Abortion

matt murdock:

If she's too stupid to remember a piece of latex, how can she be responsible throughout a pregnancy?
Won't she do stupid things, like go on roller coasters or drink?

What a horribly misogynistic comment.

matt murdock:

Not necessarily. I don't know if you're a virgin or not, but when you're about to do it with someone who really excites you, you sometimes forget about the whole world around you. It's not cool, but it does happen. Some girls are responsible enough to see they've made a mistake and they go buy the pill. If the person you did it with is someone you trust, you're both going to take responsibility for your mistake. But not putting on a condom doesn't mean you're super irreponsible all the time, sometimes it just means you got far too carried away. Someone who forgets a condom doesn't have to be someone who will ride on roller coasters and drink.

weird soup:

Raising a child in the middle of suffering is wrong. But sometimes people who go through immense amounts of pain are the ones who do better. Pain fuels creativity and will power, so these kids who weren't even meant to be born and are raised in the middle of pain turn out to be amazing people who do matter.

I think that is pretty dangerous thinking and I find that rather offensive.

Dangerous? Tell me about your perfect little life, then. If you never learn how to deal with pain you're gonna die in the stupidest way ever.

weird soup:

Dangerous? Tell me about your perfect little life, then. If you never learn how to deal with pain you're gonna die in the stupidest way ever.

I do not need to justify my background in this, it is irrelevant. I'm looking at this in a purely psychological way. I don't think it's acceptable to brush off early life trauma and insinuate that they might become creative from it. It downplays the sheer importance of early development and considering the levels of depression and anxiety in young people (who are susceptible to emotional problems as it is due to the bonkers amount of hormonal changes and pressure put on young people nowadays) it does not make logical sense to bring a child up in an environment where they may not get the love and attention that they need.

I would prefer that all kids (whether they are adopted or not) are brought into the world into a loving home, regardless of what that constitutes.

Furthermore, yes, pain is a good thing...usually. It can have disastrous consequences if they are not given the right support. Addictive behaviour has strong associations with unresolved "pain" (obviously this is a correlation and not a pure causal model) as can mental health issues and poor life choices. I would also like to ask what you consider a "stupid" death? Are we talking Darwin Award stupid or...?

Kurtni:

What a horribly misogynistic comment.

weird soup:

Someone who forgets a condom doesn't have to be someone who will ride on roller coasters and drink.

It wasn't meant to be taken literally.
I was just wondering if someone can't remember or is too irresponsible to remember a condomn, why people would necessarily expect them to be responsible raise a child.

matt murdock:

It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Oh, good.

matt murdock:

It wasn't meant to be taken literally.
I was just wondering if someone can't remember or is too irresponsible to remember a condomn, why people would necessarily expect them to be responsible raise a child.

An issue that arises is that it does take two to use a condom. it's not a single party choice which means one party's attitudes, SN and PBC may not be fully implemented in condom use if the other party has a forceful nature. And you have to take into consideration two sets of SI, social identity, implentation intentions, moral norms and a whole bunch of crap.

^Which has nothing to do with what she said. She's saying calling someone irresponsible for not wearing a condom and then telling them they have to be responsible enough to carry a pregnancy is illogical.

The Master.:

An issue that arises is that it does take two to use a condom. it's not a single party choice which means one party's attitudes, SN and PBC may not be fully implemented in condom use if the other party has a forceful nature. And you have to take into consideration two sets of SI, social identity, implentation intentions, moral norms and a whole bunch of crap.

It is a singular party's choice, unless you're a rape victim, because if your partner refuses to use condoms, you can choose not to have sex with them. By agreeing to have sex without a condom, it becomes your choice as well and you're responsible for it.

I don't think that means you should have to carry an unwanted pregnancy, but blaming someone else because you agreed to have unprotected sex is silly.

lovecraft:

^Which has nothing to do with what she said. She's saying calling someone irresponsible for not wearing a condom and then telling them they have to be responsible enough to carry a pregnancy is illogical.

It's an off-shoot idea that I had that is only vaguely related to it. Of course it's illogical.

Kurtni:

It is a singular party's choice, unless you're a rape victim, because if your partner refuses to use condoms, you can choose not to have sex with them. By agreeing to have sex without a condom, it becomes your choice as well and you're responsible for it.

I don't think that means you should have to carry an unwanted pregnancy, but blaming someone else because you agreed to have unprotected sex is silly.

It's a social activity and will therefore be subject to social influence in some way, shape or form. It's basic social psychology. It's not a choice of one person, it's a choice of two and whether you change your mind is reliant on the strength of identity constructs (both in self-conceptualisation and social identification), attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, anticipated regret and a lot of other constructs according to the extended Theory of Planned Behaviour. Furthermore, it's not as if you can't psychologically manipulate someone to act in a way they would ordinarily find morally reprehensible in any other situation.

Ultimately, if an unwanted child is brought into this world, there are two parties responsible and I feel it's illogical to paint that in any other way.

The Master.:

It's a social activity and will therefore be subject to social influence in some way, shape or form. It's basic social psychology. It's not a choice of one person, it's a choice of two and whether you change your mind is reliant on the strength of identity constructs (both in self-conceptualisation and social identification), attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, anticipated regret and a lot of other constructs according to the extended Theory of Planned Behaviour. Furthermore, it's not as if you can't psychologically manipulate someone to act in a way they would ordinarily find morally reprehensible in any other situation.

Ultimately, if an unwanted child is brought into this world, there are two parties responsible and I feel it's illogical to paint that in any other way.

You're painting it as only though one parent is responsible by perpetrating the idea that if one partner decides not to use a condom, the other is merely a pawn of social pressure. By your own logic, someone should be able to influence someone to use a condom just as easily, but it obviously doesn't work that way, so I see serious flaws in your thinking, and listing off a bunch of undefined vocabulary words out of a psych book isn't strengthening that.

Kurtni:

You're painting it as only though one parent is responsible by perpetrating the idea that if one partner decides not to use a condom, the other is merely a pawn of social pressure. By your own logic, someone should be able to influence someone to use a condom just as easily, but it obviously doesn't work that way, so I see serious flaws in your thinking, and listing off a bunch of undefined vocabulary words out of a psych book isn't strengthening that.

All I am saying is that it is possible for one partner to influence the other and that it is a social activity with two actors who need to co-operate in order to get anything done.

If you want me to define them and give a fuller answer then I shall. However, I cannot at this moment in time. But yeah, the crux of my answer is due to the contingent consistency hypothesis (Acock and Reflew, 1972 but there is a highly detailed discussion of this in criticism of the Theory of Planned Behaviour in Terry and Hogg, 1996) in that attitudes of an individual will only be played out if the social normative environment allows it to. This feeds into social identity theory in that if there is a significant social pressure from a "group" that the individual highly identifies with then they will change their attitudes, intentions and behaviours to fulfil that status quo. How much an individual will alter their behaviour to fit into group norms will depend on how much they identify with that group. If they don't, then it will not be a significant factor in their behaviour.

And yes, if certain variables were right and one party was more susceptible to social influence than the other, they could be convinced of using a condom. It works both ways. It does entirely depend on the personalities involved and whatever social implications that may be present.

I'm pro-abortion.

This was exceedingly interesting:

Declaring War on Newborns

The article is long (a little over two pages), but it's a worthwhile read.

My knee-jerk response to the article is that I'm only pro-choice so long as the fetus isn't viable outside the womb, but they have an answer for that, too. Indeed, the argument that many pro-choice people make against adoption not being a very good choice is still viable after the infant is born.

The bit of the article which talks about "Mentally-impaired" children hits a note of discord with me- it smacks of the beginning of Eugenics (it's okay to kill them because they're deformed, AKA less than people).

I can't agree with most of their article. I don't think abortion should be permissible after birth (indeed, I consider it murder after the 24th week), and saying it's okay because the infant doesn't have a personality and therefore is not a person is to completely misunderstand the pro-choice position.

weird soup:

I don't agree with the church saying it's a cruel murder, but it would still be very difficult for a woman to lose her baby, she would eventually blame herself for killing her own child. Sometimes we think that it would be better for that child not to be born into this world, where they would suffer so much, and I agree on a certain level. I've been through an awful lot and trust me, sometimes I wish I hadn't been born at all. But my life actually does matter to someone, even if it's just my mom. It's true that suffering can make monsters out of some people, but don't we all deserve a chance?

The majority of women say they feel "relief" after having an abortion. They've been given a chance out of a situation they aren't ready to deal with.

I think that unless you're willing and able to carry the fetus for her for nine months and then guarantee the child will have a good home, you've just decided that the mother's body is able to be controlled by the government based on personal opinion's not of the body-holder.

lovecraft:

This was exceedingly interesting:

Declaring War on Newborns

The article is long (a little over two pages), but it's a worthwhile read.

My knee-jerk response to the article is that I'm only pro-choice so long as the fetus isn't viable outside the womb, but they have an answer for that, too. Indeed, the argument that many pro-choice people make against adoption not being a very good choice is still viable after the infant is born.

The bit of the article which talks about "Mentally-impaired" children hits a note of discord with me- it smacks of the beginning of Eugenics (it's okay to kill them because they're deformed, AKA less than people).

I can't agree with most of their article. I don't think abortion should be permissible after birth (indeed, I consider it murder after the 24th week), and saying it's okay because the infant doesn't have a personality and therefore is not a person is to completely misunderstand the pro-choice position.

I'm not quite certain whether I believe the article's validity or not.

Here's the original article.

lovecraft:

Here's the original article.

Ick, it's a philosophy paper. I wouldn't take it seriously then.

The Master.:

Ick, it's a philosophy paper. I wouldn't take it seriously then.

Yeah, it's a bioethics and law paper published by The Journal of Medical Ethics which is owned by the British Medical Journal group - it's not like it's a cheap ezine, it's a very prestigious journal which engages with many contemporary debates regarding medicine, ethics and laws - not just abortion, but things like euthanasia or stem cell research. The editors started getting random abuse and threats after they published that article so they wrote a blog post about why they did it.

The newspaper article is so inflammatory and childish (because you have to be extremely naive or malicious to think that medical ethics are one of the 'world's most unnecessary occupations' - medical ethics dictates what kind of medical treatment you and the rest of humanity gets, it's extremely important) I'm having a hard time taking it seriously, but the original article raises some interesting questions, of course.