SD on 26/1/2007 at 16:39
Quote Posted by Uncia
All true, but again, that (lack of partner support) is just one facet of one broader issue (financial liquidity). It alone is not enough of a factor for most women to have an abortion despite their wishes- that only happens when it's a major factor, which is less than 1% of the time. For the remaining 99% of the time it's a judgement call by them about whether or not they're capable of raising a child in a safe environment, which is
A Good Thing. Having a child regardless of circumstances is irresponsible.
All true, and let it also be noted that abortion benefits not just those who are unwilling or unable to become parents, but the whole of society by reducing the number of unwanted children in the population. No doubt most people are aware of the (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect) legalised abortion and crime effect, based on the (eminently plausable) theory that unwanted children are more likely to commit crime. Better in my book to catch 'em at the tadpole stage than to have to punish them as adults, when their lives actually
mean something.
the_grip on 26/1/2007 at 16:47
Eugenics works insofar as it is not your quality of life that it deems worthy to snuff out. Just sayin'...
(love the tidbit about kids lives' not meaning anything... that's a classic. Got any kids?)
Okay, blast away, i'm silent on this abortion thing. i've already gone back on my word enough.
SD on 26/1/2007 at 16:53
They're not kids until they're born. Once you understand that, it reduces the moral obstacles by about 90%.
fett on 26/1/2007 at 17:50
I'd like to take that position Stronts, but I've seen preemies delivered 2-3 months early survive and grow up to be great kids. Makes it tough for me to look at it your way and especially easy to embrace the ban on third-trimester abortions at the very least. No data is really going to change that because of my experience (though subjective). A bit like religion eh? ;)
SD on 26/1/2007 at 18:34
Funnily enough, I have no problem with a prohibition on third trimester abortions either, except in cases of disability to the developing foetus or where the mother is in danger; like you, I feel there is a point at which a viable foetus ought to be granted some basic rights, and of course, we could argue over where the threshhold should be, and that's all good and healthy debate.
It's just when people take a moral stance against abortion in its entirety that I roll my eyes (I mean, ffs, an embryo has no brain function for the first two months; how could anyone justify opposition to abortion during that stage?) And no prizes for guessing that in 99 of 100 cases, those moral stances originated from the pulpit.
fett on 26/1/2007 at 19:31
I concur. Mostly. :)
Tiamat on 26/1/2007 at 21:15
I like the Supreme Court ruling of viability, myself, which at this point is conisdered to be 24 weeks. In my mind, at least, 6 months is enough time to decide if you want the kid or not. Third trimester is definately a no-no unless the mother is definately in danger. I understand how disabilities can complicate matters morally, though. My opinion is that the abortion of child who is obviously disabled should be allowed, but that's just my opinion, and it means little outside of my own head-space.
Ko0K on 27/1/2007 at 02:31
Quote Posted by fett
Why don't you consider knowledge of higher value than belief though? One is tangible and appeals much more to our senses, while the other, is at best only an extrapolation based on incomplete knowledge (since god can't be known). Even the bible teaches that faith should not be blind, but rather placed in the direction of evidence (Heb. 11). That's my hang-up, I have compelling knowledge of things that lead me to believe that god is real, but the evidence falls short IMO. I don't understand where 'we are now' because of beliefs and inspirations - are you meaning the U.S. or the human race or what?
I am not sure if it's appropriate to assign measurable values to belief and knowledge in the first place. They are different means for minds to connect, and personally I don't feel that they need to be at odds with each other.
I was being vague, but I mean that the world would be a different place if religion and ideology have not been part of human history.
Nicker on 27/1/2007 at 03:25
Quote Posted by Ko0K
I am not sure if it's appropriate to assign measurable values to belief and knowledge in the first place. They are different means for minds to connect, and personally I don't feel that they need to be at odds with each other.
I was being vague, but I mean that the world would be a different place if religion and ideology have not been part of human history.
It is entirely appropriate when belief (in the sense of faith based, superstitious or irrational doctrines) expects to be given equal time and heft to reason in the formation of public policy, the drafting of laws or the conduct of education and science.
Religion has been our substitute for science thus far in that it has attempted to answer why and how. But “why” presumes a motivation and that is a projection from our egos, which have a pressing need for purpose and love to be special. And “how” is much better answered by science than by dogma. Religion is no longer up to that task, especially in a larger, more readily connected world.
For me "religion" is art. I love ceremony and ritual. I love to tend the vigil fire at winter solstice, not because really I believe the sun will get lost if I don't but because it is poetic, symbolic and it gives me pause to remember the mystery of the sun and of fire. It is an act of gratitude. It reconnects me viscerally to the ancestral hearth and helps me appreciate the importance of that element to human development.
That is a private truth and I would not try to make it true for others through law or any other coercion.
paloalto on 27/1/2007 at 16:22
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Out of interest, what are the factors that make you think a gay couple may be less able to bring a child up than a straight couple?
Your idealism while commendable seems to be blind on this issue.I'm just not willing to put kids in this situation based on the idea that it is unfair that gay couples cannot have the opportunity to raise children.
as an example:
An all male couple adopts a very young male child.I bieleve the importance of establishing a bond with the mother has been proven to have a great effect on the outcome of children.How would an all male couple effect this bonding process?And young males depend upon a male role model hopefully to channel natural male aggression into positive forms of creativity.How would an all female couple effect this process?Would the male bond with one of the females as a "father" or would he be confused and see it as a double message?
Your dealing with basic powerful formative relationships.
Perhaps after the studies they may find that gay couples could adopt with certain restrictions or no restrictions at all.
A case where the regular parents have died but they were old enough to establish the male/female bond with the deceased parents would be an example of a restrictive case for gay couples to adopt children.
And I hope we are not going to base policy on the worst case scenarios of heterosexual marriage.Certainly abusing children in hetero marriage is in the minority,(I hope).
