Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility be?

[horatio83]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

The study claims that unwanted pregnancy significantly increases the risk of mental healthy problems. So we talk about women who either abort their child and then suffer or got pregnant when they did not intend to, probably early in their life and without the ability to sustain themselves or without a partner and then suffer when they have to raise this child.
This does not imply that abortion is not traumatizing, it implies that it is as traumatizing as having to raise an unwanted child.

The study points out that the key problem is the unwanted pregnancy which most of the times is not a result of a failure of contraceptive but of not using them or not using them correctly.
So the first-best solution is to increase education while the second-best is to have abortion as the last option.
I am not against abortions but I am against viewing them as an alternative to contraceptives and as something normal. It should be treated as singularity, as something out of the ordinary.

 

[cooleddie74]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

I've been hearing that from abortion rights people for years.

That "pro life people do not care about a baby after it is born".

Do you have any actual evidence of this? Any proof?

Yes, I do.

The budget cuts in federal, state and local child care, pediatric medicine, nutritional assistance and preschool educational programs advocated, pushed and passed by so-called "pro-life" right-wing politicians. They bleat like stuck sheep to prevent a woman from obtaining a legal abortion and ally themselves with some of the most radical elements of the pro-life cause(especially around reelection time in order to boost and polish their own social-conservative credentials), but after a baby's life is spared and saved they proceed to demonize and cut almost every program that would support and help that newborn infant through his or her early years, claiming that "government doesn't have a role to do these things," "we can't afford it," "charitable and religious organizations can do a much better and more efficient job," "it's big-government socialism" or other such convenient and stupid excuses...but rarely admitting that cuts in programs for children are typically motivated by desires such as more tax breaks for the well-to-do. In the end their masters aren't the innocent unborn. They're the people who bankroll their campaigns.

I stand by this. I've seen it. It's evidence one can witness with their own eyes. It's proof of the dual and dark nature of some within the pro-life cause, largely politicians. Care about a child in utero...screw 'em after their born. And to me that's much more abhorrent than an abortion itself.

Do I think the entire pro-life community is like this? No, and I never have. In spite of my disagreements with them on aspects of this issue there are some very wonderful, smart and well-meaning people in the community and I wouldn't even try to demonize every single one of them the way the other side likes to attack most or all pro-choicers as vicious baby murderers with no God and no basic decency. But I will say that the good people are being used, manipulated and used as poster children by those with the more narrow-minded agendas. So no, don't even try to tell me that some or many care more about a baby before it's born than after, because the fiscal track record as well as their public language says otherwise. They care so long as they don't have to spend tax dollars to help support it, because that's encouraging dependency and that's socialism, un-American and wrong.

Hey! Here's a novel idea, and I'm just tossing it out for giggles...

There'd be far, far fewer unintended and unwanted pregnancies if access to reliable and tested methods of birth control was easier. And I'm not just talking a box of condoms, I mean the stuff that really works and lasts longer than the commercial break in a major league football game. Ready access to birth control would reduce the demand for abortion. But no, some social right-wingers and religious conservatives want to block even that on grounds that even interfering with the fertilization of an ovum counts as killing an unborn life. So make up your minds. What's worse? Preventing fertilization in the first place? Or a messy abortion?

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

:starts a slow clap:

 

[nightwind1]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

I think all pro-choice people should stop using the term "pro-life" for the anti-choice people. It plays right into their hands.

That said, if an adult who has no discernible brain activity (ie: medically considered "brain-dead") is considered dead, a zygote/fetus who has no discernible brain activity should not yet be considered living. So anything prior to 23 weeks or so should be off limits for anti-choice people to even concern themselves about. After that, one should need to weigh the mother's health and welfare versus the fetus, with the mother (who is already a living, breathing,THINKING person) taking priority in nearly all cases.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

^This.

This whole "abortion = murder"-nonsense is making me sick so I'm glad you took the time to write this.

The anti-choice crowd is so frustrating to reason with.

 

[cooleddie74]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

Anti-Choice.

I like it. Let's all go with it.

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

Anti-Choice.

I like it. Let's all go with it.

Works for me. The Pro-Life people have taken a position of naming their side of the issue the "positive" one implying that those who're Pro-Choice are "for death" which isn't the case at all. So "Anti-Choice" seems more apt for the anti-abortion people.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

I think all pro-choice people should stop using the term "pro-life" for the anti-choice people. It plays right into their hands.

That said, if an adult who has no discernible brain activity (ie: medically considered "brain-dead") is considered dead, a zygote/fetus who has no discernible brain activity should not yet be considered living. So anything prior to 23 weeks or so should be off limits for anti-choice people to even concern themselves about. After that, one should need to weigh the mother's health and welfare versus the fetus, with the mother (who is already a living, breathing,THINKING person) taking priority in nearly all cases.

I tend to use the phrase brain-alive i.e a fetus becomes a person when it becomes brain-alive. Up until then only the living thinking person (the mother) has to be considered..

 

[Knight Templar]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

I've been hearing that from abortion rights people for years.

That "pro life people do not care about a baby after it is born".

Do you have any actual evidence of this? Any proof?

Yes, I do.

The budget cuts in federal, state and local child care, pediatric medicine, nutritional assistance and preschool educational programs advocated, pushed and passed by so-called "pro-life" right-wing politicians. They bleat like stuck sheep to prevent a woman from obtaining a legal abortion and ally themselves with some of the most radical elements of the pro-life cause(especially around reelection time in order to boost and polish their own social-conservative credentials), but after a baby's life is spared and saved they proceed to demonize and cut almost every program that would support and help that newborn infant through his or her early years, claiming that "government doesn't have a role to do these things," "we can't afford it," "charitable and religious organizations can do a much better and more efficient job," "it's big-government socialism" or other such convenient and stupid excuses...but rarely admitting that cuts in programs for children are typically motivated by desires such as more tax breaks for the well-to-do. In the end their masters aren't the innocent unborn. They're the people who bankroll their campaigns.

I stand by this. I've seen it. It's evidence one can witness with their own eyes. It's proof of the dual and dark nature of some within the pro-life cause, largely politicians. Care about a child in utero...screw 'em after their born. And to me that's much more abhorrent than an abortion itself.

Do I think the entire pro-life community is like this? No, and I never have. In spite of my disagreements with them on aspects of this issue there are some very wonderful, smart and well-meaning people in the community and I wouldn't even try to demonize every single one of them the way the other side likes to attack most or all pro-choicers as vicious baby murderers with no God and no basic decency. But I will say that the good people are being used, manipulated and used as poster children by those with the more narrow-minded agendas. So no, don't even try to tell me that some or many care more about a baby before it's born than after, because the fiscal track record as well as their public language says otherwise. They care so long as they don't have to spend tax dollars to help support it, because that's encouraging dependency and that's socialism, un-American and wrong.

Hey! Here's a novel idea, and I'm just tossing it out for giggles...

There'd be far, far fewer unintended and unwanted pregnancies if access to reliable and tested methods of birth control was easier. And I'm not just talking a box of condoms, I mean the stuff that really works and lasts longer than the commercial break in a major league football game. Ready access to birth control would reduce the demand for abortion. But no, some social right-wingers and religious conservatives want to block even that on grounds that even interfering with the fertilization of an ovum counts as killing an unborn life. So make up your minds. What's worse? Preventing fertilization in the first place? Or a messy abortion?

You assume (wrongly) that the only way a person is against abortion can support children is through government programs.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

I'm not sure why pro-life automatically has to be equated with anti-contraception. I'd say there are some pro-life people who believe that way. Personally, I see no reason for a position against contraception. Many eggs are produced in the woman's body that are never fertilized. Only the tiniest fraction of sperm ever find an egg to fertilize. That is quite normal, whether by condom or by happenstance. The proper use of both abstinence and contraception, depending on one's situation, helps reduce the number of children that are put at risk of abortion or bad circumstances after birth.

That goal is one that at least to me, it seems there ought to be agreement by everyone on, and I don't see why it has to be a point of contention. I don't understand those who believe that using contraception is a problem or that educating about it encourages promiscuity. And on the other hand, I don't find it logical either that abstinence should be viewed as something wrong or backwards to suggest. Other methods come with probabilities attached. Barring deliberate intervention, it is 100% true that pregnancy does not occur without intercourse. I highly doubt that, barring surgical removal of organs, there could be a 100% effective method of contraception, though certainly I think there could be more effective and easier-to-use methods yet to be invented than what currently exists.



As to the suggestion that being pro-life can be equated, for instance, with being unable to care about the children who are born--I can at least state in my case that is quite untrue and insulting. One poster suggested that someone of my belief cannot care to adopt a mixed-race child or one with special needs. I would be willing to adopt in both cases. (It's especially important to me, given that as someone with learning/behavior challenges that were especially pronounced when I was little, I could have been passed over myself, had I been up for adoption.)

In the second case, especially, it's important to point out that anyone who undertakes to become a parent, by adoption or conceiving their own child, must automatically accept the possibility that their child may turn out to have special needs. Even if a child is born healthy, accidents, illnesses, and environmental risks happen, so every potential parent should remember that their child could still encounter some sort of unexpected challenge even if everything is OK at birth. To me, the only difference if I were to adopt a special-needs child would be that I'd have some time for me to prepare for specifics beforehand, prior to taking custody.

As far as government programs...I would say that yes, private organizations could in theory do the job better--but there's a big caveat.

That is the fact that in practice, they abdicate their responsibilities in a big way. I include my own church in this. To actually do our job in a fashion that would actually make a real difference and allow the full transfer of all social programs to the private sector would require personal sacrifice on an order that few currently do. Put simply, I believe that we (the private sector) could do better than the government, but make a choice not to, and that's a problem.

As far as what we do spend our tax dollars on, I'd say that as far as social spending goes it's children's causes I'm least bothered by, with education being the #1 thing that I support, given the empowering effects it can have, when done right. (My ideas on reforming the educational system would take up a whole other thread.) I think a lot more attention needs to be paid to what is actually effective and what is ineffective, though, because I do think there is very serious inefficiency and waste in social spending that needs to be addressed.

 

[sidious618]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

That's a whole lot of writing yet I still don't see any answer as to what to do with the kid after he or she is born.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

Well, stuff. As well as certain things, and... other stuff.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

They aren't out of the womb yet, but they are human beings and unique lives...

Current science doesn't support this flatfooted declaration, of course.

 

[Thestral]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

I think all pro-choice people should stop using the term "pro-life" for the anti-choice people. It plays right into their hands.

If they start referring to us as "anti-life" who gets to be Darkseid?

Put simply, I believe that we (the private sector) could do better than the government, but make a choice not to, and that's a problem.

As far as what we do spend our tax dollars on, I'd say that as far as social spending goes it's children's causes I'm least bothered by...

Children's services (which cooleddie did a nice job touching on), like fire protection and the police, is a public good and is thus best done by the public sector (which, by the way, is "we").

And why would you be bothered by it at all?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

Here is a question to consider: what are the odds of a child with that same DNA being conceived in a separate pregnancy and act of fertilization (i.e. not as the result of a multiple birth in one pregnancy)? The odds of repeating that exact same combination, down to the last gene, are impossible in practical terms. That particular pregnancy can never be re-created, and that fact is true regardless of the stage of pregnancy you're talking about. That uniqueness certainly is scientifically attested to (and as an aside, without that attestation, DNA evidence would never have been admitted into the courtroom), and comes into being at conception. Whether or not that unique genetic code has carried out a particular set of instructions yet (to build this or that organ) is irrelevant given the irrepleaceability factor.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

Put simply, I believe that we (the private sector) could do better than the government, but make a choice not to, and that's a problem.

As far as what we do spend our tax dollars on, I'd say that as far as social spending goes it's children's causes I'm least bothered by...

Children's services (which cooleddie did a nice job touching on), like fire protection and the police, is a public good and is thus best done by the public sector (which, by the way, is "we").

And why would you be bothered by it at all?

As mentioned before, I do think that children's services could in theory be performed better by the private sector, if people would actually get off their asses and take that duty to their neighbors seriously. The fact that people abandon that responsibility and leave it to "someone else" (i.e. the government), which leads to second-rate results, bothers me.

Whereas fire, police, and military are probably some of the easiest to point to as examples of what the government should be doing.

 

[sidious618]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

Here is a question to consider: what are the odds of a child with that same DNA being conceived in a separate pregnancy and act of fertilization (i.e. not as the result of a multiple birth in one pregnancy)? The odds of repeating that exact same combination, down to the last gene, are impossible in practical terms. That particular pregnancy can never be re-created, and that fact is true regardless of the stage of pregnancy you're talking about. That uniqueness certainly is scientifically attested to (and as an aside, without that attestation, DNA evidence would never have been admitted into the courtroom), and comes into being at conception. Whether or not that unique genetic code has carried out a particular set of instructions yet (to build this or that organ) is irrelevant given the irrepleaceability factor.

So what? What's your point? Also, you still haven't responded adequately to what someone should do with the child after it's born.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

Whether or not that unique genetic code has carried out a particular set of instructions yet (to build this or that organ) is irrelevant given the irrepleaceability[sic] factor.

Every snowflake is unique. They don't get legal protection, either.

 

[Kestra]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

I get the unique thing, but I don't see why that's particularly important or relevant. We kill unique life all the time.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility

Here is a question to consider: what are the odds of a child with that same DNA being conceived in a separate pregnancy and act of fertilization (i.e. not as the result of a multiple birth in one pregnancy)? The odds of repeating that exact same combination, down to the last gene, are impossible in practical terms. That particular pregnancy can never be re-created, and that fact is true regardless of the stage of pregnancy you're talking about. That uniqueness certainly is scientifically attested to (and as an aside, without that attestation, DNA evidence would never have been admitted into the courtroom), and comes into being at conception. Whether or not that unique genetic code has carried out a particular set of instructions yet (to build this or that organ) is irrelevant given the irrepleaceability factor.

It is believe that about 50% of fertilised eggs are lost by natural means. Each one of them had unique genetic codes but 'nature' doesn't protect them because of it. So why should non-sentient embryos be protected?