Abortion?

[Redbacks]

Also a big issue is as to whether one believes their standpoint should become universal rather than remain subjective. To prove/promote the former you rightly can expect a decent examination of the view, the other seems fine if kept to the individual and discussed/agreed upon with a partner who may have similar beliefs on the issue.

[cpr]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

No idea whether that applies to TH, of course, but I've heard a lot of people say that over the years and it's usually a way protect said view regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Don't respect that sort of behaviour at all, tbh.

Sometimes i find its easier to say that than give your view, if you know your view will spark debate and argument, and your forced to defend your viewpoint on the spot. Knowing that your personal feelings on the subject won't be enough to satisfy the arguing person that you are entitled to this view, and lacking the facts and stats at hand (because people who tend who disagree with your views always claim to be right unless you have the latest survey results in your wallet), its sometimes easier to avoid the discussion at all.

In brief, I say it because I cbf explaining my view to the moron sat opposite a lot of the time

[sledger]

Yeah, my approach in such a situation is just to say "I can't be arsed" and be done with it.

[thierry henry]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

It's fairly usual for just about everyone to have extreme points of view initially or if they're generally in their own head. That is, until they share them, hear other points of view, examine their own and maybe find reason to moderate them to more accurately fit reality. Most people I've known who say "I can't say what I really think on this." say so to avoid exactly that. Almost always a cop-out.

No idea whether that applies to TH, of course, but I've heard a lot of people say that over the years and it's usually a way protect said view regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Don't respect that sort of behaviour at all, tbh.

I have found that the mere stating of some beliefs pretty much kills any chance of debate.

I've also debated these sort of issues (well, "big issues" in general) so many times and never gotten anywhere (where can you get, anyway?). It's in my nature to hammer away at a point of view and flesh out the issues, I disagree entirely that I'm someone who doesn't do so.

Generally speaking for a few years now I'd say I've been suffering from a sort of fatigue about debating my views on "big issues". I think I've got to the same point when discussing cricket with cricketweb members as well. It's become more fun to make pithy remarks.

[silentstriker]

Why even share that you have this hidden super-secret controversial view but that you won't share?

[thierry henry]

I suppose I really just see the "abortion" issue as being intrinsically linked to the "sex" issue. Stating the obvious perhaps, but I guess what I'm saying is, for me it doesn't come down to figuring out at what point a baby becomes viable or human, or when it feels pain, or whatever. The point is just that I find it incredibly perverse that we as a society, in a very broad way (impacting on social policy and attitudes etc in a massive way), have gone with "have sex with whoever and abort the kid if you don't want it" over "if you have sex you might make a baby, so you probably shouldn't have sex unless you're prepared for the baby".

It's not actually that I think that in any particular case Person A should be forced not to abort her baby. It's incredibly difficult to weigh up the "badness" of "the birth of an unwanted human" Vs the "badness" of "a baby being killed, although it wasn't actually born yet, so was it actually killed? I dunno".

I mean, just recently a female friend of mine had an abortion. She is an unemployed single mother with 2 kids who is, herself, quite anti-abortion. It was clear to me that, with no partner, 2 young kids and no real income, a 3rd child would've been pretty much a disaster. Instinctively I understood her decision. It's not like I'm heartless or anything.

It just strikes me as so obvious that sex between two people who are not prepared for the possibility that they might create a human being should be vehemently discouraged. I mean, what could be more obvious? There seems a pretty massive chasm to me between the relative significance of getting laid and the relative significance of creating unwanted human life and then killing it off in the womb. I see it more as a public/social policy/educational issue where it just boggles my mind that notions like "sexual freedom" are privileged over "sex makes babies".

While I have no idea how to influence the masses, I do feel that in theory people should be smart enough to absorb the message that sex makes babies, babies are a big deal, and therefore it never makes sense to have sex unless you're prepared for said babies. Governments and relevant agencies etc should be pushing this message. It's just...did I use the word obvious yet?

[thierry henry]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Why even share that you have this hidden super-secret controversial view but that you won't share?

Because I'm well established as an annoying douche on this forum and it's something I want to maintain

[thierry henry]

Come to think of it, I think that if the global unwanted pregnancy (as opposed to abortion) rate was, say, 1/100th of what it currently is, free and easy abortion wouldn't really bother me.

I feel like the current situation with sex and abortion is just a colossal collective human epic fail in terms of applied commonsense and education. It just confounds me. I know it's just "human nature", but understanding this aspect of human nature doesn't come, ermmm, naturally to me.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

I suppose I really just see the "abortion" issue as being intrinsically linked to the "sex" issue. Stating the obvious perhaps, but I guess what I'm saying is, for me it doesn't come down to figuring out at what point a baby becomes viable or human, or when it feels pain, or whatever. The point is just that I find it incredibly perverse that we as a society, in a very broad way (impacting on social policy and attitudes etc in a massive way), have gone with "have sex with whoever and abort the kid if you don't want it" over "if you have sex you might make a baby, so you probably shouldn't have sex unless you're prepared for the baby".

It's not actually that I think that in any particular case Person A should be forced not to abort her baby. It's incredibly difficult to weigh up the "badness" of "the birth of an unwanted human" Vs the "badness" of "a baby being killed, although it wasn't actually born yet, so was it actually killed? I dunno".

I mean, just recently a female friend of mine had an abortion. She is an unemployed single mother with 2 kids who is, herself, quite anti-abortion. It was clear to me that, with no partner, 2 young kids and no real income, a 3rd child would've been pretty much a disaster. Instinctively I understood her decision. It's not like I'm heartless or anything.

It just strikes me as so obvious that sex between two people who are not prepared for the possibility that they might create a human being should be vehemently discouraged. I mean, what could be more obvious? There seems a pretty massive chasm to me between the relative significance of getting laid and the relative significance of creating unwanted human life and then killing it off in the womb. I see it more as a public/social policy/educational issue where it just boggles my mind that notions like "sexual freedom" are privileged over "sex makes babies".

While I have no idea how to influence the masses, I do feel that in theory people should be smart enough to absorb the message that sex makes babies, babies are a big deal, and therefore it never makes sense to have sex unless you're prepared for said babies. Governments and relevant agencies etc should be pushing this message. It's just...did I use the word obvious yet?

Your view is not controversial at all - many people have the same view.

Anyway, I disagree completely. Sex is fun (obvious again ), and can lead to procreation but doesn't have to. Frankly, to not have sex just because you don't want kids is kind of crazy to me. There are many options: if you use birth control and condoms (properly), your chance of conceiving are pretty much negligible. So I don't see why that should be discouraged. If the condom breaks or something, there are other things like the "morning after pill" that stop pregnancy - at least at my university, it is easily available 24/7 if you need to go and pick up up. I've gone there in the mornings myself, and it's not a big deal and it's really safe. In the end, adding it all up, there is very low chance of you becoming pregnant if you don't want to.

And for whatever reason, if all that still fails, I don't see a problem with abortion as you do but of course that's an argument that's already been discussed. I really don't mind abortion, whether the reason for it is it might be life threating or because she doesn't want to ruin her figure. I don't see why people should stop having sex just because they don't want children.

[thierry henry]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Frankly, to not have sex just because you don't want kids is kind of crazy to me. There are many options: if you use birth control and condoms (properly), your chance of conceiving are pretty much negligible. So I don't see why that should be discouraged.

But this argument just doesn't stack up to reality. In most developed countries the rate of abortion works out to be somewhere in the (very approximate) range of 1 abortion for every 2 women. Maybe 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 for some, but these are still stupendous numbers to me when doing the "fun" vs "arguably destroying human life to some extent" comparison.

The reality is that having an abortion at some point is damn near THE NORM in an average woman's life. Contraception isn't really working.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

But this argument just doesn't stack up to reality. In most developed countries the rate of abortion works out to be somewhere in the (very approximate) range of 1 abortion for every 2 women. Maybe 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 for some, but these are still stupendous numbers to me when doing the "fun" vs "arguably destroying human life to some extent" comparison.

The reality is that having an abortion at some point is damn near THE NORM in an average woman's life. Contraception isn't really working.

Or isn't used properly. You'd be surprised how many people don't use condoms (or use them improperly or inconsistently), or birth control, etc.

Regardless, the sticking point is 'arguably'....of course. If you think it's destroying human life then obviously you would be against it.

[GIMH]

I didn't find th's post controversial or offensive and think he made some great points. It's not something that not necessarily affects my stance on abortion, but there are pockets of society who think, '**** it if anything happens we'll get rid of it' rather than wrap it up and I find that completely deplorable.

But obviously not all unwanted pregnancies come about that way, not even most I'd guess.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

I didn't find th's post controversial or offensive and think he made some great points

Well it's controversial only in the sense that abortion is controversial. It's really not offensive - many pro-life people believe exactly the same as he does - so I'm not sure why he withheld his opinion at all really. It's a perfectly common position.

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

of society who think, '**** it if anything happens we'll get rid of it' rather than wrap it up and I find that completely deplorable.

Considering the expense, time, and of course dangers of getting surgery, I think that's really really rare.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

But this argument just doesn't stack up to reality. In most developed countries the rate of abortion works out to be somewhere in the (very approximate) range of 1 abortion for every 2 women. Maybe 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 for some, but these are still stupendous numbers to me when doing the "fun" vs "arguably destroying human life to some extent" comparison.

The reality is that having an abortion at some point is damn near THE NORM in an average woman's life. Contraception isn't really working.

Success is hardly unqualified, but see how it compares to just telling people not to have sex. Forbidden sex is even harder to turn down..

[James90]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

I suppose I really just see the "abortion" issue as being intrinsically linked to the "sex" issue. Stating the obvious perhaps, but I guess what I'm saying is, for me it doesn't come down to figuring out at what point a baby becomes viable or human, or when it feels pain, or whatever. The point is just that I find it incredibly perverse that we as a society, in a very broad way (impacting on social policy and attitudes etc in a massive way), have gone with "have sex with whoever and abort the kid if you don't want it" over "if you have sex you might make a baby, so you probably shouldn't have sex unless you're prepared for the baby".

It's not actually that I think that in any particular case Person A should be forced not to abort her baby. It's incredibly difficult to weigh up the "badness" of "the birth of an unwanted human" Vs the "badness" of "a baby being killed, although it wasn't actually born yet, so was it actually killed? I dunno".

I mean, just recently a female friend of mine had an abortion. She is an unemployed single mother with 2 kids who is, herself, quite anti-abortion. It was clear to me that, with no partner, 2 young kids and no real income, a 3rd child would've been pretty much a disaster. Instinctively I understood her decision. It's not like I'm heartless or anything.

It just strikes me as so obvious that sex between two people who are not prepared for the possibility that they might create a human being should be vehemently discouraged. I mean, what could be more obvious? There seems a pretty massive chasm to me between the relative significance of getting laid and the relative significance of creating unwanted human life and then killing it off in the womb. I see it more as a public/social policy/educational issue where it just boggles my mind that notions like "sexual freedom" are privileged over "sex makes babies".

While I have no idea how to influence the masses, I do feel that in theory people should be smart enough to absorb the message that sex makes babies, babies are a big deal, and therefore it never makes sense to have sex unless you're prepared for said babies. Governments and relevant agencies etc should be pushing this message. It's just...did I use the word obvious yet?

DWTA.

I find it hard to believe that people are complacent enough that they'll have unsafe sex just to go through the traumatic and invasive experience of having a procedure that will cost several hundreds of dollars and stigmatise them for the rest of their life. And I don't think it's ever an easy decision to make. Despite my partner and I both being pro-choice, if an unwanted pregnancy were to occur there would still be part of me that would have to grapple with the definition of what a human life is. We don't want that to happen so we're not going to take any chances.

I also don't believe that the availability of abortion has an adverse affect on unwanted pregnancies. In fact the countries with the fewest teenage pregnancies (including those aborted) are the countries with most liberal abortion laws (Holland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden etc). This is more of result of high education standards and greater social responsibility.

The rate of unwanted pregnancies is dropping, not because women are slowly getting the right to choose what to do with their own bodies but because the information about pregnancy and the availability of contraception are increasing. So I absolutely agree with your priority to create greater awareness around safe sex.

However, at the end of the day, people have sex because they enjoy it. It's a natural human desire and can't be surpressed. Funnily enough, women have sexual desires that can and should be separated from merely providing a womb. And I think views which suggest that sexual freedom is a bad thing are quite damaging.

Also, just because a lot of people think the same thing doesn't prevent that view from being controversial.

My two cents.