if you really want to know if the legalization of abortion caused an increase of the number/rate/ratio of abortion, you don’t need to compare a Belarussian apple with a peruvian orange.
You just need to take a before/after picture, country by country.
And you have to take historical dynamics into account.
If you do that, you will see that :
-the early legalization of abortion in the west led to the development of many new abortive techniques and drugs, which then became available easily, massively, at a worldwide scale. Those are now used everywhere, even in countries where abortion is still illegal.
-this obviously led to a global increase of the number/rate/ratio of abortions.
Stating that the “legalization of abortion has no impact on its prevalence” is pure unadulterated bullshit. [/quote]
if you really want to know if the legalization of abortion caused an increase of the number/rate/ratio of abortion, you don’t need to compare a Belarussian apple with a peruvian orange.
You just need to take a before/after picture, country by country.
And you have to take historical dynamics into account.
If you do that, you will see that :
-the early legalization of abortion in the west led to the development of many new abortive techniques and drugs, which then became available easily, massively, at a worldwide scale. Those are now used everywhere, even in countries where abortion is still illegal.
-this obviously led to a global increase of the number/rate/ratio of abortions.
Stating that the “legalization of abortion has no impact on its prevalence” is pure unadulterated bullshit. [/quote]
You are completely ignoring the fact that abortion’s legalization has mainly been pushed by medical communities who realize that abortion was already happening behind closed doors in very dangerous ways because the women were coming to them after they’d done it. Even in countries where abortion is legal, the attitude toward the woman seeking them is a large factor in whether ot not she turns to a doctor or a backwoods midwife equivalent. In Indonesia, for instance, abortion is viewed as illegal even though the law regarding it is confusing at best. The medical community has been pushing to change tis law for the better part of a century because they had so many incidents of women dying due to home abortion methods. The main cause of the women attempting this is the fact that, just like in most developing countries, their honor is wrapped around their virginity. In addition, there’s a trend of waiting until they’re older to get married. Humans have the basic drive to reproduce. The result of this isn’t hard to comprehend. In addition, in Indonesia at least, rape has been a major contributing factor for political reasons that are a bit removed from the conversation.
If abortions are to be reduced, the attitude toward teen sex much first change a bit to allow them greater access to contraceptives, and this starts with the parent’s attitude regarding discussing it with their children.
Push- If you aren’t willing to talk with your kids about sex, tell them where they can find birth control, and discuss relationships, you must know that they’re going to have sex somewhere else, with someone else’s instruction about contraceptives, and have to figure out from scratch what you already know about a healthy relationship. I watched plenty of my friends with extremely religious parents who believed that sex and marriage go hand in hand go through the figuring it out themselves dance. It wasn’t fun to observe in some cases. I especially wish my childhood best friend’s parents had been more involved in her relationships instead of pretending that she was going to take their advice about the whole thing and wait until marriage. Her babies daddy might have been much better or there might not have even been a daddy.
I don’t ignore this “fact”.
But i, for one, see that’s a cynical argument.
If the “medical communities” really had thought that legalizing abortion could reduce the numbers of cases, they would have been against it.
They knew perfectly well that the opposite was true. And that there was huge profit to be made.
[quote]
If abortions are to be reduced, the attitude toward teen sex much first change a bit to allow them greater access to contraceptives, and this starts with the parent’s attitude regarding discussing it with their children.[/quote]
half a century of history show us that :
more tolerance toward adult sex → more “irresponsible” sex, regardless of the access to contraceptives → more unwanted pregnancies → more abortions.
a fortiori we know that more tolerance toward teen sex wil lead to even more abortions.
because you can’t seriously hope that kids will know and do better than the adults.
and btw,“teen sex” can go very wrong for various reasons.
Abortions is one of these reasons, but it’s not the ony one.
So, even if “more tolerance toward teen sex” could really reduce the numbers of abortions, it would be wrong, because it would cause and/or aggravate many other issues.
Again, a cynical “solution”.
Abortion rate is like addiction rate and suicide rate. A symptom of anomie.
You won’t fight anomie with even less “nomos”.
And btw, it’s not only a cynical argument, it’s an hypocritical one.
Most “pro-choicers”, especially male ones, doesn’t give a fuck about poor unwanted children, poor raped women, or indonesians mothers dying due to home abortion methods.
they are for the legalization of abortion because they think it’s a key element of their sexual freedom. They want it because it make irresponsible sex possible.
To put it clearly :
legal abortion : increased probability of getting laid.
They just forgot that “sexual freedom”, in its current form, is an awful scam.
They just forgot that they now live in a society where teen sex is ok AND where it has became next to impossible to congratulate a female co-worker without risking to be sued for sexual harassment.
That’s the price they paid for it.
[quote]kamui wrote:
And btw, it’s not only a cynical argument, it’s an hypocritical one.
Most “pro-choicers”, especially male ones, doesn’t give a fuck about poor unwanted children, poor raped women, or indonesians mothers dying due to home abortion methods.
they are for the legalization of abortion because they think it’s a key element of their sexual freedom. They want it because it make irresponsible sex possible.
To put it clearly :
legal abortion : increased probability of getting laid.
They just forgot that “sexual freedom”, in its current form, is an awful scam.
They just forgot that they now live in a society where teen sex is ok AND where it has became next to impossible to congratulate a female co-worker without risking to be sued for sexual harassment.
That’s the price they paid for it.
Bravo. [/quote]
You are an odd fellow aren’t you? Are you even french, lol. People aren’t having more sex or sex earlier because of the legalisation of abortion;
PEOPLE, THROUGHOUT TIME, HAVE FUCKED AT ANY OPPORTUNITY AND AS EARLY AS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.
Because sex is nice [altough i can’t remember the last time I had any ):]
Has legal acces to abortion resulted in more abortions? Undoubtedly.
Would we, as a society, like to see a reduction of abortions? Sure.
Will outlawing abortion make abortion go away? No, it will result in less abortions but also mean an increase in backstreet-abortions, death and misery for those women who are determined to seek one.
It’ll mean more unwanted [and neglected] children. More children abandoned to ‘the system’. By pushing to outlaw abortion you’re inflicting pain and misery on an existing structure of society in favor of an opinion.
It’s not exactly what i said.
People think that our post-modern “sexual freedom” means “more sex”.
And they think that “legal abortion” is a required part of this “sexual freedom”.
“They think that…” True or not, it doesn’t matter.
What matter is that they will defend “legal abortion” because of their “progressive” ideology. And for this reason, their pseudo-philanthropic arguments are rather dubious.
[quote]
PEOPLE, THROUGHOUT TIME, HAVE FUCKED AT ANY OPPORTUNITY AND AS EARLY AS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE. [/quote]
Capitalize that if you want. it won’t make it true.
[quote]
Because sex is nice[/quote]
Oh i see. Thanks for the info. I suppose it’s perfectly “nice” if i bang my 15yo students then.
[quote]Has legal acces to abortion resulted in more abortions? Undoubtedly.
Would we, as a society, like to see a reduction of abortions? Sure. [/quote]
“As a society”, we do NOT care. The vast majority of people doesn’t even know how many abortions happen each year in their country.
It’s ok, since it’s legal.
Again, i never “pushed to outlaw abortion”.
I said it was a tragic error to legalize it the way we have done it.
But that doesn’t mean we could or should re-outlaw it now.
We should, however, get rid of this so-called progressive ideology toward before we end up with legalized incest, encouraged zoophilia, normalized pedophila, desintegrated parentships and, last but not least, dehumanized eroticism.
That’s what “they” do, do they? And american pro-life activists defend outlawing abortion because of their “conservative” ideology. One argues in favor of the rights of living, breathing people and the other defends the potential of human life. Without common sense discussions like these are endless and will go on and on and on and on…
[quote] PEOPLE, THROUGHOUT TIME, HAVE FUCKED AT ANY OPPORTUNITY AND AS EARLY AS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.
Capitalize that if you want. it won’t make it true. [/quote]
I’m confused kamui, what makes you say this? It’s a genetic imperative and sex is pleasurable. Why do you think it’s not true?
Wow, not only has your english improved but you seem to reflect the staunch conservative mindset of some PWI regulars with great accuracy! So what do you suggest to prevent the downfall of society?
[quote]
I’m confused kamui, what makes you say this? It’s a genetic imperative and sex is pleasurable. Why do you think it’s not true?[/quote]
It’s not a genetic imperative, it’s a genetic (and socio-cultural) drive.
Nothing “imperative” here.
It’s not pleasurable. It can be (very) pleasurable. But it can be (very) unpleasurable too.
It’s not true because every society in history had some specific rules regarding sex.
These rules can vary from one society to another, but there’s always some rules.
And as strange as it may sound, some of these rules NEED to be somehow “arbitrary” and “useless”.
These “taboos” are not biologically needed, they are not even socially sound, they may even be perfectly irrationnal. But they are cultural and they must exist.
If they doesn’t exist, the (local) definitions of parentship become blurry, the (local version of) eroticism become void and meaningless. Sex is dehumanized and become nothing more than
-a biological “necessity”
-a fugitive pleasure
-a relationship of power.
[quote]
Wow, not only has your english improved but you seem to reflect the staunch conservative mindset of some PWI regulars with great accuracy![/quote]
I’m not sure they would agree.
I don’t think this “downfall” can be prevented.
It’s too late. (Or too early) to “do something” about it.
On the other hand, i just think some of us should try to limit the damage that this downfall (will) cause to innocent victims (the future generations, the last traditionnal societies, the non-human species).
Seven billion people disagree with you about sex being imperative, but for sake of argument let’s not dwell on that.
Why is it necessary that society defines sexuality through taboo as long as the excesses of the absence of those taboos aren’t harming others? Your opinion is irrelevant with regards to my sexuality if how I enjoy my sexuality does not infringe on, or harms other people.
Altough I don’t disagree with you that the future for humankind is on shaky ground, the reasons for why that is so can’t be contributed to the loosening of sexual morals. If anything, the number of people on the planet is going to exceed to ability of this planet to provide energy, water and sustenance for much of the population. Abortion has been just a drop on a very hot plate.
As a species we must evolve beyond conservative notions of olden times even if that means that in the process of doing so we sometimes lose sight of the reasonable. Kneejerk reactions and a violent shift back towards stale and repressive thinking will not help us moving on to a future where we still have a chance of survival.
by dramatically impairing the delivery of sexual and reproductive health services, its actual impact has been to increase the number of unintended pregnancies and the abortions that inevitably follow.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
FTR, I think sex between unmarried teens is a stupid idea, generally speaking, and to be discouraged.
There are a lot of things in this world that ARE appropriate for adults that are NOT appropriate for children. Do I have to cite examples or are you bright enough to figure this one out for yourself, IC?[/quote]
Are you aware that were are not in 1955? You should evolve man.
I’m not sure you understood the distinciton i was making.
If it was such a genetic imperative, it would be perfectly normal and morally ok for me to fuck my 15yo student, and to have sex at every opportunity. automatically. mechanically.
“sorry, miss, but i can’t help myself, it’s an imperative you know”.
It’s not.
As important as sex may be, you still can and you still have to make choices. Responsible, sensible and moral choices.
[quote]
Why is it necessary that society defines sexuality through taboo as long as the excesses of the absence of those taboos aren’t harming others? Your opinion is irrelevant with regards to my sexuality if how I enjoy my sexuality does not infringe on, or harms other people.[/quote]
If society doesn’t defines sexuality through taboo, then sexuality is undefined. meaningless.
Actually, there would be no sexuality at all. Sexual activities maybe. Orgasms. But, strictly speaking, no sexuality.
And the excesses of the absence of those taboos are culturally destructive and disruptive, and as such, they DO harm others.
The main difference here is not the difference between progressives and conservatives, “open people” and “repressive people”, it’s the difference between those who understand what a society is (people like Sloth, yes, but Florelius and me too) and those who believe in “the individual”. (you, but many conservatives too).
[quote]
Altough I don’t disagree with you that the future for humankind is on shaky ground, the reasons for why that is so can’t be contributed to the loosening of sexual morals.[/quote]
That’s why i said it was a symptom of anomie. Not its main cause.
Actually, i think overcrowding will be the last of our demographic problems.
The violent shift back will certainly happen, and it will be very destructive, if so-called “progressives” fail to understand that they can not ignore 100 000 years of “conservative notions of olden times” that easily.
And once again, i never, ever, advocated “repressive thinking” in any way, shape or form.
And yet, it still happens. Consensual sex between teacher and students, and consensual sex between students of the same age happens. You might think it’s morally wrong, but who are you to judge is the sex is consensual?
Right, and I agree with you on that. But you don’t get to decide for me what’s responsible, sensible and moral.
[quote] If society doesn’t defines sexuality through taboo, then sexuality is undefined. meaningless.
Actually, there would be no sexuality at all. Sexual activities maybe. Orgasms. But, strictly speaking, no sexuality.
And the excesses of the absence of those taboos are culturally destructive and disruptive, and as such, they DO harm others.
The main difference here is not the difference between progressives and conservatives, “open people” and “repressive people”, it’s the difference between those who understand what a society is (people like Sloth, yes, but Florelius and me too) and those who believe in “the individual”. (you, but many conservatives too). [/quote]
Interesting. Ignoring your personal views on sexuality, what exactly are the culturally destructive and disruptive aspects of “diminished” sexuality?
What is, according to you, a society and why do you believe that, if I do no harm to others, society has a responsibility to curtail my actions if said actions are deemed unsavory?
What you’ve said in this thread is to me “repressed thinking” kamui. Hedonism and nihilism is not on my agenda at all, but we need to learn to let-go of old ideas and social structures soon rather than later.
Edit: I’m going out for some fresh air. Back later.
Yes, it happens. Shit happens too.
“it happens” is not an argument.
As a rule, the consensual nature of these relationships is dubious at best.
There may be exceptions, but exceptions doesn’t invalidate or negate a rule.
[quote]
You might think it’s morally wrong, but who are you to judge is the sex is consensual?[/quote]
oh, i’m probably no one.
but who are you to judge social rules ?
same thing here. I don’t decide, but you don’t either.
Society should decide that. And each society is perfectly entitled to have its own cultural biases, even irrationnal ones, even old and outdated ones.
increased expectations lead to increased and increasingly dangerous frustrations.
the illusion of freedom lead to confusion and distress.
You know enough about buddhism to know that.
[quote]
What you’ve said in this thread is to me “repressed thinking” kamui.[/quote]
Nope. “Do as you will” is no freedom. It’s a double bind.
A trap.
Symetrically, “follow some rules” is no repression. Actually, it’s the first step toward actual freedom.
Just to illustrate my point :
if i lived in a catholic theocracy, i would immediatly give up my “unsavory practices” and accept to follow
Or i would move elsewhere. in a society who tolerate these “unsavory practices”
But I would NOT use political action, influence, lobbyism and intellectual terrorism to undermine the cultural basis of my society to fit my own individual preferences.
Societies are fragile, cultures are fragile. We have destroyed enough of them to know that by now.
Funnily enough, most “progressives” are upset when our influence destroy indigenous cultures abroad. But they do not see the harm when they do the same thing at home.
But it’s the same historical process, with the same tragic consequences in both cases.
“Conservatives” are not “repressed people” nor “repressing people”. They are the aboriginals of the West. Respect their irrational beliefs as you would respect the irrational beliefs of the australian aboriginals.
By denying that “it happens” through claims of immorality or deviant behaviour you’re denying aspects of human nature. You’d probably argue that taboo and religious disdain for these actions are societies way of curtailing these aspects of human nature, but it fails to grow and understand human nature as we grow and understand more about ourselves.
I’m not argueing in favour of hedonism and nihilism, but in favour of education instead of repression.
WE are society, kamui. A society that’s stagnant fails in the end. We, as a society, grow out of the need for irrational taboos based on religious and outdated notions of fear because we are learning and understanding more about ourselves and our place in the universe by the day.
We resist change because we are comfortable where we are, where everything is where we expect it to be. But everything changes all the time and if we can’t adapt as a society, someone else will.
[quote] the illusion of freedom lead to confusion and distress.
You know enough about buddhism to know that. [/quote]
I can’t argue with that. Too many options often leads to passivity and confusion. Every era has its drawbacks, obviously. But I’d rather have too many options to choose from than be forced to live a life that’s not my choosing.
We all follow rules, but all rules are arbitrary. We are a-moral animals who invented morality to structure and organise our societies. Rules that aren’t based on reason and honesty should eventually be disgarded.