse, but so can leaving a child at an orphanage.

There is no easy decision, nothing is quick and painless, and no decision should be made lightly, if you want an abortion, go for it, i won't stop you, you want to adopt out, go ahead, keep your child? that is well within your rights as a parent, just make sure you weigh the decision first, but remember, there are few happy endings to this situation, at least if you keep the child there is a glimmer of happiness down the road, but it's not an easy one to walk either. logic and thought, that's all we can ask for.

[chicah 20]

One of the worst kind of people there is are those who critisise others for decisions like this. As a woman, I can only imagine how tough this choice is. Most women who have abortions have thought it through a lot beforehand, their decision is really tough and they need time to process it. The worst thing they can have on top of that is strangers harassing them over it. It's downright rude and shows a basic lack of respect.

Personally, I believe you're not technically a child before you're out of the womb. I think we should definitely have abortion time limits, the limit here is 12 weeks, can be expanded to 16 under special circumstances. But banning abortion would not only be to take women's control of their own bodies away from them, it would also be completely pointless. If anyone of you have heard of Vera Drake, or read The Cider House Rules, you know that abortions is something that will happen. Some people are too poor, or have been through a trauma, or too weak to carry the baby to term. Allowing abortions is the safest way to do this, without much danger to mother or child. In some cases where people would attempt "illegal" abortions, the baby wouldn't die, just get badly hurt, and the mother occasionally died. Keeping this legal in a hospital with doctors to oversee it all, seems like the best solution to me.

I know quite a few women who were teenage moms, including my sister. And I think it is a brave choice to keep their babies, and of course I'm glad I have my niece for instance - but I wouldn't judge my sister if she'd had an abortion, because I have never been in her shoes and can not say what I would do in that situation. She was only 18 when she got pregnant, so this "ruined" her chances at a proper education, at travelling and partying like teenagers do - she lost quite a lot of friends over it. If she'd had an abortion, I would've considered that choice just as brave. Because it is a hard choice to make when you are judged from all sides. We should just settle with respecting what others choose to do with their own bodies, instead of letting a disagreement about principles out on random women because we "don't approve", because it's not our (dis)approval to give.

[IrvingTwoSmokes 10]

Originally posted by: chicah

One of the worst kind of people there is are those who critisise others for decisions like this. As a woman, I can only imagine how tough this choice is. Most women who have abortions have thought it through a lot beforehand, their decision is really tough and they need time to process it. The worst thing they can have on top of that is strangers harassing them over it. It's downright rude and shows a basic lack of respect.quote>

I am a catholic, and I am against abortions in all circumstances. I guess this makes me one of the worst kinds of people, but how can you sleep at night, after an abortion? And the whole "life isn't pretty" thing isn't a good excuse, nor is "it's a 'necessary evil'". I believe that from the second the first cell multiplies, it is still human life. We are not barbarians, and we should not be impaling the fetus's skull with a needle and injecting saline solution, and then say it "was their only real option". Has anyone heard of adoption? Yeah, a baby does not get killed, and it is loved just as much as any other kid. 

[N106 10]

IrvingTwoSmokes, I have one quick question for you:

If a woman is brutally raped, and becomes pregnant, then should she be forced to carry the baby to term?

[jigsaw 227]

Originally posted by: IrvingTwoSmokes

I am a catholic, and I am against abortions in all circumstances. I guess this makes me one of the worst kinds of people, but how can you sleep at night, after an abortion? And the whole "life isn't pretty" thing isn't a good excuse, nor is "it's a 'necessary evil'". I believe that from the second the first cell multiplies, it is still human life. We are not barbarians, and we should not be impaling the fetus's skull with a needle and injecting saline solution, and then say it "was their only real option". Has anyone heard of adoption? Yeah, a baby does not get killed, and it is loved just as much as any other kid. 

quote>

well that's your belief system and i respect you having your belief system. but it may not be mine, or the people next door to my house. if you and your flock choose to be against abortions, that is entirely your  choice.

even if you cannot fathom that other people are 'pro-choice' and/ or are disgusted by it, so be it you have your right to be disgusted by it.

however, your beliefs are not superior to someone's with opposing views. they are not inferior views either. morals, and opinions are each to our own.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: IrvingTwoSmokes

Originally posted by: chicah

One of the worst kind of people there is are those who critisise others for decisions like this. As a woman, I can only imagine how tough this choice is. Most women who have abortions have thought it through a lot beforehand, their decision is really tough and they need time to process it. The worst thing they can have on top of that is strangers harassing them over it. It's downright rude and shows a basic lack of respect.quote>

I am a catholic, and I am against abortions in all circumstances. I guess this makes me one of the worst kinds of people, but how can you sleep at night, after an abortion? And the whole "life isn't pretty" thing isn't a good excuse, nor is "it's a 'necessary evil'". I believe that from the second the first cell multiplies, it is still human life. We are not barbarians, and we should not be impaling the fetus's skull with a needle and injecting saline solution, and then say it "was their only real option". Has anyone heard of adoption? Yeah, a baby does not get killed, and it is loved just as much as any other kid. 

quote>

There are a lot of situations in this world that require difficult choices to be made, and where none of the choices is free from either grave consequences or ethical misgivings.

For example does a firefighter at a house fire save a little baby in the cot or the baby's trapped mother, knowing he has time to save only one before the house burns down and that the other will die in the flames?

Does a medical team save the life of a young motorcycle rider who crashed his bike into a family car while drunk or the life of the young woman who was in the car?

Should a police officer shoot an obviously mentally disturbed person who is holding a knife to the throat of another person and threatening to kill them, when all other options have been exhausted, and knowing they have to shoot to kill?

Would you be justified in using deadly force to attempt to stop a person who has broken into your home and is pointing a gun at you and threating to kill you and your children?

Is it justifiable to allow the death penalty for certain crimes?

Life is full of such choices, and while it may be pleasant to think everything has a simple solution in black and white terms, it does not help much in confonting such issues when they actually happen, and also has its consequences.

If a mother is forced to go through a dangerous pregnancy against her wishes because of someone else's beliefs, and she died because of that when it was possible to save her life by aborting the baby early on, how is that in any way morally or ethically a better choice? Should those who forced her sleep any better than the mother would have if she had aborted the baby?

[morriswalters 16]

Moral relativism.  This is where you end up eventually.  All life is important yet we make decisions everyday which show that we value some life more than others.  I believe that life begins at conception.  But I won't give that life the same weight as life that is already here.  Over the course of my life in my community, I have been made  painfully aware that children die every year from neglect and violence.  Yet we as a society, won't support the organizations that attempt to help and protect those children.

[saltandsauce 0]

Originally posted by: N106

IrvingTwoSmokes, I have one quick question for you:

If a woman is brutally raped, and becomes pregnant, then should she be forced to carry the baby to term?quote>

did you choose your biological parents?

calling it "abortion" instead of "killing" doesn't make it any better. because no matter how you dress it, you are killing a baby.

i'm not a moral relativist. Things cannot be right on mondays and wrong on thursdays.

N106: i think that solving the problem of rape would may be the better way of solving it.

yes it's a human from conception, since when has a woman gave birth to a tortoise? or a fish? or a donkey?

of course in the ideal world people would actually consider the end result before fooling around, thinking not just "do i love them?" but also asking "am i willing to have a child by them?" but that's the ideal world and we live in the real world which is too lazy to get off it's fat butt and put down the bong and just be happy for no discernable reason

[chicah 20]

You're looking at it the wrong way, ethics has nothing whatsoever to do with this. I am not sure I could've had an abortion, but even if I would've felt it's wrong for me (and it's hard to tell, luckily I've never been in a situation where I had to face that choice), that does not matter in any way. The society goes before my personal opinions. And; to take people's rights AWAY from them is no way for a proper society to act. A fetus is basically an organism at an early stage, it has no consciousness or is aware of its situation, it simply exists, because its brain isn't developed enough. And it is also a part of the mother's body. And I believe everyone should be in control of their own bodies, and decide what to do with them, and if someone took my rights away because I happen to have a body which can give birth to a baby, I would be very pissed. A lot of brave men and women fought for this right, they were looked down on, threatened, excluded by religious societies - they sacrificed a lot for women today to be allowed to make that choice. I think the best stand, even if you're "morally disgusted" by an abortion, is to be pro-choice, because it's all about a choice someone else chooses to make. It's none of the rest of us' business.

And saltandsauce, you know people will never stop having sex (it would be against nature and evolution), and history has shown people won't stop having abortions either. Why would you carry a baby you didn't want to term, to give it away? Forcing someone to carry that baby for nine months against their own will is dangerously close to violating a lot of human rights. Besides, bringing a baby into this world is not the small issue you seem to think it is, if you gave that baby up, you'll never know if it'll be loved, neglected, abused; I wouldn't just give birth to a baby and give it away to a stranger. A baby isnt a thing you can send between families, it's a person. A fetus, on the other hand, holds the potential to become a person, but it isn't a person. It's a fetus.

[Meg 368]

Can someone explain this reasoning to me?

-  Deliberately keep kids in the dark about how their bodies work by excluding all form of sex education except for "abstinence only"

- Refuse to allow teenagers access to condoms and other forms of birth control

- Be surprised when the girls get pregnant and force them to carry the baby to term.

- Grumble when the mother and kid(s) wind up on welfare, saying they should have known better.

- Act appalled when the kid grows up to be a criminal

- Send the aforementioned adult criminal to the electric chair.

How does that make any sense?

[chicah 20]

Originally posted by: Meg

Can someone explain this reasoning to me?

-  Deliberately keep kids in the dark about how their bodies work by excluding all form of sex education except for "abstinence only"

- Refuse to allow teenagers access to condoms and other forms of birth control

- Be surprised when the girls get pregnant and force them to carry the baby to term.

- Grumble when the mother and kid(s) wind up on welfare, saying they should have known better.

- Act appalled when the kid grows up to be a criminal

- Send the aforementioned adult criminal to the electric chair.

How does that make any sense?

quote>

I think the point is that some people actually believe that if you don't teach people about sex, they won't have sex. Someone must've missed the fact that kids love things they arent allowed to do. Trying to keep sex secret and hush-hush guarantees they'll do it. But, I still think it's their logic; that people won't have sex if they don't know how to have sex (which we naturally know, sorry, it's simply evolution). 

My personal favourite is the rather double-sided argument of "do not let people use condoms, we won't let kids have sex" and then when the kids have sex and get pregnant, the same people who wouldn't let them use condoms say "well that's what you get for having unprotected sex". Ironic, much?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

Can someone explain this reasoning to me?

{stuff}

How does that make any sense?

quote>

It doesn't make sense, when you string it all together like that. Thing of it is, a lot of people don't. There is a tendency to address each issue separately, without considering the ways that they affect each other. So what you see is, individually on each issue:

- a belief that sex outside of marriage is wrong, so we must teach kids not to have it, period

- a belief that sex outside of marriage is wrong, so we can't give unmarried teenagers contraception, as that enables the immoral behavior (optional: a belief that contraception is wrong, too)

- a trust that our kids are "good kids"/denial that they aren't

- blaming young new parents for behaving immorally/not doing as they're told

- expecting that parents should love their children regardless of whether they were planned or wanted

- punishing people for committing crimes

...with each being a separate issue, not part of a logical progression. As for the apparent contradiction between pro-life and pro-death penalty views, the common distinction made there is that abortion is killing innocent unborn babies, while the death penalty is punishing people for crimes (i.e., the fetus deserves to live, but the criminal deserves to die). Indeed, one could also claim a similar contradiction between being pro-choice but anti-death penalty.... the distinction there being that the criminal's right to life does not conflict with any of anyone else's rights, while the unborn baby's right to life conflicts with the mother's right to have control over her own body. Either way, the two are not completely parallell matters.

Anyways, as is often the case, what you're seeing here is people only considering right and wrong, without considering what works or produces results. It's only natural, morals are what make us human. But it is at times best to step back and say "wait a minute, we need to rethink this". That involves not being afraid to ask difficult or unpopular questions, and being willing to consider difficult answers to them.... all the meanwhile not running to the opposite extreme and saying the goals justify any actions - which is just as dangerous if not more dangerous than saying that right is right and wrong is wrong and there are no exceptions.

The difficult point on the matter of abortion is simple: two individuals both have rights and you cannot protect them both. It's a tough question which is more important... and, when you think about it, pro-life versus pro-choice is not about what the correct answer to the question is. It's about whether or not we even permit people to ask themselves that question. 

[saltandsauce 0]

once apon a time people had no sex education at school AT ALL (forcing the akward talk back on the parents where it belongs)

and yet teenage pregnancy was almost nil (only people being abused got pregnant)

in an environment where clinical abortion just didn't exist and in this environment you couldn't get drunk in case you got pregnant too. three things that make teens pregnant

1, peer pressure

2, feeling like crap one day

3, being drunk

4, being stoned

5, being in "love" (that was cynical yes)

6, any combination of the previous five factors

if parents accept that sex education is THEIR duty, not something to be dumped on the school cirriculum then they can teach it as they wish. contraception, abortion, warts and all. or not.

if people actually stopped and thought for about 3 nanoseconds they would realise that sex and pregnancy are HIGHLY linked. anyone who doesn't accept this is a complete moron. sex causes pregnancy, that's the whole point of it. DUUUH

don't shag anyone if you don't want to have a child by them

babies have seperate blood systems from their mothers. hence why they can have different blood groups. in other words they aren't "part" of the mother they are "enveloped" by the mother

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

It doesn't make sense, when you string it all together like that. Thing of it is, a lot of people don't. There is a tendency to address each issue separately, without considering the ways that they affect each other.quote>

But they do affect each other.    Looking at the big picture is the only way to see the ripple effect.

The difficult point on the matter of abortion is simple: two individuals both have rights and you cannot protect them both. It's a tough question which is more important... and, when you think about it, pro-life versus pro-choice is not about what the correct answer to the question is. It's about whether or not we even permit people to ask themselves that question.  quote>

 

You lost me there.   How can we stop people from asking themselves questions?   and who is going to stop them?  (I imagine you aren't advocating that the government attempt such a thing.)

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

once apon a time people had no sex education at school AT ALL (forcing the akward talk back on the parents where it belongs) quote>

Forcing?  You think that talk actually happened all of the time?

As the saying goes, denying teenagers information about sex and birth control is roughly akin to handing them loaded guns without teaching them how to use them.  People are going to get hurt.

and yet teenage pregnancy was almost nil (only people being abused got pregnant)  quote>

What?  It happened all the time!  People just covered it up and lied about it.

If you go through old marriage and birth records (I'm into geneaology so I do this all the time), you can see that it is quite common.

inan environment where clinical abortion just didn't exist quote>

It was done in back alleys with coat hangers.   and no, I'm not kidding.

and in this environment you couldn't get drunk in case you got pregnant too. quote>

um . . . what? 

three things that make teens pregnant

1, peer pressure

2, feeling like crap one day

3, being drunk

4, being stoned

5, being in "love" (that was cynical yes)

6, any combination of the previous five factors quote>

Actually, there are only 2 things that make anyone pregnant:  having sex and undergoing some form of assisted conception.

if parents accept that sex education is THEIR duty, not something to be dumped on the school cirriculum then they can teach it as they wish. contraception, abortion, warts and all. or not.  quote>

Reminds me of the girl in my 7th grade class who swore that her sister got pregnant by using a tampon and her parents assured her that was what happened.  (and no, I'm not making that up either.)

if people actually stopped and thought for about 3 nanoseconds they would realise that sex and pregnancy are HIGHLY linked. anyone who doesn't accept this is a complete moron. quote>

Is this point under dispute?

don't shag anyone if you don't want to have a child by them quote>

Solid advice.  Just not very practical.

babies have seperate blood systems from their mothers. hence why they can have different blood groups. in other words they aren't "part" of the mother they are "enveloped" by the motherquote>

and the nutrition and oxygen are coming from where?

[Kevin 101]

Alright... I resisted jumping into this thread (and pretty much every other current events thread) for a while... but as Women's Issues are something that my girlfriend and I are heavily involved in, temptation got the best of me here.

I went and read a lot of the previous pages, but I didn't read every post, so forgive me if I repeat some points that have already been made. Also, I want to clarify that I'm addressing the issue here, not any particular point made my someone in this thread..

First of all, there is a good argument to be made that fetuses, up to a certain point in their development, are NOT people. Personhood is a very fuzzy topic, and one needs to look no further than instances where eggs have fused or split to draw into question the moment when a fertilized egg becomes a person. Consider this: if a fertilized egg has not yet split into two separate embryos (and let's assume that it eventually will, therefore becoming twins... or triplets... or whatever) and a woman has an abortion, did she just kill one baby? Or two? Three? How many people ever existed?

There are documented instances of embryos splitting into two, and then fusing back together into one (sometimes multiple times!). Are we to mourn the loss of that "split person" that reverted back into one embryo? Again, did two people ever exist in this instance?

One more point before I move on from embryos... very recently biotechnology progressed to a point where it is now possible to de-differentiate an ordinary skin cell into a human embryo. In other words... every single one of your skin cells has the potential to be an individual human being (albeit a genetic clone of yourself). Are we upset at all by the loss of millions of skin cells throughout the course of our lives? Why not? If every single skin cell is a potential person, shouldn't we consider them sacred?

Moving on... let's assume for a moment that embryos are indeed people from the moment of conception, and that abortion is indeed the act of killing another person. Second, let's assume that killing in the name of self-defense is morally permissible. If the above premises are true, then abortion has to be morally justifiable in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's own life is in jeopardy. In these cases, a mother is simply defending herself from physical or mental harm that would result from carrying the fetus to term.

This post is already longer than I meant for it to be, so I'll end it for now, though I could go on at length as to why abortion in cases of failed contraception is totally ok, as well as pretty much any other case, including late term abortions (which are completely misunderstood).

More later...

[fukuda 351]

yes it's a human from conception, since when has a woman gave birth to a tortoise? or a fish? or a donkey?quote>

 

Calling human something that has no functional nervous system sounds a bit funny to me. Even my liver is more human than a zygote or a 1 month old old embryo...

 

some people actually believe that if you don't teach people about sex, they won't have sexquote>

 

Meh, that would actually solve the problem..

 

and yet teenage pregnancy was almost nil (only people being abused got pregnant)quote>

 

The same time when everyone got married at 15yo?

 

in an environment where clinical abortion just didn't existquote>

 

Oh that's true, clinical abortions didn't exist back then.. Wanna know why there are so many plants popularly known as abortive plants? Because they were extensively used to cause abortions (that were way more dangerous than clinical ones by the way).

 

 

Oh and there also lots of contraceptive plants as you may have guessed. Yes, the peeps in the good old days also had fun.. Yikes!

 

and in this environment you couldn't get drunk in case you got pregnant too.quote>

 

Er really? The high number of children with alcohol-linked retardation in some zones says otherwise (and there are still high percentages in some places)

 

if parents accept that sex education is THEIR duty, not something to be dumped on the school cirriculum then they can teach it as they wish. contraception, abortion, warts and all. or not.quote>

 

I agree, but I unluckily can't rely on the good will and/or responsibility of all parents... 

 

sex causes pregnancy, that's the whole point of it. DUUUHquote>

 

Yes, in fish. Sex is way more than a mean to reproduce in developed social beings, it's a way to reproduce, a way to show a dominant position, a way to escalate positions, a way to cement relationships and show affection to other members... Sex is very ritualized and has a lot of meanings and symbology in our species, it's not just there to "reproduce". 

[Kevin 101]

Alright... I'm not used to longer posts so they wear me out quickly Here we go again...

As for cases of failed contraception, consider the following situation (for the record, I didn't come up with this argument, it was more or less presented to me by a philosophy professor who in turn took it from another philosopher)

Imagine if babies weren't created by sex, but were instead created from little baby-spores that floated around in the air. If one of these spores enters your house, it will implant itself in your walls and grow into a baby.

Imagine if you go out and buy the BEST window screens ever.. screens that are 99% effective in preventing baby-spores from entering your house. Imagine if you also create some sort of door where it is 99% impossible for spores to follow you inside. Imagine if you wash off your clothes every time you come inside, again, to prevent spores from coming in.

In other words, imagine that you take all reasonable steps to prevent spores from implanting themselves in your house. (hopefully at this point a metaphor for contraception is making itself clear)

Now imagine that just by chance the screen fails, and a spore implants itself in your walls. Does it then become your responsibility to take care of the spore, even though you did everything within reason to prevent it from entering your house?

Sure you could have just not had windows... or a door...or a house. Perhaps if you didn't want a baby, you should have taken that into consideration when you bought a house with spore-implantable walls.

I think it is unreasonable to expect someone to take responsibility for something that they made a reasonable effort to prevent...

Sex is way more than a mean to reproduce in developed social beings, it's a way to reproduce, a way to show a dominant position, a way to escalate positions, a way to cement relationships and show affection to other members... Sex is very ritualized and has a lot of meanings and symbology in our species, it's not just there to "reproduce".quote>

Indeed

More later...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

You lost me there.   How can we stop people from asking themselves questions?   and who is going to stop them?  (I imagine you aren't advocating that the government attempt such a thing.)quote>

Maybe I wasn't entirely clear on this: the question I'm talking about is "Should I carry this baby or get an abortion?". The pro-choice side is about allowing people to ask themselves that tough question and make their own decision. The pro-life side is about making there no question about it: the answer is no, you have no right to decide, debate over.

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

once apon a time people had no sex education at school AT ALL (forcing the akward talk back on the parents where it belongs)

and yet teenage pregnancy was almost nil (only people being abused got pregnant)quote>

Problem is, the world is different now. And not just in that we've become more open about sexuality. What is expected of people on inderectly related matters has also changed. "waiting until you're married" means waiting longer than it often used to. My grandmother had her first child at 17. She was married! But, she never even went to high school, let alone college. A career? What are you, crazy? She was a mother, a wife, and a homemaker and never aspired to be anything else.

You see my point here: in a world where going to college is something more people do, in a world where women have careers and aren't just keeping house and raising kids... getting married that young becomes crazy. You have to wait until you're older. But, at the same time, puberty isn't coming any later (in fact, in some cases it's coming earlier!), and people's biological instincts still kick in, married or not.

And then, of course, there is the cultural acceptance/expectance of promiscuity, which, complain about it all you want, isn't going away.

On the matter of sex ed, though, let me say this: I grew up in a fairly blue state (Connecticut), and I first learned about sex from my parents... it was when my mother was pregnant with my baby sister that I started asking questions, so I would've been six years old at the time. It wasn't until high school that actual "sex ed" in school came up.

Point being, most kids still get "the talk" (though I've known some people who figured a few things out from movies and whatnot before their parents ever explained anything to them). Sex ed in school is not starting from scratch. It is not teaching the basic mechanics, it's teaching mostly about contraception and STDs: things that parents can't be expected to teach kids because they don't necessarily know it themselves.

Besides, education in school and education at home are not mutually exclusive.

[chicah 20]

Okay, I'll come up with a kind of "extreme" example. Imagine two little girls. They both grow up in fairly normal families, both their parents are married. As one of the girls get older, she starts asking questions about where babies come from. Her parents decide they should be honest about this, so they are, and she's a little shocked (let's say she's around 6 or 7). But she gets used to the thought after a while, and she keeps talking to her parents about sex - they explain she's going to feel sexual desire and that it's natural, and when she reaches puberty, she starts having those emotions, but she's not embarassed. In school, they teach her about contraception and taking control of your own body. By the time she reaches her late teens, she has a steady boyfriend and the question of sex soon comes up. If she feels ready for it, she'll do it, but the point is that in this case, she'll feel in control, because she'll know what's going on, she can demand they use contraception because she does not want to get pregnant, and she knows herself and what she wants.

Now imagine the other girl. As she gets older, her mother gets pregnant again, and she starts asking where the baby's coming from. Her parents are freaked out by her question, they don't want her to know, so they make up a lie. She doesn't go to school, she's home-schooled, so she won't have sex ed and know what it's really all about. As she reaches puberty, she too starts feeling desire, but she does not know what the feelings are, and they scare her. She tries to suppress them but it doesn't work, and when she tries to tell her parents, they tell her it's sinful and that she should ignore those emotions. Even though she doesn't go to school, she does eventually meet a guy, the neighbour boy invites her out. They go out a few times, and one time when they're in his car, he begins to kiss and caress her. And she gets the feelings again, but she still doesn't know what they are and she's freaked out - she's NOT in control. She lets him take control because she's really uncomfortable and doesn't understand what's going on. This also means she doesn't know what contraception is, because she's never been taught, so she doesn't mention it, he knows what he's doing but she doesn't.

The example might be a little extreme, as very few people go to the end of their teens without knowing who babies are made, but it proves my point. If you don't properly teach kids what sex is, how to have it as safe as possible and that it's perfectly normal and natural, they'll end up in a situation sooner or later that they feel uncomfortable with, a situation they're not in control of. You need to be honest with kids about sex. And a lot of parents aren't willing to, or don't know how to be. That's where the school comes in. It's much easier to trick and exploit a girl (or a boy) who doesn't know anything about sex, who don't understand it - why do you think small children are most vulnerable to sexual predators? Because they didn't see it coming. Teenagers can get themselves in dangerous situations, or get pregnant during sex, if no one explains what it's all about. Denying that people have sex will not do any good. Because people always have, and always will.

And yes, there were a lot of kids born outside wedlock even before, there were plenty of teenage pregnancies, not just in abuse cases, it was just covered up.

[Duke87 1,070]

You're hitting on something important here: not teaching your kids about sex doesn't work because other parents do. That situation you bring up would not come about if the boy was kept similarly in the dark by his parents... but he wasn't. Add to that the cultural exposure and keeping people completely "sheltered" on the matter proves impractical in the modern world.

The idea of being restrained and withholding the knowledge worked back when that was what everyone did. But in a world where it's more common to share the knowledge, those who do not know are made vulnerable to being taken advantage of and victimized by those who do.

[morriswalters 16]

fukuda writes

Yes, in fish. Sex is way more than a mean to reproduce in developed social beings, it's a way to reproduce, a way to show a dominant position, a way to escalate positions, a way to cement relationships and show affection to other members... Sex is very ritualized and has a lot of meanings and symbology in our species, it's not just there to "reproduce". 

The behavior is purely biological.  The social things are grafted on to control it or manipulate it.

Cheese89

Abstinance is 100 percent effective.  The problem with your argument per se(at least for me), is that you know the risks going in.  Accept the risk, live with the consequences.  Don't argue that the risk was so small that you shouldn't have to think  about the consequences.

saltandsauce writes

once apon a time people had no sex education at school AT ALL (forcing the akward talk back on the parents where it belongs) and yet teenage pregnancy was almost nil (only people being abused got pregnant)in an environment where clinical abortion just didn't exist and in this environment you couldn't get drunk in case you got pregnant too. three things that make teens pregnant

1, peer pressure

2, feeling like crap one day

3, being drunk

4, being stoned

5, being in "love" (that was cynical yes)

6, any combination of the previous five factors

It's ironic that you start with that phrase however I'll leave it.  When the US was primarily rural in nature children learned about sex through real world examples.  You can't raise livestock without understanding reproduction.  Older girls might have helped deliver their siblings, birth at a hospital is a modern day event.  Almost all pregnancies were teenage pregnancies.  And many a child was concieved before the trip to the alter, social pressure ensured the trip.  Fewer opprotunities, poor mobility, and better parental oversight, all contributed to a lower number of unwed mothers. 

[Kevin 101]

The behavior is purely biological.  The social things are grafted on to control it or manipulate it.quote>

I don't understand. What exactly are we controlling or manipulating? Sex? Our emotions? 

Abstinance is 100 percent effective.  The problem with your argument per se(at least for me), is that you know the risks going in.  Accept the risk, live with the consequences.  Don't argue that the risk was so small that you shouldn't have to think  about the consequences.quote>

If someone goes on a plane and it crashes, we don't say "well they shouldn't have gone on the plane in the first place... they should have known the risks". We do plenty of things every day where there is some risk involved (and indeed... risk to human life) and no one expects anyone to think twice about it. Why do we do this with sex?

It's ironic that you start with that phrase however I'll leave it.  When the US was primarily rural in nature children learned about sex through real world examples.  You can't raise livestock without understanding reproduction.  quote>

I think there is a lot more to human sex than someone could ever hope to learn by just watching livestock.

Older girls might have helped deliver their siblings, birth at a hospital is a modern day event.  Almost all pregnancies were teenage pregnancies.  And many a child was concieved before the trip to the alter, social pressure ensured the trip.  Fewer opprotunities, poor mobility, and better parental oversight, all contributed to a lower number of unwed mothers. quote>

 If in todays world almost all pregnancies were teenage pregnancies, women would hardly have a chance to accomplish the great things they do today in athletics, education, and the workforce. This wouldn't be a good thing.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Abstinance is 100 percent effective.  quote>

and holding your breath is 100% effective at prevention of inhaling pollution.  So what?

Human beings are not designed to be abstinent.  Yes, some people can manage it.   Many more can go with the "abstinance plus" program (aka "everything but").   (It's an old line from a tv show.)

Expecting the vast majority of people to be abstinent is like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la-la".   It's a denial of reality.

Originally posted by: Cheese89

. . .The problem with your argument per se(at least for me), is that you know the risks going in.  Accept the risk, live with the consequences.  Don't argue that the risk was so small that you shouldn't have to think  about the consequences.quote>

If someone goes on a plane and it crashes, we don't say "well they shouldn't have gone on the plane in the first place... they should have known the risks". We do plenty of things every day where there is some risk involved (and indeed... risk to human life) and no one expects anyone to think twice about it. Why do we do this with sex?  quote>

Because, with sex, an individual is putting other people's lives at risk.   and it can have long lasting consequences.

If a random, average guy gets on an airplane, he is generally not endangering anyone's health or well being.   If that same random guy happens to have sex and pass along some disease, he is affecting the well being of his partner.

and, if this random guy likes to, as the saying goes, "love 'em and leave 'em", he can be leaving a trail of single mothers and children behind him.   This is not good for the women or the children or society as a whole.   People need to accept the consequences of their actions and live up to their responsibilities.

I think there is a lot more to human sex than someone could ever hope to learn by just watching livestock. quote>

There certainly is.   I believe his point was that watching livestock provides an opportunity for rural children to see the reproductive process in action, which is something many city kids do not see.

If in todays world almost all pregnancies were teenage pregnancies, women would hardly have a chance to accomplish the great things they do today in athletics, education, and the workforce. This wouldn't be a good thing. quote>

No, it would not be a good thing.

This whole issue is fairly new; one I've seen develop during the course of my lifetime.  (and, no, I'm not *that* old. )

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Cheese89

If someone goes on a plane and it crashes, we don't say "well they shouldn't have gone on the plane in the first place... they should have known the risks". We do plenty of things every day where there is some risk involved (and indeed... risk to human life) and no one expects anyone to think twice about it. Why do we do this with sex?quote>

Plane travel is a bad example because it's done for a functional purpose (to travel places), not "just for fun". But, for instance, skydriving... or skiing. Both are dangerous. Both serve no purpose other than personal entertainment. Neither is generally berated for being risky. There would seem to be an inconsistency.

On the other hand, it isn't that simple. For one thing, such activities carry the risk of injury or ending a life. Sex is the only activity that carries the "risk" of creating a life. But beyond that, sex isn't just simple entertainment, it's something very special... and treating it as though it's just anoter leisure activity is exactly what people find disgusting and immoral about promiscuity (all religious considerations aside).

[Kevin 101]

Plane travel is a bad example because it's done for a functional purpose (to travel places), not "just for fun". But, for instance, skydriving... or skiing. Both are dangerous. Both serve no purpose other than personal entertainment. Neither is generally berated for being risky. There would seem to be an inconsistency. quote>

Fair enough... perhaps plane travel was a bad example. That said, could it not be said that sex, when had for reasons other than procreation, isn't necessarily "just for fun"? Don't get me wrong, I hope both parties are having fun, but emotional and physical connection is, in my opinion, another great reason to have sex.

On the other hand, it isn't that simple. For one thing, such activities carry the risk of injury or ending a life. Sex is the only activity that carries the "risk" of creating a life.quote>

From some people's point of view, sex runs the "risk" of ending a life as well, if abortion is an assumed solution to unintended creation.

But beyond that, sex isn't just simple entertainment, it's something very special... and treating it as though it's just anoter leisure activity is exactly what people find disgusting and immoral about promiscuity (all religious considerations aside). quote>

If both parties are consenting adults, and the act is carried out responsibly, is there anything wrong with having sex simply for entertainment? I know a lot of people would say that it is indeed disgusting and immoral, but in my opinion it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And, if this random guy likes to, as the saying goes, "love 'em and leave 'em", he can be leaving a trail of single mothers and children behind him.   This is not good for the women or the children or society as a whole.   People need to accept the consequences of their actions and live up to their responsibilities.quote>

In a lot of my examples I assume for the sake of argument that men aren't going to be jerks. An unfortunate reality is that this happens all the time... 

[morriswalters 16]

Cheese89

Sex is commonly used to manipulate.  So much so that  if I say Mata Hari, or femme fatale, people would understand my meaning in context. Social mores determine what behavior is allowable in public as well as  what level of body exposure is socially acceptable.

Watching livestock copulate connects the dots.  You soon learn the baby cows don't just happen.  Having babies at home made the point that were babies are concerned mom and the cow aren't that different.( To all concerned I am not saying that women are cows, but they can both be mothers)

Meg

My point was not that abstinence is the solution.  But it is the only sure way.  If you use some type of birth control you must accept that there is a small chance that it will fail.  And you accept that risk if you have sex.  If you want to better those chances use two methods.  However I believe that if someone wants to take the time to research it, you might discover that most unplanned pregnancies don't involve contraceptives at all.

I'm Pro Choice because I believe that only the women can make that decision for herself.  To remove that freedom from her reduces her womb to chattel, of her but not controlled by her.  However that doesn't mean that I accept that abortion as a purely contraceptive procedure is a good thing. It's not.

[Kevin 101]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Sex is commonly used to manipulate.  So much so that  if I say Mata Hari, or femme fatale, people would understand my meaning in context. Social mores determine what behavior is allowable in public as well as  what level of body exposure is socially acceptable.quote>

I'm not totally sure what part of my post you were referring to in telling me this...

That said, of course sex is often used to manipulate... I don't deny that. As I said to Meg, in a lot of my examples I assume for the sake of argument that men aren't going to be jerks.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

My point was not that abstinence is the solution.  But it is the only sure way. quote>

Actually the only sure way is sterilization.  Both men and women can be forced to have sex against their will.   A woman can chose to be abstinent but still get pregnant as the result of rape.   A man can, um, (how do I put this?), have his DNA used to create a pregnancy whether he wishes to be a father or not. 

It used to be that people tried to have sex without having babies.  Nowadays there are a lot of people trying to have babies who aren't necessarily having sex.   Assisted conception is a bit off topic here.  The man's participation is usually consensual.  My point is that assisted conception can occur without his consent.

If you use some type of birth control you must accept that there is a small chance that it will fail.  And you accept that risk if you have sex.  If you want to better those chances use two methods.  quote>

Good advice.  Three methods is even better.

However I believe that if someone wants to take the time to research it, you might discover that most unplanned pregnancies don't involve contraceptives at all.quote>

I suspect that might be the case.   A lot of them involve the reasoning "oh, it won't happen to me".

I'm Pro Choice because I believe that only the women can make that decision for herself.  To remove that freedom from her reduces her womb to chattel, of her but not controlled by her.  However that doesn't mean that I accept that abortion as a purely contraceptive procedure is a good thing. It's not.quote>

Personally, I agree with you there.  On both counts.

Originally posted by: Cheese89

As I said to Meg, in a lot of my examples I assume for the sake of argument that men aren't going to be jerks.

quote>

That's quite an assumption. 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Men are jerks, for the most part. I'm not insulted in the least. quote>

That is a generalization.   I do believe that the current crop of young men is less jerk-like than the men of my generation.  (which is, of course, another generalization.)

The men of my generation had the rules change on them between childhood and adulthood.  Many of them have not caught up and are not going to catch up. 

But I do have hope for today's 20-somethings.