|
Post by michaelw on Aug 21, 2017 17:10:18 GMT -5
Of COURSE this is a form of eugenics. Anyone saying otherwise is very good at deluding themselves. I respect your passion on this topic. But I would essay that one could easily be pro-life or pro-choice and see that this isn't eugenics, strictly speaking. I'll define eugenics here as the effort to select future generations according to some particular ideal. An example would be when many states in the US allowed forced sterilizations of people deemed "unfit" in the early 20th century, a policy that was upheld by the supreme court in Buck v. Bell. The people being sterilized had no agency, no real choice in the matter. It was a program forced on them by the state, for the purpose of making sure such people had no traces in the future gene pool. In Iceland, women aren't being forced to screen their babies for down syndrome. They can just not do the screening. They can also just not have an abortion, if they don't want to have one. As I said, I'll allow that what Iceland is doing will probably lead to more abortions, but that doesn't make it eugenics, IMO. Any information could lead to more abortions, in theory. Heck, a doctor telling her patients that a baby is a boy or a girl could lead to an increase in abortions (and I'm sure this does happen in countries where boys are culturally preferred). That doesn't mean a doctor saying "it's a girl!" is eugenics. Just like cutting off welfare for minorities wouldn't be eugenics, even though such a thing would obviously mean more abortions among minority groups.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 21, 2017 17:20:11 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 17:37:53 GMT -5
Here is where I agree with you, c.e. -- I'd like to see abortion be extraordinarily rare. Perhaps it is my own Catholic upbringing, but I also find abortion very sad and troubling. I'd be quite happy for my taxpayer dollars to go towards programs that help people get access to birth control/sex education, maternity care, and support (much happier than having it go towards, say, a wall between us and Mexico...). All of those things would help reduce abortion, as well as make people's lives better. Everyone wins!
But as a political matter, I take a pretty hard-line pro-choice position. That's because I recognize that I am extraordinarily fortunate, and a lot of people are not. I cannot and should not make their choices for them, and neither should the state. I am not comfortable allowing abortions for only certain reasons because I am totally uncool with having women interrogated to find out why they're having an abortion. I'm not cool with depriving them of information so they have to choose blindly what to do about their pregnancy.
I double-down on that position because our country, unlike, say, Finland, does NOT do much to help families in crappy positions.
Trying to limit abortions by making unwanted pregnancy rare and choosing to have a baby easy -- I'm good with that. Doing it by limiting choices -- No, I cannot go there.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 21, 2017 17:46:59 GMT -5
Trying to limit abortions by making unwanted pregnancy rare and choosing to have a baby easy -- I'm good with that. Same. What I find so frustrating is how few in the pro-life ranks in the US want to go that route. It doesn't seem likely to happen, but I suppose theoretically the US could end up more like Brazil, where you have a very conservative Catholic country where abortion is illegal. But why would anyone who was truly pro-life want to be like Brazil, with the sky-high number of abortions they have? Look at the Scandinavian countries, where the legality of abortion is almost completely uncontroversial. Very few abortions, compared with a country like Brazil. There's no great mystery here, as to why, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 18:36:41 GMT -5
I get the impression that a lot of pro-life folks think the way to discourage abortions (aside from making it impossible to get one) is to explain to the woman that the fetus will eventually develop into a baby. And/or that God doesn't like abortion. Because surely once they realize these facts, they won't want to abort. But in fact, pretty much all women getting an abortion are perfectly aware that the fetus, left alone, would eventually become a baby. And not all of them believe in God, or even if they do, believe that He will punish them for an abortion. (The Bible is in fact pretty much silent on abortions, as I recall. If you cause a woman to lose her child, it's treated as a property crime against the husband, not as a damn-you-to-hell sin. And there was abortion in ancient times -- the Romans certainly used it -- so it's not as though it wasn't in existence during the time the New Testament was being written. Yet Jesus (living in Roman-ruled Israel) spent his time encouraging people to feed the poor and help the sick, not telling them "abortion is a sin! don't get one!" That doesn't mean you can't still believe it's wrong, of course. But it does make me scratch my head when people point to the Bible as their basis.) They're getting an abortion because they believe that if the fetus becomes a baby, their lives will be worse, maybe much worse, and/or that the baby's life will be bad. If you want to convince them not to have an abortion, THOSE are the impressions that need to change, and they can only be changed when they become not true. As it stands, the women are probably perfectly correct that their lives will be worse. And they may be correct about the quality of the baby's life, too.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 22, 2017 8:04:36 GMT -5
Here is where I agree with you, c.e. -- I'd like to see abortion be extraordinarily rare. Perhaps it is my own Catholic upbringing, but I also find abortion very sad and troubling. I feel the same way. I don't think abortion should be treated like a ho-hum thing...and I think for the overwhelmingly vast majority of women who have one, it's not a ho-hum thing. In my view, abortion is a medical procedure, and thus the decision to have or not have one is a matter for patient and doctor, alone. But in that regard, I also think doctors are in the business of protecting life; there has to be a hard limit on when abortions can be performed, unless the mother's life is in imminent jeopardy.* And I think the existence of such a limit is important here, with regard to tests that are done on the fetus. As long as the tests are inside the window, there's no reason why the results shouldn't be used as a basis for making medical decisions, which includes whether or not to have an abortion. We all have to trust in medical professionals to not agree to perform abortions for frivolous reasons int this regard. And given that some women need general anesthesia, this should be the case, since there is always a risk there. I think there are precious few Kermit Gosnells in the world, thankfully. * On that hard limit, I know it's going to be imperfect and open to debate, but it needs to be there. Here's the SC decision on Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld a law banning some partial birth abortions. There's a description from a nurse under section A on an intact D&E procedure performed by Dr. Haskell on a 26 week fetus. I'm sorry, but that's murder, imo. Stopping short from a full delivery of a viable fetus in order to terminate that fetus (so as not to be killing baby) is just wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 8:29:01 GMT -5
For many reasons, if the baby would be independently viable on its own, IMO the better option is giving birth and giving the baby up for adoption unless there is a medical reason to do otherwise. (Remember that House episode where the very pregnant woman was refusing medical treatment that would save her own life so that she could save her fetus, even though it would kill her? And House found a way to save them both? Anyway, I wouldn't expect a woman to risk her own life for the fetus however far along she is. But again, that's goingvto be rare.)
I think most pro-choice folks are on board with that, actually.
But if women are given proper access to birth control and medical care, I would think women wanting partial birth abortions would be even more incredibly rare than they are already. Few would dither that long about the decision if they had options.
No one is all excited about getting an abortion. Most would rather keep from getting pregnant in the first place, and if they get pregnant anyway, they'd rather do something immediately, while the fetus is a tiny little zygote.
IMO, clamoring to shut down planned parenthood facilities and end birth control discussions in school sex education classes is exactly counter-productive to the goal of reducing abortions.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 22, 2017 12:16:39 GMT -5
I've got to run to work, but some quick thoughts on abortion in general -- I don't think the statistics on abortion bear out this opinion that women/girls take the possible consequence of unintended pregnancy seriously enough. Or even the sex act itself seriously enough. Of course abortion is not "ho-hum". But more people need to think about this BEFORE they get pregnant. And fewer do in a society that tells them abortion is a right for any reason, and the fetus is just a clump of tissue, and that freedom of sexual expression is a good thing to pursue without shame but-as-a-side-note-use-protection. It's not easy to use protection well. Taking a pill everyday is hard. Mistakes are made. Condoms break. People need to understand this, too. If women with 1 or 2 prior abortions accounted for 36.2 percent of abortions in 2013 - in which total abortions amounted to a bit under 1 million - that's a LOT of people who got into the same predicament they did previously - well over 300,000. Women with 3 or more accounted for 8.8% - that's roughly 80,000 women who have had SEVERAL abortions. So the percentage of women who had multiple abortions in 2013 was nearing HALF (over 44%) of total abortions? That's amazing to me. In addition, with the majority being ages 18-19 (over 67%), it seems clear to me that these young people are not thinking hard enough about the consequences of having sex, and are clearly not ready to raise a child. Then don't have sex. Or be VERY VERY careful if you do. I had a friend in college who used a condom AND the pill together. How many people are that careful? I waited myself until I was practically engaged and had had conversations with my now husband that we'd raise a child if that happened to us. Anyway, what does sexual intercourse add to the average 18-19 year old's life beyond the risk of pregnancy and STDs? Not enough to justify the risks, IMO. Yet how many of us as parents have these sorts of conversations with our kids? Yes, of course, have access to birth control. Increase access of it to the poor. But at the same time, we need to have different, ongoing conversations with our young people, as a society and as families. www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/ss/ss6512a1.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 12:40:40 GMT -5
But that goes directly to my point -- the need for good sex education and readily available birth control.
Alas, lots of families aren't doing their job. The ones who aren't are almost certainly the ones whose daughters are finding themselves in need of an abortion. Moreover, girls who are pretty sure they'll be going to college and have a bright future if they stay out of trouble have more incentive. What about the girls who don't see a bright future in front of them to screw up? Or the ones who are partying heavily or dabbling in drugs?
It's really easy to say "Don't have sex!" But it doesn't work unless the kid is inclined to take that admonition to heart. (And we must always remember that there are parents who don't even bother to go that far. Which is why I think we need good sex ed and birth control info available in schools.)
My parents said "Don't have sex!" Yeah, I had hormones and it didn't work. I was, er, young (still in high school). But I was careful with my protection and it was a very serious boyfriend (several year relationship) because I had a pretty thorough understanding of how easy it was to get a disease or get pregnant, and I didn't want to screw up my future. So the abstinence message fell flat, but I took heed of the rest. So did my boyfriend, who also came from a nice Catholic family, and also had a bright future ahead of him. We were gonna have sex. But neither of us wanted a baby just yet.
We need to make sure kids get the info on birth control, not just a "keep your legs crossed, dear" lecture.
Btw, I knew a girl in high school who had TWO abortions before she was 20. She came from a very good, very strict Catholic family, who never knew about the abortions. She broke down and told me when she was going for the second one -- she was racked with guilt (of course, with her upbringing), but didn't know what else to do. I had a serious talk with her about birth control and how to get it. (Regarding whether to have the second abortion, I told her she needed to talk to someone other than me. I both understood her feelings of guilt and her reasons for wanting the abortion. I could totally emphasize, but didn't feel I was the one to talk her in or out of it. Her parents were incredibly strict and she didn't want to talk to them -- knowing them, I understood why. I thought maybe a doctor, nurse, counselor might be better.)
Anyway. She had both the abstinence talk and the bright future thing going. Didn't stop her from having sex. And she was woefully ignorant about birth control and how to get it. Sad.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 22, 2017 13:00:05 GMT -5
Cassandra, you and I are in complete agreement regarding your last post. (And a couple others) It's definitely not simply access to birth control that will help, but good education on how to use it properly.
(Along with plenty of admonitions to "not have sex!" And all the reasons why, heh.) 😃
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 13:27:26 GMT -5
I think it likely helps, too, if your kids feel 100% like they can come to you for help no matter what. I didn't go to my parents for birth control, but then, I knew how to get it. Also? My boyfriend would have married me if I got pregnant. We talked about it. And we would have found a way to both go to college if that happened -- our parents would have been pissed off, but they would have helped. Their lectures on abstinence didn't take, but their lectures against promiscuity and for responsibility did. So I would argue I'm an example of a successful parental "talk", despite the fact that I ignored the abstinence part. My boyfriend and I were not thoughtless about it.
My friend was too scared to go to her parents with regard to any of it, which is really, really sad. Her education regarding birth control came from ME! That's not right, and I'd say it doesn't work very well.
And I think it's important to consider kids who have parents who don't bother to talk to their kids at all. Kids shouldn't get in trouble because they have lousy parents. Here's where school/the community can help. I very firmly believe we should NEVER let kids slip through the cracks. They should have every shot at having a good future, even if they are unlucky enough to be poor, have lousy parents, etc.
If every person put as much thought into having sex as I did or you did, unwanted pregnancies and abortions would be very, very rare. And we can agree that's the way it should be. The key is getting us there.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 24, 2017 7:52:32 GMT -5
Conflating an individual, personal choice with a scary, collectivist, coercive program that even the "progressives" abandoned in the 1930's when they figured out what Hitler was up to?
Nah, that's not fear-mongering.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 24, 2017 17:51:51 GMT -5
You know, people say "eugenics" like it's a bad thing automatically. It's not. We've been practicing eugenics for thousands of years with crops and livestock, and I don't see why we shouldn't do it with people.
If we can breed horrible congenital birth defects, diseases, and other disabilities out of the human race, why shouldn't we?
Obviously there is a moral dimension to that question, and that's why we get movies like Gattica and the deaf and autistic communities likening wanting to cure deafness or autism with genocide, and while most of those concerns are bullshit, that doesn't mean there aren't real concerns. But the fact that there are concerns does not mean we should just reflexively shy away from the idea.
And anyone who tells someone they shouldn't abort a baby that's going to be born to nothing but pain and suffering and live a short agonizing life, because God loves babies and maybe the doctors are wrong? That person is evil.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 24, 2017 18:45:22 GMT -5
You cannot breed Down Syndrome out of the population, because it's not a heritable defect. It's a random event. So if you want to eradicate it, you have to find a cure. If you don't want it in the population, and you don't have a cure, you must keep killing every unborn child with the defect. I am absolutely not against curing Down Syndrome. I'm also not saying Iceland is a terrible place because women choose to abort an unborn child with Down Syndrome. I'm saying it seems that if a country has a 100%, or approaching 100%, kill rate for fetuses with Down Syndrome, then there is apparently pressure on pregnant women to 1) have the testing done 2) kill their fetus if the test is positive
It is the pressure that is evil.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 24, 2017 18:58:23 GMT -5
You cannot breed Down Syndrome out of the population, because it's not a heritable defect. It's a random event. So if you want to eradicate it, you have to find a cure. If you don't want it in the population, and you don't have a cure, you must keep killing every unborn child with the defect. I am absolutely not against curing Down Syndrome. I'm also not saying Iceland is a terrible place because women choose to abort an unborn child with Down Syndrome. I'm saying it seems that if a country has a 100%, or approaching 100%, kill rate for fetuses with Down Syndrome, then there is apparently pressure on pregnant women to 1) have the testing done 2) kill their fetus if the test is positive It is the pressure that is evil. Down's Syndrome may not be bred out of the population, but other congenital birth defects can be. Down Syndrome can, however, be nearly eliminated. Call it eugenics - that's my point. Eugenics isn't a terrible thing in itself. You obviously see it as terrible if it involves abortion, but what if we had in utero technology to cure Down's Syndrome in a fetus. Would it be terrible then? It would still be eugenics. I agree that pressuring a woman to have an abortion when she doesn't want one is evil, but you haven't provided any evidence that this is happening. I mean, you're suggesting that in Iceland, of all places, probably one of the most feminist/progressive countries in the world, women are being pressured to have abortions against their will? I offer an alternative theory: absent misguided religious pressure against aborting a fetus that is very likely to have a short and unpleasant life, very few women would choose not to abort.
|
|