Abortion Made Simple

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Priestley

Fushigi na Butterfly

Priestley

It's horrible to live in a society where, while it's a great thing to adopt children and to be a role model for young people, it's somehow frowned upon to have children of one's own and "increase the world's population" just because some unfortunate children's parents have died or do not accept the responsibility of parenthood.

Reproduction is a basic human right, people.

Sometimes it shouldn't be. I wonder if I world would be better if everyone was chemically sterilized at birth, and then had to pass a battery of character tests and parenting classes in order to be allowed to have children. We'd have alot less unwanted children and unfit parents. confused

That sounds a lot like eugenics to me.

To extent, it would be. But if someone didn't want children, then they could mess around all they liked and there would be no abortions. Only people who wanted children and could show they could provide for them- financially, emotionally, physically- would be allowed to have them. I always wish there was an age restriction. No one under 25 or something. There would be none of this babies having babies business.

I don't know, it's just my bitterness getting the best of me.  

[Priestley]

Fushigi na Butterfly

Priestley

Fushigi na Butterfly

Priestley

It's horrible to live in a society where, while it's a great thing to adopt children and to be a role model for young people, it's somehow frowned upon to have children of one's own and "increase the world's population" just because some unfortunate children's parents have died or do not accept the responsibility of parenthood.

Reproduction is a basic human right, people.

Sometimes it shouldn't be. I wonder if I world would be better if everyone was chemically sterilized at birth, and then had to pass a battery of character tests and parenting classes in order to be allowed to have children. We'd have alot less unwanted children and unfit parents. confused

That sounds a lot like eugenics to me.

To extent, it would be. But if someone didn't want children, then they could mess around all they liked and there would be no abortions. Only people who wanted children and could show they could provide for them- financially, emotionally, physically- would be allowed to have them. I always wish there was an age restriction. No one under 25 or something. There would be none of this babies having babies business.

I don't know, it's just my bitterness getting the best of me.

The trouble is that the biological timing for reproduction doesn't adjust for the fact that modern lifespans are longer. If it did, no doubt puberty would start later. However, biologically speaking, there's little reason to prevent minors having children. It may be possible to explain that modern society does not lend itself well to be superimposed over our biology.  

[Xandris]

Priestley

The trouble is that the biological timing for reproduction doesn't adjust for the fact that modern lifespans are longer. If it did, no doubt puberty would start later. However, biologically speaking, there's little reason to prevent minors having children. It may be possible to explain that modern society does not lend itself well to be superimposed over our biology.

It used to be that around where I grew up, having been kissed by the 6th grade was a big thing and you were partly cool for having done it and partly shunned because that was a 'big kid' thing. Now (15 years later), you're shunned and teased if you're not having full-on sex by that age. Long past are the days when 12 year old girls were well and prepared to have babies. And 11 year old boys being a responsible father? That whole situation is scarring for both sides, psychologically, and in an immature female body whose hips probably haven't even moved into place yet.  

[Priestley]

Xandris

Priestley

The trouble is that the biological timing for reproduction doesn't adjust for the fact that modern lifespans are longer. If it did, no doubt puberty would start later. However, biologically speaking, there's little reason to prevent minors having children. It may be possible to explain that modern society does not lend itself well to be superimposed over our biology.

It used to be that around where I grew up, having been kissed by the 6th grade was a big thing and you were partly cool for having done it and partly shunned because that was a 'big kid' thing. Now (15 years later), you're shunned and teased if you're not having full-on sex by that age. Long past are the days when 12 year old girls were well and prepared to have babies. And 11 year old boys being a responsible father? That whole situation is scarring for both sides, psychologically, and in an immature female body whose hips probably haven't even moved into place yet.

Pregnancy is not without risk despite reproduction being a natural part of life. Position of pelvic bones isn't a requirement for getting pregnant, though it might cause complications further into the pregnancy. It really had nothing to do with my argument.

Physical difficulties aside, much of the psychological and social awkwardness and difficulty is directly a result of prolonging childhood for children in society by keeping children 'innocent' (read: ignorant) about reproduction. Consider that society delays/postpones our ability to support children until the age of roughly 25 years when, biologically, we're able to father/mother children at half that age.  

[zz1000zz]

I just responded to Fushigi na Butterfly due to the exchange in this topic, and I wanted to post a couple things. The first is just that if anyone has a problem with my tone, or anything I say, I would encourage you to talk to me. This can be done in that topic, or through private messages. I have always believe open and honest communication can solve all disagreements.

The second is I realize I was unclear in my post calling people "pansies." I did not think there would be any confusion about my intentions, but in case there were, I will explain. I did not mean to dismiss the "bend before your break" mantra as a whole. I meant it in the specific context of the exchange. Xandris had posted:

Xandris

Perhaps abortion isn't technically a sin, but it's the wrong thing to do most of the time. Like every other moral choice, there comes a time when the area all around you is gray, and either choice you can make has long-lasting consequences. Life isn't black and white, and application of the rules can't be either.

I disagreed and said this would be why we could not agree. Xandris then responded, "Then I absolutely, wholeheartedly hope that you learn to bend before you break." This comment says, "You are wrong, and if you do not accept you are wrong, you will suffer." This is what I responded to. The attitude promoted by Xandris in that post was no different than saying, "Perhaps homosexuality is not technically a sin, but it is still the wrong thing to do." It is nothing more than condemning something because you do not like it, then passing it off as God's will. Doing this, and resorting to calling things a "gray area," is what I called being a pansy. Perhaps I should have just called it heresy. Finally:

Xandris

zz1000zz

It may not have been your intention, but it is what you conveyed.

Perhaps you should just concentrate on what has been said rather than stretching it into something that wasn't meant, or even considered until you brought it up in your post. We all seem to be setting each other on edge by reading more into the message than what was actually written.

I read exactly what is written in posts. Quite often, what I read is not what people intend to say. I cannot help this.

Edit: To clarify that last paragraph, I read exactly what is in posts, but that does not mean I never make mistakes. Sorry for wording that arrogantly.  

[Xandris]

Priestley

Physical difficulties aside, much of the psychological and social awkwardness and difficulty is directly a result of prolonging childhood for children in society by keeping children 'innocent' (read: ignorant) about reproduction. Consider that society delays/postpones our ability to support children until the age of roughly 25 years when, biologically, we're able to father/mother children at half that age.

Well, now that we're no longer routinely dying off at the age of 55 or so, why NOT push back our breeding into our 20s? Now that everyone is expected to go to school until around age 18 (and longer if you want to have a 'real' job at some point in life), do things after school to get into that good college, hang out with friends to help with that all-important mental health, why burden kids with the added effort of a child? So yes, society pushes 'maturity' back, but since we're out of the days when birthing seven children means two or three might live, I don't see why becoming a parent later is really a bad thing.

Wow, are we off-topic or what?  

[Priestley]

Xandris

Priestley

Physical difficulties aside, much of the psychological and social awkwardness and difficulty is directly a result of prolonging childhood for children in society by keeping children 'innocent' (read: ignorant) about reproduction. Consider that society delays/postpones our ability to support children until the age of roughly 25 years when, biologically, we're able to father/mother children at half that age.

Well, now that we're no longer routinely dying off at the age of 55 or so, why NOT push back our breeding into our 20s? Now that everyone is expected to go to school until around age 18 (and longer if you want to have a 'real' job at some point in life), do things after school to get into that good college, hang out with friends to help with that all-important mental health, why burden kids with the added effort of a child? So yes, society pushes 'maturity' back, but since we're out of the days when birthing seven children means two or three might live, I don't see why becoming a parent later is really a bad thing.

Wow, are we off-topic or what?

Well, I wouldn't say we're completely off topic. The subject is abortion and abortions are carried out as a result of minors becoming pregnant.

My original point was that biology is slow and reluctant to change in order to fit society. For example, pushing the legal age for sex up to, say, 21 years means that individuals will be expected to withstand natural biological urges throughout adolescence and into maturity. There are some individuals for which this is easier to achieve than others, which means that the ones who fail will ultimately father/mother children and be criminalised for doing so. The pregnancies may be unwanted but, since abortion is 'sinful' in Christianity, these foetuses will be carried to term and there will be an increase in unwanted children by either personal choice or parents being criminalised, which will lead to a higher increase of general population. This would no doubt be the reverse of the desired effect of increasing the legal age, which would be to control levels of the population.

I don't know, the more I look at abortion and the less I see in the Bible about it, the more my opinion leans towards pro-choice.  

[Aladyleyna]

Wow... now I'm confused... *sweatdrop*

Admittedly, I know next to nothing about the biology of actually carrying out a pregnancy as well as the before and after, so in the case of abotion, all I have is my own perception of God as well as what I've learn from Him over the years.

That being said, I take the 'pro-choice' stance. I feel that abortion is up to the individual. This is because I try not to judge other people, so if I say that someone is automatically evil because she had a abortion, then I'm throwing stones when I myself am a sinner, which I have no right to. We do not know the full story of why someone carries out an abortion and as such, we have no right to judge.  

[zz1000zz]

Priestley

My original point was that biology is slow and reluctant to change in order to fit society.

I would go farther than this. Biology is not guaranteed to change to fit society. Indeed, the age at which puberty sets in has been lowering even as the average life expectancy is increasing. Part of the change in puberty is undoubtedly controllable, but the main problem is just society's obsession with "innocence."

Parents handicap their children to keep them from "growing up to fast," which leads to the discrepancy between biological and mental maturity. While parents do it with "good intentions," it hurts the children and society.  

[Priestley]

I thought I would mention that I have been having a discussion over PMs about abortion with Rosary16, the author of the thread promoting FightFOCA. I had originally issued a challenge for her to prove that the claims made about FOCA on FightFOCA are true. She sidestepped this challenge by entering into a discussion about whether abortion is right or wrong.

Does anyone else get frustrated when people do this? sweatdrop  

[zz1000zz]

That is only one of many things people do to ruin a conversation that annoys me Priestly.  

[Aladyleyna]

Quote:

Parents handicap their children to keep them from "growing up to fast," which leads to the discrepancy between biological and mental maturity. While parents do it with "good intentions," it hurts the children and society.

I have to agree with that as well. However, I would much rather explain it to my children than have them learn it from an untrustworthy source, as well as encourage them to find out more when they are ready for it, just in case my opinions might be wrong. It would be good for them to figure out their own opinions and not go with what everybody else is thinking.

Quote:

Does anyone else get frustrated when people do this?

If it is something I take extremely seriously, then yes. However, in light hearted debate threads, I don't mind, because... well... I tend to do it a lot as well... *hides*  

[Xandris]

zz1000zz

Parents handicap their children to keep them from "growing up to fast," which leads to the discrepancy between biological and mental maturity. While parents do it with "good intentions," it hurts the children and society.

It wouldn't be so bad if society hadn't constructed jobs and school they way they have. If we still had apprenticeships and masters of professions, a lot of this "growing up too fast" nonsense wouldn't need to apply.  

[Priestley]

Xandris

zz1000zz

Parents handicap their children to keep them from "growing up to fast," which leads to the discrepancy between biological and mental maturity. While parents do it with "good intentions," it hurts the children and society.

It wouldn't be so bad if society hadn't constructed jobs and school they way they have. If we still had apprenticeships and masters of professions, a lot of this "growing up too fast" nonsense wouldn't need to apply.

What about apprenticeships and masteries of professions would regulate the rate of a person's sexual growth?  

[Xandris]

Priestley

What about apprenticeships and masteries of professions would regulate the rate of a person's sexual growth?

Because our major problem with teeange/underage pregnancies is getting through the rest of school/college. If we took those 12 years of school out of the picture, having the first... eight say, going up to about age thirteen, whereupon you then apprentice to someone for seven or so years. Most apprentices get paid, so you're making at least some sort of a living at age thirteen. The most common problems with teenagers having babies has been removed: they're not missing school, and can easily work through an apprenticeship. If their families don't like it, a lot of apprentices live with their master. Their master can't boot them from either work or his/her house because of current work laws. Of course, we'd have to work on that child labor law, but the point remains. If we take society and tweak it so it more resembles the age in which getting married and bearing children so young was normal, then biology would then fit again with society.

Although I really don't think that it's such a problem. If kids don't HAVE to have babies to continue our race, and things that were once weeding out our population are easily treated, let them stay carefree for a few more years. 20 is a perfectly acceptable time to start having kids. Our biology can't change in a few hundred years, but perhaps if we keep having kids later in life, puberty will change with us.