I contend that the government cannot eliminate unwanted pregnancies, but it can effectively curb the killing of unwanted babies by banning elective abortion. It could also fund programs by groups like Catholic Charities that help equip women to keep their babies or place them for adoption: http://www.catholiccharitiesoregon.org/503-231-4866/services/pregnancy.asp First, there no credible evidence that abortion has reduced crime. Second, killing the poor is a gruesome "solution" to poverty. Again, I don't see this as an "either/or" situation; we need to reduce both the supply and demand. I've offered a few good examples for addressing the demand, but I'm still waiting for practical suggestions from the "pro-choice" crowd here.
I don't see how you can blame society or how society can be responsible for your blotch. I mean I could blame a bad grade that I got on a test on my teacher, even though I chose not to study for it. I mean when people say society possibly being responsible, it makes it look like people like me are part of the problem, and I'm not. Sex (unless it's rape) is a CHOICE, society is not forcing you to have it either.
Society is not forcing people to have sex, but it isn't educating people on how to do it safely. There are so many children growing up whose parents aren't talking to them about sex, pregnancy, STDs, etc. They are either too embarrassed or it's "taboo". So, the next obvious place is in schools. They are so restricted on what they can or can't talk about. I remember sex ed. from high school and before the program began, the teacher said that we can't talk about AIDS, homosexuality, or birth control. How are the children suppossed to learn. Jozak, you may not be part of the problem, but these kids' parents and schools are. I'm not saying it makes abortions okay, but it is a reason kids have no respect for their bodies. They never learned how.
Where you grow up, who your parents are, if they both work, if one stayed home with you, if you went to a private school, if you are rich, if you are poor...ALL these are factors in becoming the person that you are. How is that so hard to understand? Jozack, you would be a WAY different person if you were born to a couple that practiced pagan beliefs, or if you were born in a third-world country, or if you were born to a homeless woman. You wouldn't be makeing the same exact decisions that you make today. Hell, you probably wouldn't be on Hipforums. If you want to deny cutural influence on a person, you can. But being in denial is not the way to stop a problem.
Huck Once more you wish others to speak for you, so we get another link (I think we are up to 20 now) and yet again you are asking me to explain things for you, but Huck , Sera’s and my own plea to you is for you to ask questions for yourself so you might find your own explanations? A first step might be to ask yourself why you think you know these people’s actions are due solely or in very large part to their personal immoral and hedonistic behaviour? Has this immorality and hedonism sprung from nowhere, were they born with it? Are peoples characters predetermined or are they moulded, nature or nurture, are you saying that these people are my by nature immoral and hedonistic or do you think that any persons behaviour is a mixture of influences many of which are social, cultural and economic? ** Your contention is that the "the government cannot eliminate unwanted pregnancies" you might be right but why are you so sure? Also you have mentioned a lot about forcing women, that do get pregnant, to have the babies but as far as I know the only idea for them not getting pregnant in the first place is to tell them not to have sex? To me that is not a realistic position. You seem a vocal advocate of adoption and as I have said to you before I agree, but once more this has been covered before. In post 322 I mention that there are still orphanages in the US and the fact that the number of children needing adoption in the world is growing (it is estimated that by 2010 there will be 44 million orphans in the world). In post 309 I mentioned that if financial inducements are given to gain adoption there is the possibility of a womb and child market appearing. So that leads on to your Catholic charity link, it is advocating giving financial assistance to women as an inducement not to abort and the feministsforlife site seems to want to go further wanting to offer not only financial aid, but preferential housing. The thing is that we have had many US right wingers here arguing that some women have babies just to get welfare and subsidised housing and that they wish to cut such benefits to discourage women from doing this. So are you saying that as a right winger you would cut welfare but as an ‘anti’ you would give welfare? Would you cut welfare except for women that got pregnant? Or are you saying that welfare would be given only during pregnancy and only to women giving up their child for adoption? Wouldn’t that actually encourage more of the thing those right wingers complain about? The other thing that feministsforlife think is very important is low cost childcare, which I think is a very good idea, but again this is not something that seems to be on the right wing agenda? I have had other people advocating sterilising the poor so that they couldn’t and wouldn’t be such a burden. You if I remember correctly think sterilisation a good idea for those who wish not to be burdened with unwanted children do you think it should be extended?
Jozak Do you think you would be a Catholic if you had been brought up in a Muslim household? Would you have libertarian tendencies if you had been brought up in Europe (where they’re seen mostly as a joke). If you had had to flee to Chad would your main concern be about you exams? Yes, maybe? Or is it don’t know since you didn’t have that life so are you saying that you know why and for what reasons each woman that has had an abortion got pregnant? Huck seems sure that it was only because they were immoral hedonists, are you equally sure that you know why they chose to have sex what led to them getting pregnant and why they have chosen to abort? If you do can you tell us? Why do you think the way you think is totally independent of your upbringing and environment?
Opps just read Sera’s much more eloquent post to Jozak which is saying basically the same thing as me, I really should refresh the screen before posting. Balbus
This is a load of crap, but we've already been through this about 10 or 20 pages ago, so I'm not going to rehash that tiresome exchange. You've asked for ways that pro-lifers would address the "need" for abortion, and I've given you some actual examples. You, however, have yet to provide a single concrete proposal. I don't think that any single formula can adequately explain how and why people make the decisions they do. Of course, everyone is influenced by social, cultural, and economic factors. However, people from very similar backgrounds often make very different decisions. We are not machines; we are ultimately responsible for our actions as individuals. Like any violent crime, I think we should strive to minimize societal conditions that foster abortion, but that doesn't mean that its perpetrators shouldn't be held accountable. Why don't you answer some of your own questions? I'm particularly interested in how you would apply them to other violent crimes. I can't imagine how this could possibly be accomplished, but I'm open to suggestions. If you're just going to regurgitate the "safer" sex education mantra, then spare me. Why is it not realistic for people to reserve sex for a committed relationship that includes the possibility of caring for children that might naturally result? Unfortunately, these are mostly older children from troubled homes that are not easily adopted. Newborns, however, are vastly outnumbered by prospective adoptive parents. In other words, there is no problem finding homes for babies that are not aborted. It is illegal to sell children. How many times to I need to repeat that I am not a right-winger? My posts on your Vietnam War thread should make this clear. Try thinking outside your ideological box. I think it should be available, but not coerced, except possibly for the mentally disabled who could never be responsible parents.
The funny thing is I agree with everything you just said. Like I said, I am 100% FOR SEX EDUCATION/Contraceptives--I've stated this is the first step at helping decrease the number of abortions, becasue I don't think we will be able to just ban it all togethar in one Bill/Legislation, I think we need to focus on here more as well.
Denying Cultural influence? Are you kidding me? I am an immigrant straight off the boat from Europe! I am not disputing that there are factors which influence our world views and the people we become. My parents raised my brothers and I not to drink or do drugs, but I drink anyway. They know I drink now and are okay with it, but if they were not, should I blame them for my choice to drink? This is my point. People come from all different backgrounds and homes, but that doesn't mean people cannot make the right choices.
Family structure of american families ( I say this because this is what I see and know so far) isn't a good example for family structure for future families therefore we have more unstructured families and the cycle repeats itself daily. The debate on abortion should and will continue..BUT we should move tward relearning how to be better families. There are a huge abundance of factors that flow into creating this change. And it will not be a fast or easy drive to getting people to be more responsable family members/units but some things NEED to change. Nobody learns how to parent until they are parents. We learn habits and addictions but BEING a parent does not exsist until we have kids. Being a whole family unite or having a good structure of well rounded people around you from conception well into adulthood is essential for everyone. You are more likely to make good choices for yourself if you yourself are around good choices and REAL people. People who are real with you and who respect you as a human being. The you are more likely to respect yourself by yourself and you will be more likely to respect others and you will be more likely to attract that and recieve that as well. One family at a time. Sex needs to be an open subject in families. People need to be kind to their bodies so their children can have something to go from from example. Most communication is non verbal and children are like sponges. Then they mirror back to you..yourself. Yes there is a level of self image and self ..obviously all children can make their own choices but you need to give them a developed foundation from an early age that creates the brain functions they need to be able to pick right from wrong. This also means you have to model it for your children and you have to show them peopel around them modeling it too.This means a parent may have to change their ways relearn how to be a positive vibration in their kids lives and heaven forbid have to give up some bad habits or change a way of thinking to learn a better way of being. Right now the model isn't good. And just seems "ok" to go have sex and give blowjobs at like 12 years old...get preggers you can give it away...or abort it..fathers are rarely in the picture on a regular basis...tons of families are devorced...and addoptions are needed everywhere around the world. Outside the family structure schools need to have sex education that is real world and not leave shit out. Sex is not shits and giggles. It is something we do that is natural that our bodies are made to do. we are naturaly sexual as kids and adults and kids need to know waht is going on. Since we engage in each other so much and have so many sexual things happen all the time we need to make it clear what is happening as we go so kids know. They need to know. they want to know and they are learning from each other instead of peole who actualy KNOW. The we have the government and the entire school structure that isnt set up for the teaching of boys...creating a high rate of boy suicides and many woman teachers ..lack of male roll models on all ends of the coin. think about this...Our school structure isnt set up for boys developmental needs at all. all the while there are more women in education then men. Women making the choices from a womans point of view for a boys actual needs from the standpoint of a womans brain which is more cognitive thinking and emotional...but a boy needs something different. So develomentaly later on in life this is damaging to boys growth. this factors into males in societe and in family structures as older human beings. Developmentaly how they treat themselves and otehrs..including how they react and how they treat women.This is serious stuff. We have a lot to work on. So all you pro lifers this gose deeper then just dont have sex. We need some WORK as a whole nation of indeviduals. Self work. Family work and community work. If you want people to have respect for human life you have to understand human life first.
I think we may be getting close to the problem with the US debate on abortion, we have on one side people that genuinely want to understand and help and there are others who wish to obstruct that. People here have been asking the ‘anti’s’ why they hold the views they do, we have asked them to move beyond the slogans and look into themselves and engage in the argument. At this moment I have to wonder if some of them are able to do that? Argument by slogan blocks the advancement of the discussion it makes it more difficult to try and find solutions and understanding. But the thing that attracts people to a slogan is their simplicity, understanding very often makes a subject seem more complex and can force people to look at their values and prejudices in a different way and many people do not like to go through that experience. ** Huck When you say that you have presented ‘actual examples’ of realistic ways to tackle the numbers of people having unwanted pregnancies what do you mean? As far as I can tell your idea is to tell them not to have sex before marriage then to sterilises themselves when they think they have had enough children after marriage? Once a woman does have an unwanted pregnancy your idea seems to be to make sure they cannot get an abortion? This doesn’t imply to me that you wish to understand why, but to impose you viewpoint. The views are slogans – ‘Abstinence‘ ‘Abortion is wrong and so must be stopped‘ ** "If you're just going to regurgitate the "safer" sex education mantra, then spare me" Attacking sex education is just another slogan if you don’t explain what you mean, as I’ve commented earlier in post 356 on the piece by George Wills you posted. His view was that Sex Ed was just – "plumbing for hedonists" A great slogan but what does it actually mean? So what do you mean by sex education? What would you do to improve it or what would you replace it with? ** "Why is it not realistic for people to reserve sex for a committed relationship that includes the possibility of caring for children that might naturally result?" This is not realistic unless you plan on trying to enforce it? Has no Jew or Christian committed adultery since Moses was said to have brought the ten commandments down from the mountain? The thing is ‘abstinence’ is just a slogan, expecting it to work unsupported by any other measures is foolhardy. If you actually do have other measures please tell us about them? ** Like any violent crime, I think we should strive to minimize societal conditions that foster abortion, but that doesn't mean that its perpetrators shouldn't be held accountable. Why don't you answer some of your own questions? I'm particularly interested in how you would apply them to other violent crimes. I’m unsure what you mean by this paragraph, it seems a bit confused? societal conditions that foster abortion? perpetrators shouldn't be held accountable? apply them to other violent crimes?
I don't think that any single formula can adequately explain how and why people make the decisions they do. Of course, everyone is influenced by social, cultural, and economic factors. However, people from very similar backgrounds often make very different decisions. We are not machines; we are ultimately responsible for our actions as individuals. So that’s clear then – Yes – They are "everyone is influenced by social, cultural, and economic factors" No – They are not "people from very similar backgrounds often make very different decisions" Huck you should be a politician. So what is he trying to say? Let us look If - , people from very similar backgrounds often make very different decisions. And – we are ultimately responsible for our actions as individuals Then doesn’t it really matter about social, cultural, and economic factors? I mean, if you think about it the way Huck seems to and people from similar social, cultural and economic backgrounds will make different decisions, will changing their environment change those decisions? Would it not stand to reason if you thought that way that the people who would have gotten pregnant if they had been poor or uneducated will still make that same decision if they were comfortable or well educated? If a person thought that way would they really think it was worth trying to changing anything? Is that why Huck doesn’t seem to have any real policies to help people only slogans and a desire to dictate? ** How many times to I need to repeat that I am not a right-winger? My posts on your Vietnam War thread should make this clear. Try thinking outside your ideological box. To claim you are not right wing just comes across as delusional, what do you think you are if not right wing? You claim that somehow your views in my Vietnam War thread make it clear you’re not right wing, but why? It was also clear from that thread that while you had a position on the VW you seemed rather unsure why you had it? If you wish to go back to it and discuss that further I have been waiting? But let us look at something that is more relevant to this thread? Could you give us your views on welfare and the US right wing’s view of it since you are planning to vote for? What about education, child care, housing, and heath care?
I didn't ignore the post. I will steal from Balbus on this: "I mean, if you think about it the way Huck seems to and people from similar social, cultural and economic backgrounds will make different decisions, will changing their environment change those decisions? Would it not stand to reason if you thought that way that the people who would have gotten pregnant if they had been poor or uneducated will still make that same decision if they were comfortable or well educated?" People are responsible for their decisions, they have to face the consequences of their decisions just like anyone else. That doesnt mean, however, that they have the ability to make the decision YOU would want them to make regarding abortion/or any other issue. Here is from you, Jozak: "People come from all different backgrounds and homes, but that doesn't mean people cannot make the right choices." So since when are you the defining answer on whats right and wrong? I'm sure you think cannibalism is wrong, but if you grew up in a tribe of cannibals you wouldnt think that was wrong. There is no absolute right and wrong. Otherwise how could it be right to kill people in war, but not in your neighborhood? You should stop being so closed-minded. Just to add, I would never stop you, Jozak from drinking, which is legal just like abortion is. I would only educate you on what it does to your body, and then you make your choice. Just because I don't like drinking personally I wouldn't consider your drinking wrong.
I'm not being close minded. My main thing is it's ending a human life, and thus I think it (should be) wrong. If we are living in a civilized society, that is. Like I have said, I don't care what people do as long as it does not intrude on my life, however, even as a Libertarian, I don't think doctors should be able to intrude on the life of another and kill it. I am not against it becasue I feel it's morally wrong and thus everyone should abide by my morals.
The problem as I see it with the debate about abortion in the US seems to be because the argument has become so polarised that it has become simply a matter of yes or no, of either being for or against. I fear that this means that for many it has become only a matter of winning, not the issue itself, they don’t need to understand why people have abortions and feel no need in finding realistic ways to help. I hope that in this thread it has now become a bit clearer that the question is more complex. As I said at the beginning I don’t like invasive abortion, and it is for that reason that I think it imperative to find out why people are having them, so we can try and find solutions to the situation these people find themselves in. ** Making it less likely that people need an abortion. Sex Education Well many people here, like myself, believe that sex education is an important first step. It is even claimed that improved SexEd had lead to the recent drop in abortion amongst the young groups in the US. The problem is what type of sex education the person is talking about? Again I fear that this issue has become polarised. With one side arguing that any SexEd that tells people the details encourages them to experiment and the other saying they need to protect themselves if they do try to experiment. To me the first mistake here is thinking that sex education stands alone away from general education. So I would want to raise the educational standards of those groups where abortions are highest. Is that happening in the US and if not why not? As to the issue of sex education I will open another thread. Contraception. Another contentious idea is the availability of contraception, again some argue that if people can easily get hold of the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies then they are more likely to indulge in sex. ** Making it less likely that people feel the need to have an abortion. To understand this we need to ask why people have abortions in the US, and the difficulty here is the data. Many ‘anti’s’ including Huck argue that since most abortions are for ‘personal reasons’ (rather than medical) this indicates that it purely a personal choice and has nothing to do with any other factors or influences. However a closer look at the details seem to indicate otherwise. "personal choice"98% (78-99 %) --too young/immature/not ready for responsibility(32 %) --economic(21-28 %) --to avoid adjusting life(16 %) --mother single or in poor relationship(12-13 %) --enough children already(4-8 %) www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html From the studies I’ve seen (like the one above) the clearest reason given seems to be economic the others seem more difficult to interpret but seem to me to fit into possible social or economic categories. I mean who decides (or make someone believe) they are too young/immature/not ready for a child? Such descriptions could also be euphoniums for underlying economic reasons, as could the fear of single motherhood (plus the social stigma that is attached to it for many). As to what ‘avoiding adjustment to life’ means it is again unclear, but most likely means an interruption in someone’s career which could also be seen as social and economic. So what is to be done? Well it would seem reasonable to find out what economic problems people see as being attached to having a baby and then removing them? The fact is Huck has put forward some things that would be useful, financial assistance, preferential housing and cheap childcare, to that list I would also add free health care. Is that being proposed by any political party in the US and if not why not?
I’ve been told that many people in the US vote for the right wing Republican party only because of their anti abortion stance. I’m starting to wonder if these people are either outright lying or lying to themselves or just don’t realise what they are doing. Yes the Republican Party are in favour of making abortion illegal but is that simplistic policy actually about understanding the complex reasons why people think they need an abortion and is it about helping those people? Now I hope to proven wrong but from what I’ve learned about Republican Party policies that doesn’t seem the case. Since I think any decent person would want to understand and help people, why are they voting for Republican policies? I can only think that some people are for some reason hiding their right wing views behind the anti abortion issue or they really have been taken in by flawed rhetoric and snappy slogans. Since I hope that most ‘antis’ are decent human beings and a lot of them seem to say they are religious, (and to me the few good things that some religion supposedly preach are understanding, compassion and helping people) I can only believe they are misguided. I think they should look at the things being proposed by people like Huck and fight to increase financial assistance for people with children especially those in most need the unemployed and single parents. And that this would include healthy and affordable (even free) housing. For those in employment there could be extended periods of maternity leave for both mother and father with the assurance that their job will be kept for them and then cheap or free childcare. The thing is as far as I know the Republican party are not in favour of any of these things?
