Abortion

[Mackerni]

Well, according to my faith everything that dies will exist again with the help of science, but also point out that, that aborted fetus could potentially produce a lot of extropy, furthering the cause to support other aborted fetuses to live one day.

I have an idea that could qualm both sides: take the side of extropy.

For example, my mom became an environmental scientist so that she could earn a wage that would support both of us. My birth resulted in her entire career. This produced extropy. However, if a woman is already in college and by having a child would impede or complete stop the progress she was having to her career, this would negate extropy. I've heard stories where a woman would get knocked up at 18, have an abortion, and then get a masters degree and two successful child births later in life. Is it possible that she could have kept all three children? Yes, but the chance of her having the two other children is much less likely.

 

[JoStories]

Part of the facts are teaching responsibility. It isn't just teaching how to do it, it's also teaching why you probably shouldn't.

having not read this thread in a few days and just now catching up, I read what SomeRandom said and he is saying what you are. I am wondering why you don't see that.

 

[Cephus]

I agree.
I'm generally considered a prude.

What I mean is usually called "comprehensive sex education". One of the better ways I know about was the computerised doll my niece got sent home with for a weekend. It cried and squirmed and squirted at normal intervals (for a baby), and she had to do whatever it took to care for it, or she lost grade points.
She was in her late twenties and married for three years before she would go through that again.
Tom

There's nothing prudish about it, it's called teaching personal responsibility. It's teaching people to make good life decisions. Actions have consequences. If you don't like the consequences, don't take the actions. But most people, especially on the left, don't like personal responsibility, they assume that everyone is going to be irresponsible and only want to teach how to minimize the consequences of irresponsibility, not teach people to make good choices to begin with.

 

[Cephus]

having not read this thread in a few days and just now catching up, I read what SomeRandom said and he is saying what you are. I am wondering why you don't see that.

Because I don't necessarily agree that he's saying what I am. He's closer than some other people have been though, I'll grant you that.

 

[Cephus]

While also accepting that many people will be irresponsible regardless.

That's what responsible sex education involves and tends to be. If you are going to have sex then do so responsibly, and facilitate people's ability to have safe sex

Maybe, maybe not. It's like saying people will just break the law so why have laws? No, we teach people not to break the law and the people who do, we punish them. We don't say "we know you're going to rob a bank anyway..." and then make it easier to do so and facilitate lesser penalties for doing so, we teach them not to do it in the first place, we tell them what the penalties are for doing so, and when they do so, ignoring everything they've been taught along the way, we don't soft pedal it, we slam them hard, hopefully so that when, and if, they ever get back out into polite society again, they don't do it again.

 

[arthra]

There are a lot of religious arguments (and general political ones) against abortion. But I think that the argument, generally speaking, demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of the everyman.
So you're against abortion for whatever reason, but consider this argument from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:"Most abortions are spontaneous and happen naturally within the human body. Most women who have such an abortion never know it because it happens within the first month. It is very, very common. So in fact the biggest abortionist, if god is responsible for what goes on in your body, is god."
Now when he says 'very common' what he means is 50-70%. That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.
So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

To me an abortion involves intent either on the part of the mother and or the doctor involved... A miscarriage can occur naturally but this doesn't involve intent.

For Baha'is an abortion for mere convenience is forbidden... An example would be aborting a female fetus because the parent prefers a male child... or perhaps an abortion for financial reasons.

In cases where an abortion is for medical reasons.. this would be up to the mother.

 

[Augustus]

It's like saying people will just break the law so why have laws?

You need to be rational about this, not hyperbolic. It's not even remotely analogous.

Laws are essential for the effective functioning of society, sex a a basic human urge that, in teenagers, couples hormonal driven desires with a lack of overall maturity.

Ultimately, crimes harm society and we need to reduce them to as low a level as possible. Teenagers having safe sex doesn't harm society, its a fundamental part of human nature.

You want to prevent crimes full stop. You don't need to prevent teenagers from having sex full stop, just minimise the harms of teenagers having sex. Better educated teenagers tend to have fewer problems than less educated teenagers, it's not rocket science.

"Just say no" type policies are demonstrably ineffective at harm reduction, just ideologically driven fantasy that prefers normative assumptions to positive realities.

 

[Cephus]

You need to be rational about this, not hyperbolic. It's not even remotely analogous.

Of course it is.

Laws are essential for the effective functioning of society, sex a a basic human urge that, in teenagers, couples hormonal driven desires with a lack of overall maturity.

Yes, sex is a basic human urge, just like having possessions and material wealth. Unlike food and air and shelter, sex is not a staple of basic individual human existence. Nobody ever died because they went without sex. Just because people want sex doesn't mean they need sex, or have to get sex, or should even necessarily have sex, any more than just because people want big cars means they ought to be able to go out and steal them. If people needed sex, we wouldn't make things like rape, incest and pedophilia illegal. In fact, you point out one of the biggest problems, that teenagers are immature and therefore have no business having sex in the first place because they do not have the maturity or responsibility to handle it.

Ultimately, crimes harm society and we need to reduce them to as low a level as possible. Teenagers having safe sex doesn't harm society, its a fundamental part of human nature.

Irresponsibility harms society and is ultimately the cause of most crimes and other social ills. You don't think that teenage pregnancy harms society? You don't think that kids dropping out of school because they are pregnant harms society? I certainly do.

You want to prevent crimes full stop. You don't need to prevent teenagers from having sex full stop, just minimise the harms of teenagers having sex. Better educated teenagers tend to have fewer problems than less educated teenagers, it's not rocket science.

Yes, in a perfect world, we ought to stop all crimes, full stop. We also ought to stop irresponsible people from doing things that harm society. We don't have a perfect world, of course, but that's no reason not to strive for it. Far too many people just throw up their hands and pretend that because everything isn't perfect, we shouldn't even bother.

"Just say no" type policies are demonstrably ineffective at harm reduction, just ideologically driven fantasy that prefers normative assumptions to positive realities.

That's because they aren't based on demonstrable harm. All of those things happen in a vacuum, where we have a society that glamorizes drug use or teenage sex or crime or whatever, and just telling people not to do it while movies and television glorify it, of course it isn't going to work, it just sends mixed signals. There was a time in this world where we had this thing called shame. People were afraid to do things, not only because of the direct consequences, but because of how it would make them look to others. People cared how they appeared to those around them, their reputations mattered and were carefully protected. Today, that's not true. Nobody cares and a lot of that comes from the ongoing liberalization of society and I think that's going to affect the health and wellbeing of society in ways we can't even imagine yet. We're going down the wrong path.

 

[Augustus]

Of course it is.

Only if you have very poor analytical reasoning skills.

Irresponsibility harms society and is ultimately the cause of most crimes and other social ills. You don't think that teenage pregnancy harms society? You don't think that kids dropping out of school because they are pregnant harms society? I certainly do.

That's why I said safe sex. You understand the difference between sex and safe sex don't you?

Far too many people just throw up their hands and pretend that because everything isn't perfect, we shouldn't even bother.

No one is suggesting that. For someone who claims to be 'relentlessly rational', you do seem to prefer ideological assumptions about what you wish people had said rather than taking the effort to read and understand what they actually said.

There was a time in this world where we had this thing called shame

I live somewhere that they still have this and it isn't this magical panacea you seem to think it is. Virginity tests for students and female civil servants. Girls being disowned by their families for bringing 'shame' on the family by getting pregnant. Dodgy abortions and infanticide because girls are so afraid of their family finding out. Illegitimate children being socially stigmatised for life.

The problem with nostalgia is you remember the good but not the bad.

The Scandinavians are very open about sex and seem to be doing a hell of a lot better than most other places that are more puritan like the US. And, yes, the key points are education and responsibility.

 

[Cephus]

That's why I said safe sex. You understand the difference between sex and safe sex don't you?

There's no such thing as safe sex. There is safer sex, but the only way to be 100% safe from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is not to have sex at all. Of course, I've used the term "safer sex" several times in this discussion.

No one is suggesting that. For someone who claims to be 'relentlessly rational', you do seem to prefer ideological assumptions about what you wish people had said rather than taking the effort to read and understand what they actually said.

There are lots of people who absolutely do suggest that, who say "teenagers are going to do it anyhow, so we'll just hand out condoms" and the like. Just because you haven't personally said it doesn't mean it isn't a common argument.

I live somewhere that they still have this and it isn't this magical panacea you seem to think it is. Virginity tests for students and female civil servants. Girls being disowned by their families for bringing 'shame' on the family by getting pregnant. Dodgy abortions and infanticide because girls are so afraid of their family finding out. Illegitimate children being socially stigmatised for life.

No, you don't live somewhere where that is done because I don't think anyone does that. I'm not talking about religious anything, I'm not talking about virginity tests or any of that, I mean people looking at society as a part of that society, not as just an individual who couldn't care less of what anyone thinks of them. The people you list are not doing what I said. There would be no need for dodgy abortions if they didn't have sex to begin with. In fact, as someone else said recently here, there wouldn't be a need for abortion at all, except for in the case of health of the mother or fetal deformity, if people just acted responsibly to begin with.

The problem with nostalgia is you remember the good but not the bad.

Nostalgia only works when it's actually taken place before. What I'm suggesting has not.

The Scandinavians are very open about sex and seem to be doing a hell of a lot better than most other places that are more puritan like the US. And, yes, the key points are education and responsibility.

Good for them. Nobody is talking about being puritanical. I'm talking about being responsible.

 

[SomeRandom]

Because I don't necessarily agree that he's saying what I am. He's closer than some other people have been though, I'll grant you that.

I'm a SHE btw. I mean no big deal, just saying.
Why does it have to be an either or thing? You don't automatically sacrifice abstinence teaching when teaching safe sex. It's just arming people with knowledge so they may minimize the risks IF they engage in such behavior. Just like teaching kids how to be safe when handling matches isn't the same as teaching kids that it's okay to play with fire. You're covering your bases and actually doing something instead of tut tutting them. Which is not really that productive to be honest.

It's a realistic approach. You can teach personal responsibility all you like, fact of the matter is, not everyone will take your advice. . Especially teenagers who are experimenting to see where they fit in in life and where the boundaries are. It's just what teenagers do. It's what they've always done. You have to have a fail safe for that. Not doing so is irresponsible, to be blunt. Just telling them the consequences doesn't work, especially if you blow them out of proportion.
Case in point the anti smoking campaign we had in year 8. They showed us the worst case scenarios each and every time. They admonished it's usage. Told us time and again not to do it. And lo and behold, people got freaking curious as ****. So when they smoked and saw that the affects weren't as they portrayed, we thought they were lying to us. Couple that with the feeling of invincibility you have when you're a teenager and bam! At least three quarters of my grade were addicted to tobacco by the age of 14. Well done anti campaign, well done.
You see, if they left out the hyperbole and explained it to us frankly, talking to us not like we're idiots but as reasonable people and without all the tut tutting, maybe we'd have less smokers in year 8 and 9. Because as a teenager you're probably more inclined to listen to someone who treats you with respect than you are some nagging teacher wringing their hands over your choices in life. You typically roll your eyes at that lot as a teen.

 

[Augustus]

"teenagers are going to do it anyhow, so we'll just hand out condoms"

You seem to be under the impression that sex education strategies simply involve lobbing contraceptives at people and saying 'have fun'. Access to contraceptives is simply 1 part of a comprehensive sex education programme.

Also by distributing free contraceptives it creates a 'point of contact' where the people collecting these have access to information/education/counselling which has been shown to be effective.

Part of this contact will include encouraging people to wait until they are ready, attempts to empower girls to feel confident to say no and building up their self-confidence, discuss STDs and pregnancy, explain the importance of using contraception, etc.

Yes, part of it involves trying to reduce the number of teenagers having sex: "It's ok not to have sex. Don't ever be pressured into sex. If you do have sex though, these are the facts, how to be safer and how to access contraceptives."

The people you list are not doing what I said. There would be no need for dodgy abortions if they didn't have sex to begin with...

If my aunty had balls, she would be my uncle.

Teenagers have always had sex, always will do. You can't change human nature through wishful thinking.

Nostalgia only works when it's actually taken place before. What I'm suggesting has not.

You seem to be advocating some kind of shame based abstinence programme as far as I can tell. Either that or you are completely mistaken about what a comprehensive approach to sex education actually entails beyond what Fox News might say about it.

What is your unique approach? 'Be responsible. Don't have sex'?

Good for them. Nobody is talking about being puritanical. I'm talking about being responsible.

Responsible means dealing with reality, not some idealised Victorian fantasy about how teenagers 'should be'.

If you tell teenagers they can't have sex because they are too immature and irresponsible and terrible things will happen to them if they have sex, then most will laugh at you and call you a bellend.

That's why you need a comprehensive strategy that involves empowerment, education and access to free contraception.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There's nothing prudish about it, it's called teaching personal responsibility. It's teaching people to make good life decisions. Actions have consequences. If you don't like the consequences, don't take the actions. But most people, especially on the left, don't like personal responsibility, they assume that everyone is going to be irresponsible and only want to teach how to minimize the consequences of irresponsibility, not teach people to make good choices to begin with.

You just talked with two people "on the left" who basically agreed with you that personal responsibility is important and then clarified your misconceptions about "only wanting to teach how to minimize the consequences of irresponsibility" "not teaching people to make good choices to begin with." So why repeat the same thing again?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course it is.



Yes, sex is a basic human urge, just like having possessions and material wealth. Unlike food and air and shelter, sex is not a staple of basic individual human existence. Nobody ever died because they went without sex. Just because people want sex doesn't mean they need sex, or have to get sex, or should even necessarily have sex, any more than just because people want big cars means they ought to be able to go out and steal them. If people needed sex, we wouldn't make things like rape, incest and pedophilia illegal. In fact, you point out one of the biggest problems, that teenagers are immature and therefore have no business having sex in the first place because they do not have the maturity or responsibility to handle it.



Irresponsibility harms society and is ultimately the cause of most crimes and other social ills. You don't think that teenage pregnancy harms society? You don't think that kids dropping out of school because they are pregnant harms society? I certainly do.



Yes, in a perfect world, we ought to stop all crimes, full stop. We also ought to stop irresponsible people from doing things that harm society. We don't have a perfect world, of course, but that's no reason not to strive for it. Far too many people just throw up their hands and pretend that because everything isn't perfect, we shouldn't even bother.



That's because they aren't based on demonstrable harm. All of those things happen in a vacuum, where we have a society that glamorizes drug use or teenage sex or crime or whatever, and just telling people not to do it while movies and television glorify it, of course it isn't going to work, it just sends mixed signals. There was a time in this world where we had this thing called shame. People were afraid to do things, not only because of the direct consequences, but because of how it would make them look to others. People cared how they appeared to those around them, their reputations mattered and were carefully protected. Today, that's not true. Nobody cares and a lot of that comes from the ongoing liberalization of society and I think that's going to affect the health and wellbeing of society in ways we can't even imagine yet. We're going down the wrong path.

For some reason you seem to have ignored my post where I pointed out that the vast majority of human beings are going to have sex sometime within their lifetime. That's just a fact of life.

So teaching teens about safe and responsible sexual behavior isn't just about teaching TEENS about safe and responsible sexual behavior. It's about teaching and preparing for a responsible adulthood, which will last the rest of their lives.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You have an imaginary friend and you pretend you make decisions based on facts? Seriously?

First, your post is insulting to Christians and all theists, if not to me personally. This is ReligiousForums.com and I do not take lightly your spurious, unsupported, unsubstantiated statement that when I communicate with God He is my imagination.

Second, we have facts in the scriptures. Many facts, which are trustworthy. Other facts, scientific facts, empirical facts and logical facts, are to employed by the Christian as well in making sound decisions.

I'm not asking for an apology but please show more respect to others in your statements.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What facts exactly? You are pro-life and that stance is often not evidenced by facts. Such as the fetus having rights or being a child at conception. Those are not facts. And they are not law. So again, what facts exactly?

The fact is the child is all genetically he or she ever will be at conception. The fact is that viability is a scientific fact or state of being, but using viability to decide whether or not to terminate is a subjective choice.

The fact is that the fetus is to have rights if we are to with a straight face support personal rights and persons. We cannot in any arena support one person's autonomy by taking the life of another person. That takes away and repudiates the right to life.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You seem to be under the impression that sex education strategies simply involve lobbing contraceptives at people and saying 'have fun'. Access to contraceptives is simply 1 part of a comprehensive sex education programme.

Also by distributing free contraceptives it creates a 'point of contact' where the people collecting these have access to information/education/counselling which has been shown to be effective.

Part of this contact will include encouraging people to wait until they are ready, attempts to empower girls to feel confident to say no and building up their self-confidence, discuss STDs and pregnancy, explain the importance of using contraception, etc.

Yes, part of it involves trying to reduce the number of teenagers having sex: "It's ok not to have sex. Don't ever be pressured into sex. If you do have sex though, these are the facts, how to be safer and how to access contraceptives."



If my aunty had balls, she would be my uncle.

Teenagers have always had sex, always will do. You can't change human nature through wishful thinking.



You seem to be advocating some kind of shame based abstinence programme as far as I can tell. Either that or you are completely mistaken about what a comprehensive approach to sex education actually entails beyond what Fox News might say about it.

What is your unique approach? 'Be responsible. Don't have sex'?



Responsible means dealing with reality, not some idealised Victorian fantasy about how teenagers 'should be'.

If you tell teenagers they can't have sex because they are too immature and irresponsible and terrible things will happen to them if they have sex, then most will laugh at you and call you a bellend.

That's why you need a comprehensive strategy that involves empowerment, education and access to free contraception.

I like your sharp, inquisitive insights and your strong mind, however, I cannot legitimately educate a young person on the dangers of drinking alcohol, encouraging them as strongly as I know how to wait some years until they are ready, while handing them a fake ID and a bottle of Scotch. "C'mon, really, really try not to have sex yet but here's a box of condoms in case you are too weak to succeed" is a mixed, unwholesome message.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The fact is the child is all genetically he or she ever will be at conception. The fact is that viability is a scientific fact or state of being, but using viability to decide whether or not to terminate is a subjective choice.

The fact is that the fetus is to have rights if we are to with a straight face support personal rights and persons. We cannot in any arena support one person's autonomy by taking the life of another person. That takes away and repudiates the right to life.

I'd like to ask again, what is your definition of conception?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I like your sharp, inquisitive insights and your strong mind, however, I cannot legitimately educate a young person on the dangers of drinking alcohol, encouraging them as strongly as I know how to wait some years until they are ready, while handing them a fake ID and a bottle of Scotch. "C'mon, really, really try not to have sex yet but here's a box of condoms in case you are too weak to succeed" is a mixed, unwholesome message.

How are those things the same and who is handing out boxes of condoms?

Nobody ever handed me a box or a single condom in any sex ed class I was ever in. The school nurse would give them out begrudgingly, but you'd have to go seek her out and sit down and talk with her first. She wasn't roaming the halls handing them out to children.

 

[Augustus]

I cannot legitimately educate a young person on the dangers of drinking alcohol, encouraging them as strongly as I know how to wait some years until they are ready, while handing them a fake ID and a bottle of Scotch.

It's a false analogy.

Alcohol is required to get drunk, but condoms are not required to have sex.

C'mon, really, really try not to have sex yet but here's a box of condoms in case you are too weak to succeed" is a mixed, unwholesome message.

People don't decide to have sex simply because they have condoms though. "I don't really want to lose my virginity, but I've got these condoms and it would be a shame to waste them."

In the modern era, we can't keep children nice and innocent because they all have the internet. best to give them good advice rather than learning from pornography and peer pressure.