abortion

[Mort Belfry]

I don't have a problem with abortions, but I don't think that these abortion clinics should be allowed to just do one for anybody.

I think the exact opposite. I don't think just anybody should be allowed to be parents.

 

[Ivy]

As much as I'd like to prevent Idiocracy from becoming reality, I get nervous when people talk about putting restrictions on who can become parents. Whose standards do we use? I think I'm a halfway decent parent but we didn't have health insurance or permanent jobs when we became pregnant with our first child, and we were in a temporary living arrangement (spending a year in an NYC sublet). If poverty were part of the standard I'm sure we wouldn't have been allowed to breed. And then the world would have been deprived of my precious snowflake who is perfect in every way.

 

[Totenkindly]

... I still maintain that life is not valuable without sentience.

So what's your cutoff level for sentience?

Would a child suffering from Down's Syndrome be viewed as sentient?
Would someone in a coma for years fit?
What if they're actually sentient but just can't communicate due to a stroke? So we wouldn't really KNOW?

What about your dog, if it's really smart and "seems" sentient?

What if it's just a really stupid person who can't really contribute much to society? (Can we do medical experiments on them, since they're not really that sentient?)

Can human life has value even if it doesn't come across as sentient? What about parents of children like mentioned above? Can there still be a relationship, and can they impact their parents' lives positively if they are not "sentient" in the sense many would hope? Are they less human?

You see how complicated this all gets, I hope.

If every human being was killed before they were born, the world would be a fantastic place to live.

I've also heard that change for a better world always starts with oneself.

...Why can't they just have the choice?

Cause, um, you're murderin' babies! Ya wouldn't let mom smother her baby at 3 months even tho it's hers and thus her choice... why let her do it earlier?

(Note: This is not necessarily my pov, I'm just making the argument because it needs to be said.)

...I think the right is abused way too often as a type of "birth control", if you will. So my idea should be to regulate it more. I think those who should want an abortion must take it before a judge and get a license or something that allows them to have one.

Does anyone have specific stats addressing this particular issue?

It's a commonly thrown around idea ("abortion as birth control"), and one that causes people to be indignant (rightfully, imo)... but I just wonder what the actual STATS are. Is this scenario indicative of the average abortion, and what's the percentage of it, compared to "abortion due to rape" or some other cause?

(Obviously the numbers won't totally reflect reality because of the nature of the topic, people might not be inclined to be honest about the topic... but it's a start.)

As far as taking it before a judge... good grief. Judges can't process the cases they have now. We'd need a whole new profession as "rubber-stamp abortion judges" or something. And how many judges have the emotional endurance to survive day in and day out of dealing with that junk?

 

[Owl]

I think the exact opposite. I don't think just anybody should be allowed to be parents.

As much as I'd like to prevent Idiocracy from becoming reality, I get nervous when people talk about putting restrictions on who can become parents. Whose standards do we use? I think I'm a halfway decent parent but we didn't have health insurance or permanent jobs when we became pregnant with our first child, and we were in a temporary living arrangement (spending a year in NYC). If poverty were part of the standard I'm sure we wouldn't have been allowed to breed. And then the world would have been deprived of my precious snowflake who is perfect in every way.

I find it odd that--in the U.S., if not eslewhere--persons need a lisence to get married but don't need one to have kids.

If felons can't be trusted to vote well, (such that we don't allow them to vote), how can they be trusted to raise children?

 

[Ivy]

I find it odd that--in the U.S., if not eslewhere--persons need a lisence to get married but don't need one to have kids.

If felons can't be trusted to vote, how can they be trusted to raise children?

Saying you need a license to get married is misleading- you don't actually have to meet that many meaningful standards. You just have to be old enough, not retarded, not related, and pay the fee. Some states require a blood test but I don't think they actually do anything with the results- it's just so your partner is aware of anything you might be bringing to the table.

And the difference between voting and reproducing is the difference between public and private. Honestly, how do you suggest we enforce that? Getting pregnant is an intimate biological process that happens INSIDE a human body. You seriously want to regulate that? If not, do you think mandating abortions or taking newborns away from mothers is the answer?

 

[booyalab]

I don't want to get into a whole big thing, but the basis of all pro-choice thought is that a fetus is part of the woman's body, not a sentinent being itself. Hence, "Keep the government out of my body" and the like.

If this is true, then why does a murderer face two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman? This has aggravated me forever, yet it never seems to be a part of the abortion debate.

The political agenda behind pro-choice (or any viewpoint) isn't necessarily the same as the stated basis of reasoning by it's proponents. Since feminism is the basis of the former, the logical inconsistency between abortion and a murderer facing two counts for killing a pregnant woman is not much of a consideration because pointing it out does not advance feminist goals.

 

[Owl]

Saying you need a license to get married is misleading- you don't actually have to meet that many meaningful standards. You just have to be old enough, not retarded, not related, and pay the fee. Some states require a blood test but I don't think they actually do anything with the results- it's just so your partner is aware of anything you might be bringing to the table.

The rules are lax, (too lax IMO), but they have some teeth. E.g., why is there an age requirement?

And the difference between voting and reproducing is the difference between public and private. Honestly, how do you suggest we enforce that? Getting pregnant is an intimate biological process that happens INSIDE a human body. You seriously want to regulate that? If not, do you think mandating abortions or taking newborns away from mothers is the answer?

The act of getting pregnant is (usually) private. (Thank God.) But having a child affects the public--and to a much greater degree than voting.

I'm not sure I want it regulated. But C.P.S. already takes children away from bad parents, and newborns are taken away from mothers who give birth in prison.

 

[Ivy]

The rules are lax, (too lax IMO), but they have some teeth. E.g., why is there an age requirement?

The act of getting pregnant is (usually) private. (Thank God.) But having a child affects the public--and to a much greater degree than voting.

I'm not sure I want it regulated. But C.P.S. already takes children away from bad parents, and newborns are taken away from mothers who give birth in prison.

CPS takes children away when they are in clear and present danger, but it seems like what you're proposing would extend that power to greyer areas of parenting the "right" way. As someone who parents outside of the mainstream in several ways this gives me pause.

 

[Owl]

CPS takes children away when they are in clear and present danger, but it seems like what you're proposing would extend that power to greyer areas of parenting the "right" way. As someone who parents outside of the mainstream in several ways this gives me pause.

If a child is in clear and present danger, that is a good indicator that the child is not being raised the "right" way. Is it possible to know if the definition of "clear and present danger" extends beyond the current definition used by CPS?

There may also be a pertinent distinction between allowing a couple to bring a child into the world, and allowing a couple to keep a child once they have been allowed to bring that child into world.

Thoughts?

 

[Mempy]

this gives me pause.

And me, too.

Cause, um, you're murderin' babies! Ya wouldn't let mom smother her baby at 3 months even tho it's hers and thus her choice... why let her do it earlier?

(Note: This is not necessarily my pov, I'm just making the argument because it needs to be said.)

It did need to be said.

 

[Mempy]

If a child is in clear and present danger, that is a good indicator that the child is not being raised the "right" way. Is it possible to know if the definition of "clear and present danger" extends beyond the current definition used by CPS?

There may also be a pertinent distinction between allowing a couple to bring a child into the world, and allowing a couple to keep a child once they have been allowed to bring that child into world.

Thoughts?

I think what Ivy is bringing up is entirely valid: she says she had her first child when neither she nor her husband had insurance, and she gives the statement that she was relatively poor at the time. Is that clear and present danger? It is a question of proximity and degree: HOW poor, HOW bad-off, etc. There's a lot of gray area even when trying to define "clear and present danger," but I think what Ivy wants to prevent is a highly ambiguous standard that could prevent people from having children (or keeping them after they're already conceived) even in absence of identifiable danger. Furthermore, if a court had ruled she and her husband afforded "clear and present danger" for a newborn child, based on their financial circumstances at the time, she wouldn't have her first born today. I agree with her that the less gray area, the better, and that parents, if possible, should be given the benefit of the doubt. If the government is worried that a particular atmosphere and environment is dangerous to a child, but isn't able to call it "clear and present danger," the best they can do, I suppose, is have a regular case worker come in and evaluate the situation with a practical and unbiased eye. Another helpful thing to do would be to afford that family money, food stamps and practical items to make sure they're not going to dip below sustenance level.

 

[Mempy]

I wiki'd what Child Protection Services looks most critically at, and this is what I found.

Each state must also have statutes that provide more detailed definitions of what child maltreatment means, for instance, defining terms such as:

[1] abuse, which might include:

• physical abuse
• sexual abuse
• emotional abuse (not recognized by all states)

[2] neglect, which might include:

• lack of supervision
• failure to provide necessary medical or remedial care
• inappropriate discipline
• exposure to domestic violence
• exposure to parental substance abuse

[3] alleged perpetrator, which might include:

• parents
• other relatives
• other in-home adults
• guardians, custodians, caregiver/caretaker
• daycare staff (not all states)
• residential treatment (e.g., group home) staff (not all states)

So it does vary from state to state. Do you think that that about covers it, Owl, or are you unsatisfied with how CPS seems to run things? Here's the wiki page I looked at, by the way: Child Protective Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mempy]

Another point I have to make is this: what happens in cases of severe depressions, droughts and wars? What if the government had told people not to have children during the Cold War because there was an external enemy posing a "clear and present, catastrophic danger" to the US? Is it fair to deny otherwise capable adults from having children in times of need and desperation? I'd say it's not recommended to bring a child into a world where circumstances look insurmountable, but you have to admit there's a HECK of a lot of gray area. People who aren't well-off today may be better off a few months from now. People who don't give their children the best structure or discipline can reform their ways and start doing a better job. It's not cut-and-dry. I think the best way to handle it is generally how CPS seems to handle it now: if there seems to be danger that isn't quite "clear and present," the family environment will be checked in upon now and then until the danger passes. It's certainly not perfect, and there are mistakes made daily, I'm sure.

I remember the poignant scene in Mrs. Doubtfire, when, right after he's caught impersonating an old female maid, he goes before the same judge that first ruled that full custody rights would be given to the mother. The first time, the reason was because he had no job and no residence. The second time, it was because the judge thought that he had psychological problems and presented a danger to the children. It was obvious to the viewers that he posed no harm to them and that he'd only gone to such preposterous lengths (impersonating a woman for months) because his children were like oxygen to him (nevermind even I might think that behavior was a bit nuts if a real person had done it). I just remember how horrible that scene made me feel for him. There are parents out there who are really trying, who love their children, and, if they had the means, would provide for their children as well as anyone else. When is an environment just too dangerous for a child to be put in? It seems so subjective, even with the "clear and present danger" clause.

Edit: In hindsite, I am getting SO FREAKING off-topic! Sorry!

 

[Owl]

I think what Ivy is bringing up is entirely valid: she says she had her first child when neither she nor her husband had insurance, and she gives the statement that she was relatively poor at the time. Is that clear and present danger? It is a question of proximity and degree: HOW poor, HOW bad-off, etc. There's a lot of gray area even when trying to define "clear and present danger," but I think what Ivy wants to prevent is a highly ambiguous standard that could prevent people from having children (or keeping them after they're already conceived) even in absence of identifiable danger. Furthermore, if a court had ruled she and her husband afforded "clear and present danger" for a newborn child, based on their financial circumstances at the time, she wouldn't have her first born today. I agree with her that the less gray area, the better, and that parents, if possible, should be given the benefit of the doubt. If the government is worried that a particular atmosphere and environment is dangerous to a child, but isn't able to call it "clear and present danger," the best they can do, I suppose, is have a regular case worker come in and evaluate the situation with a practical and unbiased eye. Another helpful thing to do would be to afford that family money, food stamps and practical items to make sure they're not going to dip below sustenance level.

I wasn't even thinking about sustenance levels; a couple's ability to merely sustain a child physically has very little to do with the good of the child and the good of the community. Physical life without spiritual life is worthless.

I wiki'd what Child Protection Services looks most critically at, and this is what I found.

[...]

So it does vary from state to state. Do you think that that about covers it, Owl, or are you unsatisfied with how CPS seems to run things? Here's the wiki page I looked at, by the way: Child Protective Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm unsatisfied with a lot of things. I'm glad CPS exists, but making CPS better would require making the institutions that support CPS better. Treating the symptoms without treating the disease wouldn't help.

 

[Kiddo]

I'm not sure I want it regulated. But C.P.S. already takes children away from bad parents, and newborns are taken away from mothers who give birth in prison.

Whoa, I think you are mistakenly misrepresenting that. CPS is obligated to do whatever it can to maintain the family. They very seldom ever permanently take away children. Usually CPS first helps families get supportive services (daycare, respite care, counseling) and if the child is in perceived danger they will utilize a combination of supportive services with temporary substitutive care (foster homes, kinship care, groups homes) until the parent or parents can provide sufficient care. Only in cases of extensive and/or persistent abuse and neglect would CPS ever seek long term substitutive care for children (Resident programs, Adoption). It is far more cost effective, as well as ethical, for CPS to do what it can to keep the family together. Of course there are social workers out there who don't follow the NASW code of ethics and ignore ideas like "informed consent." Some new mothers in prison aren't even informed that they don't have to give up their child for permanent adoption, and are more or less tricked into doing it.

 

[Ivy]

I wasn't even thinking about sustenance levels; a couple's ability to merely sustain a child physically has very little to do with the good of the child and the good of the community. Physical life without spiritual life is worthless.

I'm unsatisfied with a lot of things. I'm glad CPS exists, but making CPS better would require making the institutions that support CPS better. Treating the symptoms without treating the disease wouldn't help.

Let's take this out of the abstract. Specifically, what would you like CPS to require of parents that it isn't requiring now? What kind of requirements for providing a "spiritual life" to one's children would you prescribe?

 

[Owl]

Another point I have to make is this: what happens in cases of severe depressions, droughts and wars? What if the government had told people not to have children during the Cold War because there was an external enemy posing a "clear and present, catastrophic danger" to the US? Is it fair to deny otherwise capable adults from having children in times of need and desperation? I'd say it's not recommended to bring a child into a world where circumstances look insurmountable, but you have to admit there's a HECK of a lot of gray area. People who aren't well-off today may be better off a few months from now. People who don't give their children the best structure or discipline can reform their ways and start doing a better job. It's not cut-and-dry. I think the best way to handle it is generally how CPS seems to handle it now: if there seems to be danger that isn't quite "clear and present," the family environment will be checked in upon now and then until the danger passes. It's certainly not perfect, and there are mistakes made daily, I'm sure.

I remember the poignant scene in Mrs. Doubtfire, when, right after he's caught impersonating an old female maid, he goes before the same judge that first ruled that full custody rights would be given to the mother. The first time, the reason was because he had no job and no residence. The second time, it was because the judge thought that he had psychological problems and presented a danger to the children. It was obvious to the viewers that he posed no harm to them and that he'd only gone to such preposterous lengths (impersonating a woman for months) because his children were like oxygen to him (nevermind even I might think that behavior was a bit nuts if a real person had done it). I just remember how horrible that scene made me feel for him. There are parents out there who are really trying, who love their children, and, if they had the means, would provide for their children as well as anyone else. When is an environment just too dangerous for a child to be put in? It seems so subjective, even with the "clear and present danger" clause.

Edit: In hindsite, I am getting SO FREAKING off-topic! Sorry!

The mods can move these posts if they feel it is necessary. But I think that these issues are more basic to the problem of abortion and need to be discussed if abortion is to be addressed meaningfully.

Nightmare scenarios of the government forbidding procreation for whatever reason can be imagined. This is horrible; it does happen, and it's happening today. It even happens through genocide.

What have we to fear? Even if we were kept from having children, by whatever means, would that keep us from doing good if we wanted to?

 

[Owl]

Whoa, I think you are mistakenly misrepresenting that. CPS is obligated to do whatever it can to maintain the family. They very seldom ever permanently take away children. Usually CPS first helps families get supportive services (daycare, respite care, counseling) and if the child is in perceived danger they will utilize a combination of supportive services with temporary substitutive care (foster homes, kinship care, groups homes) until the parent or parents can provide sufficient care. Only in cases of extensive and/or persistent abuse and neglect would CPS ever seek long term substitutive care for children (Resident programs, Adoption). It is far more cost effective, as well as ethical, for CPS to do what it can to keep the family together. Of course there are social workers out there who don't follow the NASW code of ethics and ignore ideas like "informed consent." Some new mothers in prison aren't even informed that they don't have to give up their child for permanent adoption, and are more or less tricked into doing it.

Hey Kiddo :hi:! It's been a while. I hope you're well.

I don't disagree. This is why I'm contemplating whether or not there is a relevant difference between allowing a couple to procreate in the first place and taking their children away after they have been permitted to have children. (And if there were a law against having children w/o the permission of the state, that does not mean the children ought to be removed immediately after they are born.)

Let's take this out of the abstract. Specifically, what would you like CPS to require of parents that it isn't requiring now? What kind of requirements for providing a "spiritual life" to one's children would you prescribe?

Well, for starters, I'd require a much better education be provided for every child. 32-40 students per teacher is absurd. I'd like to see no more than 16 students per teacher. I think any parent that is satisfied with the public education system in the U.S. does not know what the "right" way to raise a child is.

What are parents teaching their children, anyway? Is it permissible to teach your children anything? Would we allow a private school to teach Nazism? What about universal naturalism?

 

[Ivy]

Well, for starters, I'd require a much better education be provided for every child. 32-40 students per teacher is absurd. I'd like to see no more than 16 students per teacher. I think any parent that is satisfied with the public education system in the U.S. does not know what the "right" way to raise a child is.

What are parents teaching their children, anyway? Is it permissible to teach your children anything? Would we allow a private school to teach Nazism? What about universal naturalism?

Well, right on to the first part, and that's why we picked a public school with a class size cap of 14 and a teaching philosophy with which we agree. Not everyone has that option, though, and not everyone is able to homeschool, whether for logistical or temperamental reasons.

I don't know what the laws are on what private schools can teach, but I don't think I'm in favor of restricting it further. I think Waldorf schools are a little (okay, a lot) nutty in some of the things they teach, but I would never in a million years want to make it illegal to choose Waldorf education. Maybe one reason I'm okay with it is that I don't believe kids are little buckets that just fill up with whatever beliefs and knowledge you give them- they're fully capable of rejecting what they're given as they grow into adulthood. Hence the number of ex-Christians on these forums.

 

[Kiddo]

Hey Kiddo :hi:! It's been a while. I hope you're well.

:hi:

I don't disagree. This is why I'm contemplating whether or not there is a relevant difference between allowing a couple to procreate in the first place and taking their children away after they have been permitted to have children. (And if there were a law against having children w/o the permission of the state, that does not mean the children ought to be removed immediately after they are born.)

There is a huge difference between taking kids away from those who have consistently and/or extensively demonstrated that they cannot be good parents and restricting people who have never had kids from having them. The way you are approaching the issue reminds me of the Shadow Children books I read growing up.

Well, for starters, I'd require a much better education be provided for every child. 32-40 students per teacher is absurd. I'd like to see no more than 16 students per teacher. I think any parent that is satisfied with the public education system in the U.S. does not know what the "right" way to raise a child is.

And who is going to pay for all this?

What are parents teaching their children, anyway? Is it permissible to teach your children anything? Would we allow a private school to teach Nazism? What about universal naturalism?

Economic restraints keep most parents from spending time with their kids, let alone teaching them anything. You gotta work to eat.