The irresponsible female and 'convenience' abortions

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Mrs.Lucysnow, Feb 9, 2011.

  1. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Over and over again I hear anti-choice advocates stating that there are a number of women who are using abortion as contraception and that there is also a large number that use abortion as a 'convenience'. They claim that these women are irresponsible, then in the next breath they will say that these same women should 'take responsibility'. How can someone who is clearly irresponsible be expected to take responsibility? And before anyone states that if she cannot be responsible she shouldn't be having sex I would remind them that you cannot legislate the sex act and if she's really that irresponsible why would she be moved to think before she beds.

    Now I think all abortions are convenient if you need an abortion and there is a service which provides it, but what exactly are these advocates suggesting. Less convenience? Because I don't understand why anyone would want women they deem as selfish, irresponsible, flaky or confused or damaged or whatever label you want to put on them having a baby, especially if she's likely to have them over and over and over again because you know she's, well, 'irresponsible'.

    Are these the kind of women you would want raising children when they are not busy overpopulating the orphanages? Or what about the woman who is 'too selfish' to have a baby because she wants to finish school or prioritize work or god knows what, do we want miss too selfish to be the too selfish mother?

    I would argue that abortion should be convenient for these women precisely because they would have too little concern for a newborn.

    What I think happens is that the anti-choice folk conjure up an image of these women being transformed by pregnancy, in other words being happy they were forced to go through with it, or that having to go through with it will punish the woman for her unguarded promiscuity and she will suddenly change her behaviour. Its mind boggling that people would think this, or maybe its a conspiracy to out populate the chinese, I don't know.

    Anti-choice people (I know your out there) please explain what exactly is so bloody wrong with convenience abortions being done by women whom you claim are too irresponsible to keep their legs closed or use protection to begin with?

    Is it that you think they will change?

    Here is an excerpt from a documentary called 'Abortion Diaries' and you can hear the voices of women who've had convenience abortions:

    http://www.theabortiondiaries.com/excerpt.htm
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2011
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If history teaches us one things is that it often works out convenient to kill others
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    That's it? Could you at least look over my post and address the topic at hand. Your response states your opinion on abortion in generaly but its irrelevant to the thread's focus.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    in short, there is always a pressure in society to what degree things should be legislated and to what degree that they should be relegated to pressure from social norms.

    The pro-choice arguments you address are more the latter than the former

    Or to say it another way, there are many inconveniences about keeping certain persons alive, but nonetheless, in the name of civility, we tolerate it somehow
     
  8. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    So then you are saying that a woman should be forced to have an abortion even if you think she would be an irresponsible parent and perhaps not even change her sexual habits?

    Would you be in favor of increased taxes to support the orphanages and social welfare services not to mention the cost to alleviate the poverty it breeds? Because society would have to pay for it with more than sentiment.
     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I'm saying that the body that addresses such behavior are social norms and not legislation.

    Pretty sure the worlds politicians can think of better things to do with tanks than hunt down loose women and irresponsible men

    If social norms got more on board with responsible parenting you probably would expect to see the sexual act defined more in terms of procreation as opposed to the current norm of self expression.

    IOW its a bit of a conflicted argument to look at a population under the grip of MTV and cleo demographics while simultaneously using them as a model society that works under the norm of sex as an act of procreation
     
  10. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Personally, I think that the anti-choice group will use any argument whatsoever, no matter how self-contradictory and fallacious. If it has the potential for emotional appeal to the masses, it's viable fodder for the masses. Just that simple.
     
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Generally its the same dynamic as charities that portray the client as being in a position critical to alleviating great suffering (Like "you can help a hungry child with your change" ... granted that responsible parenting certainly brings a greater need to the table than spare change)
     
  12. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    So you're saying that a different sexual norm should be placed on society? Throughout human history and even now for most places around the world those norms exist in terms of cultural and religious taboos. Here in the States, as you mention, there's a conflict of values concerning sexuality where on the one hand free sexual mores are touted alongside conservative ideals, but neither men nor women are thinking in terms of sexual freedom when they engage in sex. I mean even in very strict societies women have sex outside of marriage and end up with unwanted pregnancy. The US isn't going to undergo a radical transformation in sexual attitudes anytime soon so if abortion became illegal, would you support the tax increases to deal with all these unwanted babies?

    Nations outside the West generally do not have legal abortions and their cultures represent conservative sexual values and yet they also have overpopulation coupled with widespread poverty, so changing the notion of sex for pleasure into sex for procreation as they have it in most countries around the world has the ability to actually make us poorer as a society meaning it won't amount to less babies being born but more babies being born (whether the woman wants it or not) and society will have to pay for that somehow.
     
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    sure
    By your own admission, inability to come to grips with the consequences of sex life is painful one way or the other
    well of course
    taboos are the language of social norms
    Just try saying you are really into bestiality at the next social function you attend.
    it just tends to flourish when the act is not dressed up primarily in terms of procreation
    Abortion is only likely to become (successfully) illegal in societies that have the sufficient social norms to back it up ... otherwise its kind of like a society of dogs where its decreed illegal to sniff butts

    hence like the anti-butt sniffing dog society, it has problems ... but to get on board with the whole abortion thing, I think that making it legal (or more precisely, having the social norms that deem abortion cool and hip like MTV) lowers the standard of civilization by having social norms vested in barbarianism and crass desire
     
  14. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    @Lightgigantic

    Well by cultural and religious taboos I meant they are more prone to believe a female should refrain from sex before marriage and that a woman is destined to have children, not sexual paraphilia. You say it flourishes when the act isn't framed in terms of procreation but its the nations that do frame sex in this way that have poverty and overpopulation and a lack of social services.

    I used to believe that abortion wouldn't be threatened in the States but in actuality Roe vs. Wade does have the potential of being overturned. 51% of Americans are anti-choice and the anti-choice movement is slowly adding restriction after restriction on a state levels.

    Most of the world is made up of but sniffers I'm afraid otherwise they wouldn't suffer from overpopulation, you see just because they are overtly conservative and recognize the taboos doesn't mean they don't engage in butt sniffing hence all the extra problems. You find prostitution, child labor slavery, illegal abortions, all the fun things that happens when you have all those extra people who suddenly have no value, not to mention mistresses and homosexual conduct. Trust me when I say that life is cheaper in those conservative non-liberal countries than they are in the West with all our abortions. But again I ask would you be willing to pay for the social services etc to alleviate the problems that come with unwanted children? Its a simple question.
     
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    "Sex tax" to deal with unwanted babies?

    I may only have a brain the size of a charmed quark but I don't need that much charisma to start a revolution and overthrow a government if that happened.
     
  16. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Who said anything about a 'sex tax'?:bugeye:
     
  17. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    I thought you did?
     
  18. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    No I said that one cannot legislate sex and asked if those who supported anti-choice would be willing to pay more taxes to compensate for all those unwanted babies ie: social services, orphanages, increased poverty among women etc.
     
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Yes
    In some places they even describe such framing as being "western"
    let's hope they have the social norms to back it up then, but seriously, I don't think so.

    The amount of BS that would have be spun on the domestic front for pro-choice to move beyond ex gratia legislation would make the gulf war look like thanksgiving
    its endemic of materialist industrial culture.

    Its the nature of civil advancement (whether on a societal or individual level) that it is painstakingly difficult to progress yet degradation is so damn easy.
    If human society can't get its head around the functional necessity of the family unit (preferably without murder) I think its time for human society to get back to the basics.

    Of course you might be able to buy a bit more time with murder or a host of other nefarious tools, but sooner or later it has to be addressed, and I don't think addressing it gets any easier the longer you leave it.
    so the easiest solution, as history teaches, is to kill them (after all, they don't have any value, do they?)

    Certainly easier than rewriting the values that underpin industrial society.


    loaded questions are often very simple

    I already mentioned several times : You don't have to be an economic genius to comprehend that funding orphanages or sponsoring women in their sexual escapades does not offer a solution anymore than pouring gasoline on a fire extinguishes it. The suggestion that increased funding for orphanages is the solution to irresponsible parenting in no way addresses the problem of irresponsible parenting.

    I think the real question is whether one is willing to live by morals, even if they are difficult (such as controlling one's self and not killing others). If collectively we are not willing to do that, then we are simply a civilization of barbarians, albeit barabarians who drive in fancy cars.
     
  20. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    LG: I already mentioned several times : You don't have to be an economic genius to comprehend that funding orphanages or sponsoring women in their sexual escapades does not offer a solution anymore than pouring gasoline on a fire extinguishes it. The suggestion that increased funding for orphanages is the solution to irresponsible parenting in no way addresses the problem of irresponsible parenting.

    So you, who claim to be for life, would have children raised in dire poverty without adequate assistance? Because either they live in poverty along with their mothers or society increases its financial burden but either way society will suffer. By the way its not the woman's sexual escapades, there's generally a MAN involved.

    LG: I think the real question is whether one is willing to live by morals, even if they are difficult (such as controlling one's self and not killing others). If collectively we are not willing to do that, then we are simply a civilization of barbarians, albeit barabarians who drive in fancy cars.

    Well that's not going to be discussed adequately because there are too many people who disagree with what you personally consider moral and just as many who don't agree that abortion is murder so its a mute point really.

    LG: so the easiest solution, as history teaches, is to kill them (after all, they don't have any value, do they?)

    No that wasn't my point. My point is that during times in the West or even in other countries that adhere to strict sexual codes of conduct people were shagging and getting pregnant and having abortions. Just because society declares a behaviour taboo doesn't mean that they actually adhere to that in their personal lives. Kind of like Ted Haggard having sex with young men and then preaching chastity, heterosexuality and anti-choice. Even now in the States there is significant conservative values placed on sexuality and yet people continue to shag. Never in history was there are time when society actually lived up to its taboos without it concealing a dark side.

    LG: its endemic of materialist industrial culture.

    But that can't be when most of these developing countries are without modern industry and do not have the money to be materialist. They are overpopulated because they do not control reproduction so you have the poor who have more children than they can feed.

    LG: If human society can't get its head around the functional necessity of the family unit (preferably without murder) I think its time for human society to get back to the basics.

    I have to tell you, I don't see any shortage either in the West or in the developing nations of family units. Most people seem to be living within a family unit.

    LG: Yes
    In some places they even describe such framing as being "western"

    I don't follow you. How could traditional societies that are conservative in nature be described as 'western'?
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I'm saying that its the natural consequence of irresponsible parenting in the grip of a society under industrial ideals

    Of course its popular to introduce some artificial measure to compensate for natural consequences these days ... although even this seems to have the habit of catching up with us

    what sort of financial assistance do you suggest he requires after the act?

    (Maybe you could start a thread "the irresponsible male and convenience abortions" to highlight them)
    well if you want to throw in the towel (I mean not everyone agrees with your pining for free access to abortion as the moral blue ribbon winner either ...), fine, but you should at least understand that's primarily the value that pro-choice operates out of (and that its a reflection of a popular greater value, since most people would prefer not to be involved in the murder of others, even if they are inconvenient or poor or whatever)

    so you think that a society with an accelerated libidio removed from any issues of responsibility for the consequences would have roughly the same number of women racking up a jump-buck in the oven as a society that primarily places the sexual act in the context of procreation?

    Or do you think that no matter how small the number of women are who wind up in such circumstances, morality demands free and easy access to abortion

    if they know what coca cola and tv is, its industrial, ok?

    My point was that butt sniffing and murder render family units dysfunctional

    speak to a 70 year old and ask them out their impression of their youth and the differences when they were young.

    Do the same with an 18 year old and ask them about their aspirations for the next 30 years
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2011
  22. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    LG: what sort of financial assistance do you suggest he requires after the act?

    If the child comes to term? The usual child support but many of them manage to wiggle out of that responsibility, some of them are incapable of paying at all.

    LG: I mean not everyone agrees with your pining for free access to abortion as the moral blue ribbon winner either

    No not at all but there are still those who though they don't agree with abortion wouldn't have it illegal. There are people who think its immoral to force women to have unwanted babies. Simply speaking not everyone shares the same morality or even agree on its terms.

    LG: so you think that a society with an accelerated libidio removed from any issues of responsibility for the consequences would have roughly the same number of women racking up a jump-buck in the oven as a society that primarily places the sexual act in the context of procreation? Or do you think that no matter how small the number of women are who wind up in such circumstances, morality demands free and easy access to abortion

    Well there are not less children being produced in countries that have children for procreative reasons there are more. No matter how you go about it nature intended sex to be a central and important drive for procreation and to get people to do that often nature has made it so pleasurable that most find it difficult not to indulge in the act. We are not creatures that have a season when we go into heat. Why is it that western nations who practice abortion and have liberal societies make less babies? Because they don't have to. I don't agree that there is an accelerated libido, not everyone is living a life featured on MTV. I would say that the libido of the masses is exactly what it has always been. I also don't see people as not taking responsibility, I mean if a woman decides to keep the child, give up the child or abort a fetus she is taking responsibility for her actions but its much easier to take responsibility when you have a choice. I don't know how anyone can speak in terms of personal responsibility when there's no choice. Its the anti-choice crowd who speaks of irresponsible women having sex and abortions as if its something new and that society would somehow depict different behaviour if they were denied these choices. We know that concealing behaviour isn't the same as changing behaviour. Abortion has been going on for centuries in one form or another, legal or not there just wasn't easy access. Its a very modern development that women are not expected to marry and have as many children as her womb can produce like they must in many places around the world where reproductive rights are considered contrary to their culture or religion. If a woman is forced to marry either because she is pregnant or because her society says she must and she has as many children as her husband decides then yes you will have more babies than you need because these societies tend to have very little protection of women, their bodies and their wishes. They are patriarchal to the point the male is allowed and even expected to have sex as he wishes but the women are supposed to stay chaste. How contradictory is that?

    LG: Or do you think that no matter how small the number of women are who wind up in such circumstances, morality demands free and easy access to abortion

    If the anti-choice people thought that the number of women having abortions was small they wouldn't be making such a fuss would they. In a modern society there should be no question about access to abortion. Those who feel it runs contrary to their values are free not to have one. But in a society where there are all sorts of taboos surrounding sex it doesn't mean that less women are having babies. Women simply marry earlier and have babies earlier but again its always divorced from her choice as she is being denied family planning options.

    LG: I'm saying that its the natural consequence of irresponsible parenting in the grip of a society under industrial ideals. Of course its popular to introduce some artificial measure to compensate for natural consequences these days

    Every medical scientific breakthrough that has increased quality of life is an artificial measure. What are these industrial ideals you are referring to? Is there evidence that previous that parenting was better in other systems? What is that system to which you refer?
     
  23. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    LG this is really off topic but are you suggesting that cultures should be completely isolated from each other? You know so that there is no tv and coca cola?

    LG: My point was that butt sniffing and murder render family units dysfunctional

    Well I don't know, India comes in third in the world for rate of divorce and its very religious and traditional society, Sweden which of course is very liberal and highly functional and comes in first and the US which is very conservative comes in second. What example do you have of a society that isn't dysfunctional?

    LG: speak to a 70 year old and ask them out their impression of their youth and the differences when they were young. Do the same with an 18 year old and ask them about their aspirations for the next 30 years

    Completely subjective. You have 18 year olds that are incredibly intelligent and ambitious and who care about the world. You have 70 year olds who would say that everything they did in their youth ran contrary to the values of their parents. There were bohemian societies during the Belle Epoque for example that would put our young hedonists to shame and the 1920's was rife with mischief.
     

Share This Page