What a horribly misogynistic comment.
- 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?
March 11th, 2012 at 07:59am
What a horribly misogynistic comment.
- 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?
I think that is pretty dangerous thinking and I find that rather offensive.
- 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 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.
- 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.
- Kurtni:
- What a horribly misogynistic comment.
It wasn't meant to be taken literally.
- weird soup:
- Someone who forgets a condom doesn't have to be someone who will ride on roller coasters and drink.
Oh, good.
- matt murdock:
- It wasn't meant to be taken literally.
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.
- 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.
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.
- 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's an off-shoot idea that I had that is only vaguely related to it. Of course it's illogical.
- 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 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
- 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?
I'm not quite certain whether I believe the article's validity or not.
- 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.
Ick, it's a philosophy paper. I wouldn't take it seriously then.
- lovecraft:
- Here's the original article.
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 Master.:
- Ick, it's a philosophy paper. I wouldn't take it seriously then.