Abortion

[baldgye]

If the US were to start having a population problem (we don't), preventing people from having reproductive rights, resulting in poorly raised children, is not the solution.

Neither is advocating for poverty, but it seems all arguments are on the table

 

[TexRex]

Discussing isn't asking people for data you can look up yourself. Ludicrous.

I seem to recall you quoting a post wherein a question was asked of you, you half-responding to the quote, you subsequently being asked to address the question specifically, you claiming not to know what question to which they were referring, the person who originally asked the question making it clear that you'd even quoted it, someone else entirely asking if it's so hard to repeat the question, someone else else entirely (me) asking that individual if it's so hard for you to re-read what you quoted and then you disappearing for a day only to return with the topic having evolved slightly, at which point you quoted something else entirely as if the previous had never actually happened.

The above makes it seem as though you're not actually here to have thoughtful discussions, but instead to wax obnoxiously on aspects of society you find disagreeable as if...

...talking to a brick wall that, no matter how ridiculous the statement, just can't object.

 

[TheCracker]

IMO it has a lot to do with western culture becoming more "me" centric and people just aren't as willing to make sacrifices in their lifestyles today as they used to be in order to accomodate a larger family. In my group of close friends when I was growing up, every single family had more kids than bedrooms available and at least 2 of them were doubled up in every family. I doubled up with my younger brother until I was 14. I'm not sure I now of a single family today in my circle of friends that has more kids than bedrooms available.

Perhaps people just don't want to have big families any more? Or women may just want to be seen as more than just mothers. Maybe they'd quite fancy having a career too?

How many 'big' families - which in the western world seem to be a thing of the past - were down to choice rather than just circumstances - ie the result of poor quality sex education or contraception or religious beliefs?

When i grew up (born in the 70's) i can't recall any families i knew having more than three kids. Those of my generation having their own families, have mostly one or two and very rarely three children, but certainly no more. I'd say that's mostly due to the need of most couples to both work. Taking time off to raise more and more small children is just impractical for most people and child care is just extortionate. Of course people in the past just 'made do' they had no other option. Abortion and contraception allows choice in how many children a couple have. They no longer have to just make the best of it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I seem to recall you quoting a post wherein a question was asked of you, you half-responding to the quote, you subsequently being asked to address the question specifically, you claiming not to know what question to which they were referring, the person who originally asked the question making it clear that you'd even quoted it, someone else entirely asking if it's so hard to repeat the question, someone else else entirely (me) asking that individual if it's so hard for you to re-read what you quoted and then you disappearing for a day only to return with the topic having evolved slightly, at which point you quoted something else entirely as if the previous had never actually happened.

The above makes it seem as though you're not actually here to have thoughtful discussions, but instead to wax obnoxiously on aspects of society you find disagreeable as if...

View attachment 749085

...talking to a brick wall that, no matter how ridiculous the statement, just can't object.

Sounds suspiciously as if you're degrading my contributions to this forum because it doesn't conform to your expectations and you're imputing your own personal bias into your assumptions of my motivations for participating. All of which is very discouraging to me, rather harassing and abusive in terms of continuing to participate here, which is probably a violation of the AUP in some way or another.

 

[TexRex]

Sounds suspiciously as if you're degrading my contributions to this forum because it doesn't conform to your expectations and you're imputing your own personal bias into your assumptions of my motivations for participating. All of which is very discouraging to me, rather harassing and abusive in terms of continuing to participate here, which is probably a violation of the AUP in some way or another.

If you truly believe it to be in violation of a particular code of conduct that this particular platform asks users to abide by, I'd suggest you bring the presumed violation to the moderators of said platform.

I suspect, however, that you understood my motives and are instead feigning outrage in yet another effort to subvert the discussion, perhaps even emulating "keyboard warriors" (your term) in your feigned outrage.

 

[Joey D]

IMO it has a lot to do with western culture becoming more "me" centric and people just aren't as willing to make sacrifices in their lifestyles today as they used to be in order to accomodate a larger family. In my group of close friends when I was growing up, every single family had more kids than bedrooms available and at least 2 of them were doubled up in every family. I doubled up with my younger brother until I was 14. I'm not sure I now of a single family today in my circle of friends that has more kids than bedrooms available.

But what if people just don't want a larger family? While I don't think I could reasonably afford more than one kid, I could make sacrifices to do so, but why would I want too? One child is fine for me and it still allows me to take my family out to make meaningful memories. More than one kid would mean more time at home and be going fewer places together. With just three of us, vacations will be fairly easy and won't add a great deal more to the overall cost. Add in another child and it gets pricer, meaning there will be less of them.

Plus, with multiple kids the cost of childcare skyrockets. I'm already planning on about $400 a week for childcare, I wouldn't want to double that, nor would I ask my wife to quit her job to take care of kids. She wants a career just like I do.

The only big families I see now are here in Utah and that's solely dictated by religion.

 

[Danoff]

But what if people just don't want a larger family? While I don't think I could reasonably afford more than one kid, I could make sacrifices to do so, but why would I want too? One child is fine for me and it still allows me to take my family out to make meaningful memories. More than one kid would mean more time at home and be going fewer places together. With just three of us, vacations will be fairly easy and won't add a great deal more to the overall cost. Add in another child and it gets pricer, meaning there will be less of them.

Plus, with multiple kids the cost of childcare skyrockets. I'm already planning on about $400 a week for childcare, I wouldn't want to double that, nor would I ask my wife to quit her job to take care of kids. She wants a career just like I do.

The only big families I see now are here in Utah and that's solely dictated by religion.

I know you're not looking for an actual answer to this question, but I'll answer it anyway. With one kid you're the playmate all the time. With two kids they play with each other. Also, with one kid it is possible to over-parent. Pretty much not possible with 2.

 

[Johnnypenso]

But what if people just don't want a larger family? While I don't think I could reasonably afford more than one kid, I could make sacrifices to do so, but why would I want too? One child is fine for me and it still allows me to take my family out to make meaningful memories. More than one kid would mean more time at home and be going fewer places together. With just three of us, vacations will be fairly easy and won't add a great deal more to the overall cost. Add in another child and it gets pricer, meaning there will be less of them.

Plus, with multiple kids the cost of childcare skyrockets. I'm already planning on about $400 a week for childcare, I wouldn't want to double that, nor would I ask my wife to quit her job to take care of kids. She wants a career just like I do.

The only big families I see now are here in Utah and that's solely dictated by religion.

This is what I mean by the "me" culture. IMO there was a bigger emphasis on the family and personal enrichment through raising a family back in the day and today it's more about personal enrichment and enhanced financial security. In my own life I see dramatic differences in the way 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, for example, treat their extended families and the support and help they give to each other. Way more often than "native" Canadians I see the elderly parents living with their children or being totally invested in their lives and their extended families and providing care and support in raising the grandchildren while supplanting childcare and babysitting requirements. I don't know of a single friend or acquaintance "native" Canadian family that has their elderly parents living with them and but many immigrant families that do. There can be many reasons for this and it's totally anecdotal of course but my overall impression is their is far less focus on the family in native vs. non-native Canadians, at least in the first and second generations. I suspect that given enough time that'll change as well and we'll all be living apart from each other making our obligatory Christmas and other holiday visits while staying the hell out of each other's lives.

 

[Danoff]

This is what I mean by the "me" culture. IMO there was a bigger emphasis on the family and personal enrichment through raising a family back in the day and today it's more about personal enrichment and enhanced financial security.

...if that's what's happening that's probably progress. Having children out of a sense of obligation toward posterity or toward one's genetic lineage is misguided at best. I'm always a major advocate of the notion that every child should be wanted for that child's sake, and parents should become parents because they want to parent... not because they want to clone.

Misplaced obligation toward people who share more of your genetics over people who share less of your genetics can cause a lot of problems and lead to many abuses. It's wonderful to love and invest in and journey with your family. But that should be done not out of a sense of obligation or culture, but because (in your specific case) doing so enriches your life. When it doesn't, don't. If that's ME culture, I think it makes sense. I'd describe it more as healthy than selfish.

 

[Johnnypenso]

...if that's what's happening that's probably progress. Having children out of a sense of obligation toward posterity or toward one's genetic lineage is misguided at best. I'm always a major advocate of the notion that every child should be wanted for that child's sake, and parents should become parents because they want to parent... not because they want to clone.

Misplaced obligation toward people who share more of your genetics over people who share less of your genetics can cause a lot of problems and lead to many abuses. It's wonderful to love and invest in and journey with your family. But that should be done not out of a sense of obligation or culture, but because (in your specific case) doing so enriches your life. When it doesn't, don't. If that's ME culture, I think it makes sense. I'd describe it more as healthy than selfish.

I have to point out for the sake of clarification, I didn't use the word "selfish". I also have to point out that I'm just describing the situation as I see it in my personal experience, not imputing any negative or positive reasoning to it.

 

[TexRex]

I have to point out for the sake of clarification, I didn't use the word "selfish". I also have to point out that I'm just describing the situation as I see it in my personal experience, not imputing any negative or positive reasoning to it.

You used to (20 minutes ago) speak your mind, Johnny, not caring about what others say and living your life on your terms. Now people have you clarifying and qualifying what you say to ensure nobody gets offended.

This saddens me.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You used to (20 minutes ago) speak your mind, Johnny, not caring about what others say and living your life on your terms. Now people have you clarifying and qualifying what you say to ensure nobody gets offended.

This saddens me.

Why do you assume I do it to ensure nobody gets offended?

 

[Dotini]

/

 

[Johnnypenso]

/

Who is the lead guitarist for Guns N' Roses?

 

[Imari]

The cure for this case is...

Not forcing people to do something that they don't want. The world population might dip, but the human race won't die out because some people choose to have less children.

I suspect that given enough time that'll change as well and we'll all be living apart from each other making our obligatory Christmas and other holiday visits while staying the hell out of each other's lives.

Is that because of this "me" culture, or because the general standard of raising a child by western standards is so poor that actually a lot of children can't wait to get away from their parents and stay away? Modern people don't seem to have any problem living with and regularly socialising with people they like. They just don't feel any compulsion to do it with arseholes just because they happen to share some genetics. Which seems like a healthy and rational thing and an expected result of the decline of authoritarianism within families.

I remember when I was a kid my father would go and visit his father every couple of weeks (they lived in different cities) only to argue all weekend. They kept this up for years. In my adulthood I have chosen the simpler option of not buying into my father's BS. He's an arrogant bully of a man, and so I simply don't have contact with him any more. I won't knowingly walk into a situation where I'll be belittled and abused any more than I'll walk in front of a bus.

What if non-native Canadian families simply treat each other with more respect than Canadian families, and are thus able to get along? Could they be better at creating family units than native Canadians?

 

[TexRex]

I remember when I was a kid my father would go and visit his father every couple of weeks (they lived in different cities) only to argue all weekend. They kept this up for years. In my adulthood I have chosen the simpler option of not buying into my father's BS. He's an arrogant bully of a man, and so I simply don't have contact with him any more. I won't knowingly walk into a situation where I'll be belittled and abused any more than I'll walk in front of a bus.

Just out of curiosity, because of your remarks about your father and the fact that he didn't get on well with his, did/do you have any kind of relationship with your grandfather?

 

[Imari]

Just out of curiosity, because of your remarks about your father and the fact that he didn't get on well with his, did/do you have any kind of relationship with your grandfather?

I got on with him well enough, but he died when I was still pretty young, like maybe 11 at the oldest? I'd say too young to have really gotten the full measure of his personality, as far as I know to him my brother and I could have been just kids that came around sometimes.

 

[stonesfan129]

I am against abortion except in those extreme cases mentioned where a birth would kill the mother or in cases of rape or incest. Contraceptives are okay in my book. And that's probably where I differ from the Catholic Church's view which has always held that you should abstain until marriage and that abortion is never acceptable.

 

[BobK]

I am against abortion except in those extreme cases mentioned where a birth would kill the mother or in cases of rape or incest. Contraceptives are okay in my book. And that's probably where I differ from the Catholic Church's view which has always held that you should abstain until marriage and that abortion is never acceptable.

Why the exception for rape or incest? If it's bad to kill an innocent child (which I believe is the fundamental rationale) then surely how the child came to be conceived or just who its parents are shouldn't matter. Seems to me it's either bad or it isn't.

 

[Imari]

Why the exception for rape or incest?

One could also ask why the exception for danger to the mother in birth. If birth would kill the mother and abortion would kill the child, surely God has made his will clear by allowing the mother to get pregnant. Surely better that God takes whichever life he chooses than any human commits sin by killing one of them.

 

[baldgye]

One could also ask why the exception for danger to the mother in birth. If birth would kill the mother and abortion would kill the child, surely God has made his will clear by allowing the mother to get pregnant. Surely better that God takes whichever life he chooses than any human commits sin by killing one of them.

To be fair, I’m not sure his post was designed as a point of conversation, or the initiation of debate...

 

[Imari]

To be fair, I’m not sure his post was designed as a point of conversation, or the initiation of debate...

Almost certainly when one's point can be summed up by "I differ from the Catholic Church only on a few things".

==========

Unrelated to the above, I found out to my surprise that New Zealand has surprisingly restrictive abortion law.

Abortion in New Zealand is legal in cases where the pregnant woman faces a danger to her life, physical or mental health, or if there is a risk of the fetus being handicapped in the event of the continuation of her pregnancy. In cases not protected by these grounds, performing an abortion on a woman or girl is a crime in New Zealand under the Crimes Act 1961.

I was surprised because Australian and New Zealand law usually have a lot in common, and Australia is very permissive. It depends a little on state, but generally if you want an abortion before a certain stage in the pregnancy then you get it, no questions asked.

It would seem however that New Zealand doctors are being smart and broadly applying the definition of "danger to mental health", and thereby essentially allowing abortions on demand. Which I like, and which is also probably accurate. It has to be pretty damaging to your mental health to be forced to carry and care for an unwanted baby.

 

[BobK]

One could also ask why the exception for danger to the mother in birth. If birth would kill the mother and abortion would kill the child, surely God has made his will clear by allowing the mother to get pregnant. Surely better that God takes whichever life he chooses than any human commits sin by killing one of them.

I hadn't considered that but that's also a valid point if one's objection to abortion is based on religious considerations.

To be fair, I’m not sure his post was designed as a point of conversation, or the initiation of debate...

I assure you that my post (if that's what you are referring to) was intended to stimulate a conversation, or at least elicit rational answers. If your post was in fact in reference to mine then I have to wonder why you might think it was not, and would appreciate it if you would accommodate me with an explanation.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Richmond council, and a further 8 are considering copying Ealing council's move to put up buffer zones outside abortion clinics:

https://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/new...nd-council-considers-copying-ealings-15318218

 

[Danoff]

I don't know if all of you are aware, but there is an awesome birth control method via an IUD that changes uterine lining to prevent implantation. The awesome part about it for women is that it eliminates periods. No need to take a pill, no need to remember anything, no more periods.

http://americanpregnancy.org/preventing-pregnancy/intrauterine-devices/

So basically it makes the uterus impossible for a fertilized embryo to implant itself in and grow. So with this birth control method, conception can occur, basically every month it's possible. A sperm and an egg meet, cells begin dividing, the embryo is developing, implantation fails, embryo stops growing.

For some of you, I imagine this amounts to killing a child every single month.

 

[ryzno]

I don't know if all of you are aware, but there is an awesome birth control method via an IUD that changes uterine lining to prevent implantation. The awesome part about it for women is that it eliminates periods. No need to take a pill, no need to remember anything, no more periods.

http://americanpregnancy.org/preventing-pregnancy/intrauterine-devices/

So basically it makes the uterus impossible for a fertilized embryo to implant itself in and grow. So with this birth control method, conception can occur, basically every month it's possible. A sperm and an egg meet, cells begin dividing, the embryo is developing, implantation fails, embryo stops growing.

For some of you, I imagine this amounts to killing a child every single month.

Aren't there future complications from not having periods?
I could've sworn it causes some kinda ovarian issues.

 

[huskeR32]

Aren't there future complications from not having periods?

You might be thinking of the rare (but potentially significant) problems some users of birth control pills experience. The issues stem from the amount of estrogen those pills put into the user's body. An IUD, because of its placement and copper content, does not need to release as much estrogen, and releases it slowly and continually, rather than in large daily doses, so many of those risks are mitigated.

(At least, this is how it's been explained to me by several partners. It's possible they dumbed it down for me a bit )

I could've sworn it causes some kinda ovarian issues.

I wouldn't think it would have any effect on the ovaries at all, as they still release eggs on their normal cycle. But because the uterus is not receptive to implantation, the eggs just exit the body.

 

[Danoff]

the eggs just exit the body.

...possibly as fertilized embryos.

 

[Biggles]

Aren't there future complications from not having periods?
I could've sworn it causes some kinda ovarian issues.

I have a feeling that this is an area where GTPlanet members, so expert at offering answers on a wide variety of topics, are ill-equipped to provide an informed opinion.

 

[Mrs. Famine]

I've been a member of GTPlanet for well over 10 years now. I am an anatomically correct female and I also hold two degrees, one in nursing and one in teaching.

What would you like to know?

I have a feeling that this is an area where GTPlanet members, so expert at offering answers on a wide variety of topics, are ill-equipped to provide an informed opinion.