Abortion Made Simple

[Priestley]

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.

On the surface, that seems to be a good solution. However, there is a difference between ability to reproduce and ability to raise. Raising children requires much maturity and responsibility. Reproduction requires little.  

[zz1000zz]

Xandris

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.

The problem with this approach is biology does not agree with the idea of letting "them stay carefree." By opposing biology as society does now, conflict arises, causing the problems we face now. The current approach is to forcibly keep children from growing up at the rate nature "wants" them to. The idea is this somehow preserves their innocence, but obviously that has failed.

The better solution is to accept biology for what it is, and teach children what they should learn at biology's pace, rather than some "ideal" pace. While doing this, the children can be encouraged to make the "right" choices.

Without education, children will not be mature enough to face the issues they encounter. By trying to "preserve innocence," society ensures the younger generations will not be able to make the "right" choices.  

[Xandris]

Priestley

On the surface, that seems to be a good solution. However, there is a difference between ability to reproduce and ability to raise. Raising children requires much maturity and responsibility. Reproduction requires little.

Oh, trust me, I agree with you completely. Which is why I don't have a problem with having children later in life. It takes a lot to raise a kid nowadays, and I'm honestly glad that I haven't gone that route yet (if ever).

zz1000zz

The better solution is to accept biology for what it is, and teach children what they should learn at biology's pace, rather than some "ideal" pace. While doing this, the children can be encouraged to make the "right" choices.

Without education, children will not be mature enough to face the issues they encounter. By trying to "preserve innocence," society ensures the younger generations will not be able to make the "right" choices.

Also agreed. At my middle school, sex ed started at 4th grade, and continued all the way up through my freshman year of high school. Sex ed at the onset of puberty being 'this is what's happening to your body and what to expect. And by the way, this is what's happening to the oppposite sex, so when they start acting weird, this is why.' And you know what? In my entire high school career, there were less than 50 pregnancies, and each graduating class had about 400 people in it.

To wheel this back to the topic at hand, sex ed definitely helps prevent abortions. Women are more selective about who they're sleeping with, men have a lesser chance of becoming deadbeat dads, and both are more serious about birth control. (Now if only I could find my old textbook with those stats in it, I'd be really good to go. xd )  

[Priestley]

Xandris

Priestley

On the surface, that seems to be a good solution. However, there is a difference between ability to reproduce and ability to raise. Raising children requires much maturity and responsibility. Reproduction requires little.

Oh, trust me, I agree with you completely. Which is why I don't have a problem with having children later in life. It takes a lot to raise a kid nowadays, and I'm honestly glad that I haven't gone that route yet (if ever).

Except that the point was that there shouldn't be a problem with having children when it is biologically possible to do so. The problem is caused by a society that seeks to prolong childhood innocence by keeping children ignorant. My mind instantly pictures parents' unsure and awkward reactions to children's questions, like "Where did I come from?", "How was I made?", "How does that work?", "What's sex?", etc..  

[Xandris]

Priestley

Except that the point was that there shouldn't be a problem with having children when it is biologically possible to do so. The problem is caused by a society that seeks to prolong childhood innocence by keeping children ignorant. My mind instantly pictures parents' unsure and awkward reactions to children's questions, like "Where did I come from?", "How was I made?", "How does that work?", "What's sex?", etc..

And I think kids should be told about it, and quite freely, just as I was. Okay, my parents turned a few colors I didn't know were physically possible, but I was told. My problem with having kids at 12 and 13 is exactly what I mentioned before: they're too involved in sports and clubs and school and such, and not mature enough to handle all the responsibility of a child. I know people MY age still drinking themselves stupid through college, and I wouldn't trust THEM with a child either. Now that it's safer to have children later in life, and we live so much longer, I don't see a problem with not popping them out as soon as puberty begins. Keeping kids ignorant about sex is one thing, but I still don't see the need to go by biological impulse.  

[Priestley]

Xandris

My problem with having kids at 12 and 13 is exactly what I mentioned before: they're too involved in sports and clubs and school and such, and not mature enough to handle all the responsibility of a child. I know people MY age still drinking themselves stupid through college, and I wouldn't trust THEM with a child either.

Why do you think that is? Because society artificially prolongs childhood by not teaching what it is to be responsible.

Xandris

Now that it's safer to have children later in life, and we live so much longer, I don't see a problem with not popping them out as soon as puberty begins. Keeping kids ignorant about sex is one thing, but I still don't see the need to go by biological impulse.

Because it's not like society uses biology (i.e. brain and psychological development) as a guide to which it tailors teaching methods, right?  

[Xandris]

Priestley

Why do you think that is? Because society artificially prolongs childhood by not teaching what it is to be responsible.

They're not MATURE enough to understand what that means. To a 12-year-old, being responsible means doing your homework as soon as you come home and remembering to feed the dog every day, regardless of how much your parents and your schools teach otherwise. The problem with society isn't prolonging childhood, it's focusing too much on the future. Can't have a kid now, your schoooling will get disturbed. No school, no college, no good job to make a stable envoirnment for your future family and future children. Can't get into a good school without good grades and all those extracurriculars. LET them be kids. I don't see how prolonging childhood is negative at all. I, and most of us born in the mid-80s, were carefree up until about age 16, and I can handle the real world just fine. If I'd had all that crap thrown on me 4-6 years earlier, I'd still be trying to live with my parents because I was tired of dealing with it all.

Priestley

Because it's not like society uses biology (i.e. brain and psychological development) as a guide to which it tailors teaching methods, right?

Well, the male biological impulse is to spread seed as far and wide as possible to ensure the survival of the species, but that's generally frowned upon in 'civilized' societies, isn't it? We'd like men to stick to one woman, and one woman to one man. Just because you feel the cravings at puberty doesn't mean that you have to act on them.  

[Priestley]

Xandris

Priestley

Why do you think that is? Because society artificially prolongs childhood by not teaching what it is to be responsible.

They're not MATURE enough to understand what that means. To a 12-year-old, being responsible means doing your homework as soon as you come home and remembering to feed the dog every day, regardless of how much your parents and your schools teach otherwise.

I'm not sure what you mean by "regardless of how much your parents and your schools teach otherwise". Surely the parents and schools should be teaching kids to do their homework and such. Are you implying otherwise?

Regardless, I don't think you or parents these days give children much credit. Doing homework and feeding the dog are the only examples of responsibility they will know if they are the only responsibilities that his/her parents teach are important. By the age of 12 years, a child should have been made fully aware of the importance and significance of the process of puberty that would already be well underway, its role in their reproductive biology and its responsibilities.

Xandris

The problem with society isn't prolonging childhood, it's focusing too much on the future. Can't have a kid now, your schoooling will get disturbed. No school, no college, no good job to make a stable envoirnment for your future family and future children. Can't get into a good school without good grades and all those extracurriculars. LET them be kids. I don't see how prolonging childhood is negative at all. I, and most of us born in the mid-80s, were carefree up until about age 16, and I can handle the real world just fine. If I'd had all that crap thrown on me 4-6 years earlier, I'd still be trying to live with my parents because I was tired of dealing with it all.

What are you saying? That kids should stay ignorant until adulthood or unexpected motherhood/fatherhood slaps them in the face? Puberty starts in children. That is a fact. What is the obsession with prolonging childhood by avoiding the issue?

Despite how wise I think it is to be a responsible parent by involving one's child in other aspects of one's adult life, I think we'd be digressing. Let's stick to the issue, shall we?

Xandris

Priestley

Because it's not like society uses biology (i.e. brain and psychological development) as a guide to which it tailors teaching methods, right?

Well, the male biological impulse is to spread seed as far and wide as possible to ensure the survival of the species, but that's generally frowned upon in 'civilized' societies, isn't it? We'd like men to stick to one woman, and one woman to one man. Just because you feel the cravings at puberty doesn't mean that you have to act on them.

I meant that society uses psychological and physical development as a guide to tailor teaching methods in schools. Babies learn differently than children who are older, for example.

Thank you for agreeing that society is forcibly and awkwardly superimposed over biology.  

[Xandris]

I'm just going to say that we're not going to agree here. I see absolutely no problem with waiting to have children until you feel ready and stable: usually after high school, even college, have a secure job and most likely a place of your own. Nowhere have I said that we shouldn't teach kids what's going on in their bodies and minds, but just because the desire and possibility is there doesn't mean that kids have to act on them. Just because you CAN doesn't mean that you SHOULD, and I don't think that they should. *shrug* Unless someone else has something to say in this vein, this particular branch of the conversation really isn't going anywhere.

So I'll try to tweak this a little bit away from biology and bring up marriage. We are not supposed to be having sex outside of marriage, but it's very difficult to get married under the age of 18 in the US, or the age of majority in the rest of the world. Children, regardless of biological readiness, aren't really capable of sustaining a successful marriage in the day and age when marriages are based on love and trust, not political winds or social status.  

[Priestley]

Xandris

I'm just going to say that we're not going to agree here. I see absolutely no problem with waiting to have children until you feel ready and stable: usually after high school, even college, have a secure job and most likely a place of your own. Nowhere have I said that we shouldn't teach kids what's going on in their bodies and minds, but just because the desire and possibility is there doesn't mean that kids have to act on them. Just because you CAN doesn't mean that you SHOULD, and I don't think that they should. *shrug* Unless someone else has something to say in this vein, this particular branch of the conversation really isn't going anywhere.

It's difficult to agree on anything when you change your stance on the issue. I asked how apprenticeships and masteries of professions would regulate the rate of a person's sexual growth. You argued from the beginning that the "problem with teeange/underage pregnancies is getting through the rest of school/college", suggesting a possible remedy in the form of apprenticeships. You never said how it would regulate the rate of a person's sexual growth, only that "biology would then fit again with society", going on to say that "biology can't change in a few hundred years" but that delaying having children might mean that "puberty would change with us". The truth is that, between biology and society, society is the far more flexible force. zz1000zz highlighted this.

When I pointed out the difference between requirements for raising children and requirements for producing children, it was meant to imply that the disparity should not exist: that ability to raise children should be there from the moment of being able to produce them.

The only significant objections that you have given for why people should wait are related to how society is ill-equipped to deal with the issue of teenage/underage pregnancies, which is a problem that need not be there in the first place for the reasons that I've provided. Your other objections were more to do with how much emphasis is put on adulthood, which really had no bearing on the discussion, as I'm sure you agree (unless somehow the issue of having children young was twisted in your mind to become pressure on young people to have sex, which is still another issue entirely).

Xandris

So I'll try to tweak this a little bit away from biology and bring up marriage. We are not supposed to be having sex outside of marriage, but it's very difficult to get married under the age of 18 in the US, or the age of majority in the rest of the world. Children, regardless of biological readiness, aren't really capable of sustaining a successful marriage in the day and age when marriages are based on love and trust, not political winds or social status.

Well, this is a different discussion now, deserving of another thread. wink  

[Xandris]

Priestley

Your other objections were more to do with how much emphasis is put on adulthood, which really had no bearing on the discussion, as I'm sure you agree (unless somehow the issue of having children young was twisted in your mind to become pressure on young people to have sex, which is still another issue entirely).

Yeah, that did seem to me what was going on. lol  

[Kazydi]

I THINK ABORTION IS WRONG.

BUT, even though, I don't agree with it overall, I can stay out of it when it comes to a SERIOUS health risk. I believe that IN NO WAY should abortion be used any form of birth control. A child is a possible consequence of sex, and if you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences, then you aren't ready for sex.

But of course, people want to do whatever they want to do. They want to have their way, even if it means killing their own child to do it. There are many non-abortion alternative. Abortion should never be high on the list of available options.  

[zz1000zz]

Kazydi

I THINK ABORTION IS WRONG.

Is this based upon some biblical understanding or...?  

[Kazydi]

zz1000zz

Kazydi

I THINK ABORTION IS WRONG.

Is this based upon some biblical understanding or...?

Thanks for reading the entire post.

This isn't based on anything besides the fact that it is wrong to take a human life, whether the life being taken understands it or not.  

[zz1000zz]

Kazydi

zz1000zz

Kazydi

I THINK ABORTION IS WRONG.

Is this based upon some biblical understanding or...?

Thanks for reading the entire post.

I did read the entire post. There just was no point in quoting all of it when my question only dealt with one sentence.

Kazydi

This isn't based on anything besides the fact that it is wrong to take a human life, whether the life being taken understands it or not.

A fetus is not a human.