Abortion Discussion Thread

[heyelander]

Right, but there's not a single program that I'm aware that ignores abstinence.

I don't think you should ignore it... I mean at least with STD education the line is, "the only way to be sure is..." I think that's a good bit of the education. If you are going to engage in this, this is a risk (STD or Pregnancy). The only way to be sure is to not do it. If you are going to, here are the best options for taking care of yourself.

[Fresno Bob]

Do we do that for:

• Parents with kids on free and reduced lunch
• 100% disabled people
• Students with financial aid
• Those receiving a subsidy from the ACA

Where do draw the line?

I freely admit that I don't know where to draw the line.

[johnnya24]

I did ask about it, and I'm still a little confused by the idea of mandating some type of birth control.

Except Fresno didn't say birth control, he said forced sterilization, you know, like the NAZI's. In fact this is worse than the NAZI's ... they were dangerously deluded and warped by an insane ideology and snake-oil science. Eugenics tended towards the idea of sterilization of the "unfit", like an updated version of Social Darwinism. It was twisted reason and pseudo-science, but they believed it was necessary for the health of the nation /species. As twisted as that was, this is worse. This doesn't get much past the "fuck em" rationality.

So what if a tiny few of the poorest people in your society play the system? Every system, everywhere, has a degree of wastage. Do they play the system more than tax cheats, or government contractors, or politicians? I don't fucking think so. Why not sterilize everyone who underrepresented their taxes until they pay up? It's only temporary, right? Tax "cheats" cost the system 10,000's X more, so why the preoccupation with a few people whose lives are probably complete and utter shit?

It's ill-thought-out, ignorant, reactionary ultra-right-wing bullshit.

[B-Fly]

It's ill-thought-out, ignorant, reactionary ultra-right-wing bullshit.

Or in this case mostly just standard Fresno Bob reactionary misanthropy, since he's clearly never been right-wing. I agree that it's a terrible suggestion, however.

Edit to add: It's one thing to say that people should wait until they're financially able to care for a child to have a child. It's another thing entirely to say that the government should be in the business of enforcing that precept by any means necessary.

[Fresno Bob]

Or in this case mostly just standard Fresno Bob reactionary misanthropy, since he's clearly never been right-wing. I agree that it's a terrible suggestion, however.

Edit to add: It's one thing to say that people should wait until they're financially able to care for a child to have a child. It's another thing entirely to say that the government should be in the business of enforcing that precept by any means necessary.

Some countries pay you to have children, I want to pay you not to have children. But I get that the closest I come to the Nazi madness is this and some eugenics wierdness that I'm not going to talk about....

[Fresno Bob]

Except Fresno didn't say birth control, he said forced sterilization, you know, like the NAZI's. In fact this is worse than the NAZI's ... they were dangerously deluded and warped by an insane ideology and snake-oil science. Eugenics tended towards the idea of sterilization of the "unfit", like an updated version of Social Darwinism. It was twisted reason and pseudo-science, but they believed it was necessary for the health of the nation /species. As twisted as that was, this is worse. This doesn't get much past the "fuck em" rationality.

So what if a tiny few of the poorest people in your society play the system? Every system, everywhere, has a degree of wastage. Do they play the system more than tax cheats, or government contractors, or politicians? I don't fucking think so. Why not sterilize everyone who underrepresented their taxes until they pay up? It's only temporary, right? Tax "cheats" cost the system 10,000's X more, so why the preoccupation with a few people whose lives are probably complete and utter shit?

It's ill-thought-out, ignorant, reactionary ultra-right-wing bullshit.

it's thought out, just somewhat terrifying, and again, 100% temporary, and not to be implemented unless it can be equally applied to men and women

[Judge Jude]

"It's one thing to say that people should wait until they're financially able to care for a child to have a child."

it's obvious, but does anyone even say that anymore?

[B-Fly]

"It's one thing to say that people should wait until they're financially able to care for a child to have a child."

it's obvious, but does anyone even say that anymore?

Yes, in fact people say that more and more, as reflected by the declining birth rate and the increasing age at which people have kids. I never get the "does anyone say this anymore" nostalgia mindset or "let's slam the generations after our own" mindset when the data (data that I just linked a page or so back) shows the opposite -- increasing responsibility with regard to childbearing.

[Judge Jude]

"Yes, in fact people say that more and more, as reflected by the declining birth rate and the increasing age at which people have kids."

you are assuming that those factors are proof that people more and more are waiting until they are financially able to care for a child before having a child.

I disagree - in those cases, I think it's more logical to conclude that people simply want to be free of the responsibility of raising children for as long as possible, and they are having fewer children as much or more because of the time commitment as the financial one. to the extent that it means they are more financially prepared, that is a good side result.

it's kind of lazy, frankly, to throw the "let's slam the generations after our own" claim at someone with little to no evidence. we both have legitimate viewpoints here, but I'm not going to try to psychoanalyze your rationale.

[B-Fly]

"Yes, in fact people say that more and more, as reflected by the declining birth rate and the increasing age at which people have kids."

you are assuming that those factors are proof that people more and more are waiting until they are financially able to care for a child before having a child.

I disagree - in those cases, I think it's more logical to conclude that people simply want to be free of the responsibility of raising children for as long as possible, and they are having fewer children as much or more because of the time commitment as the financial one. to the extent that it means they are more financially prepared, that is a good side result.

it's kind of lazy, frankly, to throw the "let's slam the generations after our own" claim at someone with little to no evidence.

Lazier than, "It's obvious, but does anyone even say that anymore"?

I can cite a ton of anecdotal evidence of millennials consciously saying they want to pay off their school loans and get a steady job with good health insurance before starting a family. The increased use of contraception, declining teen pregnancy rate and declining birth rates are all very dramatic and at the very least corroborate a conclusion that people of child-bearing age are showing increasing planning and responsibility around childbirth/child rearing. If anything, they may at a collective level be overcorrecting. I see little or no evidence to support "Does anyone even say that anymore?"

[onejayhawk]

Excellent indeed! Now if we could just eliminate funding for "abstinence-only education" programs, that number would likely fall even further.

One significant result of the programs has been a noticeable shift in sexual conduct norms. Oral and anal sex as a means to avoid pregnancy are much more accepted than a generation ago.

J

[Judge Jude]

"I can cite a ton of anecdotal evidence of millennials"

as can I. heck, I have 10 nephews and nieces between the age of 25 and 32, for instance.

the birth rate is declining, without question - but nobody gets to "own" the right answer as to why.

I have a feeling I'm closer to accepting your rationale than you are of mine - and I hope that's not just because you think your anecdotes are better than mine.

[B-Fly]

"I can cite a ton of anecdotal evidence of millennials"

as can I. heck, I have 10 nephews and nieces between the age of 25 and 32, for instance.

the birth rate is declining, without question - but nobody gets to "own" the right answer as to why.

I have a feeling I'm closer to accepting your rationale than you are of mine - and I hope that's not just because you think your anecdotes are better than mine.

I think it's because I put a lot of stock into the data trends and it corroborates my view of increasing responsibility more than any data I've seen that would suggest decreasing responsibility around becoming a parent. Although maybe I'm misreading your "does anybody say that anymore" comment and you did not intend to suggest that people are becoming less and less responsible about family planning.

[Sour Masher]

I disagree - in those cases, I think it's more logical to conclude that people simply want to be free of the responsibility of raising children for as long as possible, and they are having fewer children as much or more because of the time commitment as the financial one. to the extent that it means they are more financially prepared, that is a good side result.

I don't think your reasoning can be entirely divorced from B-Fly's. Since we are tossing around anecdotal evidence, I'll use my wife and me as an example. We absolutely waited to have children until our late 30s for both reasons you guys are debating. We wanted to delay both the time and money burdens of having children. We both got late starts in our careers, being academics, so being poor grad students was certainly a factor for awhile, and then trying to crawl out of debt. The time commitment and overall responsibility of parenthood was a big part of it too. But don't both issues relate to a larger issue of younger people being more careful/hesitant/thoughtful/selfish (whatever positive or negative word you want to use) about being parents?

I don't know how one can look at the data in terms of average age of having a first child and assume that people used to consider finances, but now, people are not doing that anymore. Why would an ever increasing delay in parenthood be an indicator that young people are being more thoughtless about the financial burden of parenthood? To me, it is clearly tied to shifting job markets and expectations of level of education. It used to be, most folks could get a good paying job with a HS diploma. Now, much fewer can do that. It used to be a family could live off of one salary. Now, few do that. Both of those things are financial, and there is a correlation between delaying parenthood and an increase in the time people spend getting an education and waiting to enter the workforce and make real money. Seems fairly compelling to me to suggest that finances are at least a factor.

[baldgriff]

While I have stated in the past that the abortion thing has been decided - I have to admit introducing legislation that would allow abortions up until the actual delivery of the baby seems really extreme.