Ah, I see we have entirely missed the point. kadath is saying precisely this. In both cases, there is a condition that can be corrected by medical intervention; the intervention has its own stresses, risks, and potential complications, but the existence and availability of said procedure is nonetheless infinitely preferable to the alternative.
And anonymous posting is for cowards. Own your words. Unless LJ randomly logged you off, because it does that.
This is why I remain torn about abortion. I suppose it's the "lesser of two evils". Better is not getting pregnant in the first place. I may be a conservative Christian, but I'll make sure my kids know how to use a condom, just in case they ever need it.
Well, obviously that's a stupid and wrong thing to do. I understand the motivations behind shooting abortion doctors (these people usually view them as mass murderers), but it's still stupid and criminal.
See above. "Open Heart Surgery" is also the lesser of two evils, but I'm pretty damned opposed to people who view gluttony as a sin trying to get it banned.
I'll make sure my kids know how to use a condom
And the pill. And how to shop for other alternatives. And how to shop for a partner. And to check for STDs between partners. And, and, and.... That's the biggest problem with conservatism these days. You can't prohibit the passing of information and the natural consequences of ignorance and call yourself anything other than a big fat Asshole.
Pill and other methods of hormonal BC only cover one piece of the issue, and are only for women. It's useful for a host of other reasons, anyway, if my daughters have menstrual symptoms anything like my own.
"shop for a partner"? You're referring to things that I don't know about. My experiences are the product of the kind of ignorance you're talking about.
I've talked with nightskyre about it - my biggest concern is that my kids will feel like it's abstinence-or-nothing - so if you start having sex, you're already doomed, why stop? I do know, from experience, that once you've started having sex, it is extremely hard to pull back into the abstinence mindset. Abstinence would be preferable, but I'm not going to trust my kids to have more willpower than either of their parents did. I want to make sure they understand more of the non-tangible consequences of being sexually active, though - not just STDs and pregnancy, but how it changes emotions, relationships, and attitudes. Not sure how well I'll be able to communicate that, but I'll try.
Mostly, I've determined not to be like my parents, who, even after they realized I was having sex, did not talk to me about the risks I was facing (they were pretty distracted by early divorce proceedings at the time, so I'll cut them a little slack). I got the bare-bones sex talk from them when I was 11 (and in my first sex-ed class - thankfully at a Christian school, because I literally did not KNOW what the physical act of sex was)... and after that, the only times either has mentioned sex is when talking about their respective extra-marital affairs.
Also, even though Jesus basically said that all sins are equally bad (in the eyes of God), we as humans are prone to viewing certain actions as "worse" than others. (Most) Christians view abortion as murder, and, as such, is "worse" than sins that merely affect yourself (gluttony), or have more minor consequences (lying).
I guess the conclusion of whether the doctor's telling is a touching example of saving lives, an attempt at rationalization for taking them, or somewhere in between depends on which values one uses in their thinking. That is to say: 1. How much is a fetal human "worth" compared to a born human; 2. What are the odds of death involved for the parties in the situation; 3. How much is quality of life worth compared to life?
While we probably could not seriously find an objective and true value for the above, perhaps (BIG perhaps) if we as a society could at least talk about it in these cold terms, we could be able to sit down and really hash out mutually agreeable and beneficial solutions (ex. all sides could express support & provide funding for programs that would increase post-natal quality of life instead of being afraid that any collaboration would be a "concession" to "the other side"). As it stands, our politicians and lobbyists will probably continue to create villains & heroes, thereby mobilizing & polarizing voters while doing nothing to actually better the situation for anyone involved.
1. Not very if you have heath insurance or an adopter lined up to pay your bills. Way too costly if you're alone and one of the working poor for whom insurance is a pipe dream and you have to pick and choose which bills to pay late based on how close each one is to the collections office. Maybe food stamps, WIC, welfare can help out here. 2. See 1. 3. If you want to hand the baby over to THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, or any number of private agencies, I think you can get a pretty decent amount of money to pay for care, assuming you are young, healthy, don't have any genetic disorders and are white. Also assuming that the baby turns out healthy, free of birth defects and white. Even if you did this, it's assuming that you can keep your job during pregnancy, (which, for me anyway, would not be an option-some of the chemicals I handle are mutagenic and teratogenic, so I'd be just as compassionate to have an abortion, rather than a stillbirth some months later...) or find a comparable job before you get visibly pregnant and people stop considering you once they lay eyes on you.
Agreed that the questions you list are important. What I would add is that if the nation could reach some point of consensus on what responses to the previous moral questions of worth mean, then, as a society, we would be in a much better position to collaborate on managing the economic cost, such as those you list.
In other words, if enough people agreed that it is unacceptable to have millions of people continually suffer from a lack of social justice that leads the fear of violence, economic ruin, etc., to trump the rights of life, liberty, etc., (creating a situation akin to Sophie's Choice), then the subsequent resources allocated could benefit all those involved, with much less division or animosity than is usually found.
1. Pregnancy cost - can be almost nothing (additional food & clothing, minimal doctor's visits WITH good insurance) up to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars (high risk pregnancies, needing to take long unpaid leave, etc.)
2. Rearing an unwanted child - depends on how "unwanted". If the kid is bounced around the system for a couple of years (ie. totally unwanted), the cost skyrockets, because they will have learned bad habits from their parents and foster parents, and may need constant supervision to prevent them from hurting themselves or others. On the flip side, private agency adoption is really expensive, so a lot of couples who WANT to adopt can't afford that route and are scared by the risks posed by the foster care system.
3. Giving a child up for adoption - can vary from "adoptive parents pay YOU" to the normal costs of pregnancy & birth; not to mention emotional costs.
(I really wish I could edit posts, but not enough to spend money)
Thirdly, per the analysis in Freakonomics, those who are aborted due to the economic circumstances of their parents would, previously, have grown up to disproportionately become violent criminals. Consequently, the legalization of abortion in the United States was responsible for a remarkable decline in crime when those legally aborted children failed to reach maturity.
Man, I loved Freakonomics! Anyway, while said book did state that legalized abortion certainly reduced crime, it also stated that it is an extremely inefficient way to do so (even without considering moral issues):
[1% of the 1.5 million fetuses aborted/year in the U.S.] is far more than the number of homicides eliminated each year due to legalized abortion. So even for someone who considers a fetus to be worth only one one-hundredth of a human being, the trade-off between higher abortion and lower crime is, by an economist's reckoning, terribly inefficient." - p.144
So I think it would still depend on how one does the calculus.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Feh!
Date: 2008-02-04 05:37 pm (UTC)Heart disease is not a good thing, but open heart surgery is.
Unwanted pregnancy is not a good thing, but abortions are.
Re: Feh!
Date: 2008-02-04 05:40 pm (UTC)Re: Feh!
Date: 2008-02-04 06:06 pm (UTC)Re: Feh!
Date: 2008-02-04 07:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-04 07:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-04 08:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:I like you, so I won't kill you with my mind powers.
From:Re: Feh!
Date: 2008-02-04 07:59 pm (UTC)Re: Feh!
Date: 2008-02-04 08:39 pm (UTC)And anonymous posting is for cowards. Own your words. Unless LJ randomly logged you off, because it does that.
Re: Feh!
From:Re: Feh!
From:Re: Unless
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-04 05:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-04 06:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-04 06:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:Careful, now
From:Re: Careful, now
From:Re: Careful, now
From:Re: Careful, now
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-04 06:09 pm (UTC)I'll make sure my kids know how to use a condom
And the pill. And how to shop for other alternatives. And how to shop for a partner. And to check for STDs between partners. And, and, and.... That's the biggest problem with conservatism these days. You can't prohibit the passing of information and the natural consequences of ignorance and call yourself anything other than a big fat Asshole.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-04 06:43 pm (UTC)"shop for a partner"? You're referring to things that I don't know about. My experiences are the product of the kind of ignorance you're talking about.
I've talked with
Mostly, I've determined not to be like my parents, who, even after they realized I was having sex, did not talk to me about the risks I was facing (they were pretty distracted by early divorce proceedings at the time, so I'll cut them a little slack). I got the bare-bones sex talk from them when I was 11 (and in my first sex-ed class - thankfully at a Christian school, because I literally did not KNOW what the physical act of sex was)... and after that, the only times either has mentioned sex is when talking about their respective extra-marital affairs.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:see, that's the problem
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-04 06:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Fetal Calculus
Date: 2008-02-04 09:35 pm (UTC)That is to say:
1. How much is a fetal human "worth" compared to a born human;
2. What are the odds of death involved for the parties in the situation;
3. How much is quality of life worth compared to life?
While we probably could not seriously find an objective and true value for the above, perhaps (BIG perhaps) if we as a society could at least talk about it in these cold terms, we could be able to sit down and really hash out mutually agreeable and beneficial solutions (ex. all sides could express support & provide funding for programs that would increase post-natal quality of life instead of being afraid that any collaboration would be a "concession" to "the other side"). As it stands, our politicians and lobbyists will probably continue to create villains & heroes, thereby mobilizing & polarizing voters while doing nothing to actually better the situation for anyone involved.
The real issues
Date: 2008-02-04 09:40 pm (UTC)2. How costly is rearing an unwanted child?
3. How costly is giving a child up for adoption?
Purely talking about "cost" in terms of money,
Date: 2008-02-04 10:07 pm (UTC)2. See 1.
3. If you want to hand the baby over to THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, or any number of private agencies, I think you can get a pretty decent amount of money to pay for care, assuming you are young, healthy, don't have any genetic disorders and are white. Also assuming that the baby turns out healthy, free of birth defects and white. Even if you did this, it's assuming that you can keep your job during pregnancy, (which, for me anyway, would not be an option-some of the chemicals I handle are mutagenic and teratogenic, so I'd be just as compassionate to have an abortion, rather than a stillbirth some months later...) or find a comparable job before you get visibly pregnant and people stop considering you once they lay eyes on you.
Re: Purely talking about "cost" in terms of money,
From:Re: Purely talking about "cost" in terms of money,
From:re: 3
From:Re: Careful, now
From:Re: Careful, now
From:Re: The real issues
Date: 2008-02-04 11:25 pm (UTC)Very costly.
Worth vs. Cost
Date: 2008-02-05 12:34 am (UTC)In other words, if enough people agreed that it is unacceptable to have millions of people continually suffer from a lack of social justice that leads the fear of violence, economic ruin, etc., to trump the rights of life, liberty, etc., (creating a situation akin to Sophie's Choice), then the subsequent resources allocated could benefit all those involved, with much less division or animosity than is usually found.
Re: The real issues
Date: 2008-02-05 01:06 pm (UTC)2. Rearing an unwanted child - depends on how "unwanted". If the kid is bounced around the system for a couple of years (ie. totally unwanted), the cost skyrockets, because they will have learned bad habits from their parents and foster parents, and may need constant supervision to prevent them from hurting themselves or others. On the flip side, private agency adoption is really expensive, so a lot of couples who WANT to adopt can't afford that route and are scared by the risks posed by the foster care system.
3. Giving a child up for adoption - can vary from "adoptive parents pay YOU" to the normal costs of pregnancy & birth; not to mention emotional costs.
Re: Fetal Calculus
Date: 2008-02-04 11:18 pm (UTC)Party X is shooting Party Y. Party Y is not shooting Party X. Party Y claims to be against murder.
I only need to listen to X... or start shooting Y.
Re: Fetal Calculus
Date: 2008-02-04 11:22 pm (UTC)Re: Fetal Calculus
Date: 2008-02-05 12:52 am (UTC)Cartoon or poet, I guess the only rebuttal one can offer is to say that they're glad their parents were mean enough to not be as kind as Homer.
Re: Fetal Calculus
From:Re: Fetal Calculus
From:Re: Fetal Calculus
From:Re: Moral Agency
From:Re: Agency in the Story
From:Re: Agency in the Story
From:Re: Agency in the Story
From:Re: Agency in the Story
From:Re: Agency in the Story
From:Re: Fetal Calculus
Date: 2008-02-04 11:40 pm (UTC)Thirdly, per the analysis in Freakonomics, those who are aborted due to the economic circumstances of their parents would, previously, have grown up to disproportionately become violent criminals. Consequently, the legalization of abortion in the United States was responsible for a remarkable decline in crime when those legally aborted children failed to reach maturity.
Re: Fetal Calculus
Date: 2008-02-05 12:50 am (UTC)Man, I loved Freakonomics! Anyway, while said book did state that legalized abortion certainly reduced crime, it also stated that it is an extremely inefficient way to do so (even without considering moral issues):So I think it would still depend on how one does the calculus.
Re: Fetal Calculus
From:Re: Ought
From:Re: Ought
From:Re: Language
From:Re: Language
From:Re: Language
From:Re: Language
From:Re: Language
From:Re: Language
From:Re: Language
From: