[quote]kamui wrote:
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.[/quote]
I can’t have a say in how my own society is structured and governed?
What we have done during the last 5 centuries is not growing out of the need for irrational taboos based on religious and outdated notions of fear".
We have done some experiments. Dangerous one.
We have put high hopes into “Reason”. And we have unleashed terrors and horrors beyond belief.
It’s way to early to claim victory and say “that’s Progress, now accept it”.
for now, it’s just an argument from authority
[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. [/quote]
Is it really your choosing ? a conscious, deliberate, educated choice ?
Did you actually gave the “other side” its chance to convince you ?
That’s a real question btw, not a rhetoric one.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
If “all rules are arbitrary” then no rule is “based on reason and honesty”. And then all rules “should eventually be disregarded”.
Hence → anomie.
it’s the logical (and, alas, historical) term of this argument.
Once there is no more foundation, the building collapse on itself.
That’s not what I’m suggesting. As we continue to make advances in science, medicine and astronomy we’d be fools to cling to oldfashioned ideas that contradict new discoveries, or continue to base legislation on those ideas.
Frankly, I’m not able to submit to the opinion of others. I can be swayed by arguements that are based in logic and reason or if personal experience tells me something else, but with regards to the “other side”, there’s no convincing me.
The “other side” simply has no compelling arguements in their favour, imo.
Ofcourse you can make a reasonable decision that’s still arbitrary. Over the counter drugs are limited to ibuprofen and paracetamol and the like here in the Netherlands because the state has deemed it necessary that “harder” drugs can only be prescribed by healthcare professionals.
This to prevent abuse and accidental overdose. It’s not unreasonable yet still arbitrary.
That slippery slope is as steep as a Norwegian ski-jump ramp. I don’t buy it.
Sometimes you have to dig deep down in order to rebuild. A necessery evil France knows all to well.
[quote]
That’s not what I’m suggesting. As we continue to make advances in science, medicine and astronomy we’d be fools to cling to oldfashioned ideas that contradict new discoveries, or continue to base legislation on those ideas.[/quote]
no scientific discovery ever contradicted the fundamental tenets and moral basis of a society.
No scientific discovery will ever contradict the value of life.
no scientific discovery will ever legitimate abortion.
because science and moral doesn’t speak about the same thing. There is no direct concurrence between the two.
[quote]Ofcourse you can make a reasonable decision that’s still arbitrary. Over the counter drugs are limited to ibuprofen and paracetamol and the like here in the Netherlands because the state has deemed it necessary that “harder” drugs can only be prescribed by healthcare professionals.
This to prevent abuse and accidental overdose. It’s not unreasonable yet still arbitrary.[/quote]
Once a society have determined some common goals and principle, we can use reason to know how to achieve these goals while following these principles.
But reason will never be enough to determine these goals and these principles. When you ask such a thing, you are ultimately arguing for the destruction of all collective goals and principles.
And that’s not a slippery slope. It’s an actual and immediate consequence. We are already there. We are there since the end of the 19th century. Our society are no more “morally homogenous”, not even “in theory”, not even “de jure”, and as such, they are absolutely unable to face their own future with any kind of certainty.
[quote]
Sometimes you have to dig deep down in order to rebuild. A necessery evil France knows all to well. [/quote]
[quote] no scientific discovery ever contradicted the fundamental tenets and moral basis of a society.
No scientific discovery will ever contradict the value of life.
no scientific discovery will ever legitimate abortion.
because science and moral doesn’t speak about the same thing. There is no direct concurrence between the two. [/quote]
I disagree. I guess that’s pretty much all there is to say.
So what? Human development has increased exponentially over the past 150 years, incomparable to the previous 1000 years or so. Moral insecurity is inevetable unless we find a common ground to work from. Seeing as our frame of reference has changed fundamentally, our moral outlook must change aswell.
I don’t get why this envokes this much resistance with you.
I don’t think we can avoid a major overhaul of current society, and I also think it won’t be pretty. It won’t be just because of an influx of immigrants and the violent backlash against that influx, but as change and discovery increase many people will feel threatened by it and prefer to cling to what they know and feel comfortable with.
Resisting change upto to the point of violence [and I don’t mean you or anything], of which the #Occupy movement is a symptom, will come from within a society that’s unwilling to adapt to its changing environment.
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]
ALWAYS “follow the money.”
[quote]kamui wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I think it would be safe to say that IC would be included as part of “most pro-choicers.”
Thus the pseudo concern about “women’s health” tends to ring hollow.
[/quote]
You still didn’t answer my questions or even address the issue that your children are going to have sex.
[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]
I’ve come to realize, from this post especially, that you have a wall of opinions backed by your own dogma. This post completely ignores the main article of this thread, the fact that in countries where parents are the most accepting of their children’s sexuality, we find the lowest abortion rates and instances of teenage pregnancy. Also, the pro-choice men I know do not fall into your little assumption about them.
Going back to your post that lower teenage pregnancy is caused by demographic transition- demographic transition describes a phenomenon and the factors causing it, so that’s a circular argument at best. Demographic transition is the culmination of many factors, some of which are mentioned here. It is not a cause in and of itself; it’s a summary of causes. Therefore, stating that lower abortion rates is the result of demographic transition is as helpful as saying that logging is the result of more humans- it is, but that says nothing about HOW logging is actually accomplished.
So, the pro-choice position to lowering abortion rates (which morally, they could give two craps about) is adopt a sterile and graying culture. Ok, gotcha.
With us, it’s the illegality of murdering human lives in the womb, while still managing to have a society that produces children.
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]
ALWAYS “follow the money.”
[quote]kamui wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I think it would be safe to say that IC would be included as part of “most pro-choicers.”
Thus the pseudo concern about “women’s health” tends to ring hollow.
[/quote]
You still didn’t answer my questions or even address the issue that your children are going to have sex.[/quote]
Your questions were based on invalid assumptions and conclusions. Why need I answer them?[/quote]
My question regarding the lowest abortion rates/teenage pregnancy was based off of facts presented from numerous sources. If you’d like to invalidate those in your head because they don’t match up with your religious beliefs, I suppose you have every right to do that. However, the trend remains that the countries with the lowest abortion rates/instances of teenage pregnancy in the world are located in progressive European countries. So once again, what’s your explanation for that?
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]
ALWAYS “follow the money.”
[quote]kamui wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I think it would be safe to say that IC would be included as part of “most pro-choicers.”
Thus the pseudo concern about “women’s health” tends to ring hollow.
[/quote]
You still didn’t answer my questions or even address the issue that your children are going to have sex.[/quote]
Your questions were based on invalid assumptions and conclusions. Why need I answer them?[/quote]
My question regarding the lowest abortion rates/teenage pregnancy was based off of facts presented from numerous sources. If you’d like to invalidate those in your head because they don’t match up with your religious beliefs, I suppose you have every right to do that. However, the trend remains that the countries with the lowest abortion rates/instances of teenage pregnancy in the world are located in progressive European countries. So once again, what’s your explanation for that?[/quote]
That they adopted sexual lifestyles, pratices, and norms leading to below replacement level fertility. When the old folks eventually crush the shrinking pool of young workers, It’ll come crashing down. That, or they’ll have to ship in religious immigrants at an enormous rate, who happen to have higher fertility, to eventually and completely replace themselves for the sake of young workers. Sorry, but if self-selection for extinction is your answer, we’ll pass.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, the pro-choice position to lowering abortion rates (which morally, they could give two craps about) is adopt a sterile and graying culture. Ok, gotcha.
With us, it’s the illegality of murdering human lives in the womb, while still managing to have a society that produces children. [/quote]
Every modern society will eventually end up sterile, greying, and not producing as many children. You aren’t going to avoid that regardless of your political stance.
I hope that everyone on here who argues for the right of the human in the womb is as excited about the rights of the persons raised by young mothers in impoverished conditions often on welfare that they’re voting against. I hope that if you’re voting against wellfare, you’re at least donating your time and money to helping these people. I personally have donated years of my life to poor communities, so the argument against my empathy and suggestion of petty motives such as an increased sex life for the pro-choicers is pretty unfounded. Most pro-choicers I know have the stance: “Let’s focus on the ones that have already been born”.
you really don’t get it.
again, “accepting their children’s sexuality” is purposefully vague.
It can mean many things, some of them i will accept, some of them i will refuse.
but as such, in this context, it’s a propaganda slogan.
[quote]
Also, the pro-choice men I know do not fall into your little assumption about them.[/quote]
Consider yourself lucky then.
[quote]
Going back to your post that lower teenage pregnancy is caused by demographic transition- demographic transition describes a phenomenon and the factors causing it, so that’s a circular argument at best. Demographic transition is the culmination of many factors, some of which are mentioned here. It is not a cause in and of itself; it’s a summary of causes. Therefore, stating that lower abortion rates is the result of demographic transition is as helpful as saying that logging is the result of more humans- it is, but that says nothing about HOW logging is actually accomplished.[/quote]
I’m saying that the lower rate of unwanted pregnancy is a direct consequence of lower pregnancy.
The ratio of unwanted pregnancy isn’t statistically lower.
now, an easy question :
would you still advocate a more accepting attitude toward teenage sex if you were sure that it would increase abortion rate ?
That they adopted sexual lifestyles, pratices, and norms leading to below replacement level fertility. When the old folks eventually crush the shrinking pool of young workers, It’ll come crashing down. That, or they’ll have to ship in religious immigrants at an enormous rate, who happen to have higher fertility, to eventually and completely replace themselves for the sake of young workers. Sorry, but if self-selection for extinction is your answer, we’ll pass. [/quote]
Name one modern country that has gone extinct from their low-birth rates.
A side note: most of these countries aren’t shipping in people; they’re outsourcing. In addition, only a slight increase in birth rates over a few years would be all it would take to renew the society, which I’m sure will happen. Societies tend to develop practices that are in their reproductive best interest when left to their own devices (no government family planning).
As much as I love discussing the trends which have resulted in lower birth/abortion rates in more progressive countries than our own, I realize that in the end none of our opinions will matter because we’re following the same path they did, whether we all agree or not.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Every modern society will eventually end up sterile, greying, and not producing as many children. You aren’t going to avoid that regardless of your political stance.[/quote]
Seems to me that your now knowingly favor a culture that dooms itself to history. Those sterile cultures will NEED young workers out the wazoo for economic growth, and to carry the elderly population as it consumes a gargantuan amount of social resources. If it isn’t having those children it’ll HAVE to accept them from abroad. Your culture will be replaced by a religious culture via the higher fertility/larger families of more religious immigrants. It’s a Darwinian dead-end, ironically.
Poverty or riches, nobody should make the decision for human life in the womb. With life, there is ALWAYS a chance.
you really don’t get it.
again, “accepting their children’s sexuality” is purposefully vague.
It can mean many things, some of them i will accept, some of them i will refuse.
but as such, in this context, it’s a propaganda slogan.
[quote]
Also, the pro-choice men I know do not fall into your little assumption about them.[/quote]
Consider yourself lucky then.
“Accepting their children’s sexuality” was directly exemplified by the article posted by ephram. Push has referenced it multiple times. That you refuse to acknowledge this indicates obtuseness on your part, not lack of clarity on mine. But just to clarify once more, by “accepting children’s sexuality” I mean acknowledging that your teenager is going to have sex, most likely before marriage, and statistically, around the age of 16, as a result of natural sex drive, which you had as well. It’s being willing to acknowledge and discuss sexual relationships with your teenager, as opposed to telling them “Not in my house.” or “That’s for adults, you could never understand it. It’s dangerous for you”. It’s being willing to tell your kid about condoms, the morning after pill, where they get these things, what the side effects are, and also discussing what an appropriate sexual relationship might look like as opposed to “Wait until you’re an adult and you can understand it better”. It’s basically an involvement in your teenager’s sexual safety.
From personal experience and the references posted here, where adults are involved in this process, things tend to go better. When they remove themselves from the education by telling their teen that sex is bad for them and they shouldn’t do it, things don’t look as good in terms of abortion rates, instances of teen pregnancy, etc.
As for your question: no. However, accepting that teenagers are having sex doesn’t do much for whether or not they’re having it; what has more of an effect on teen sex is whether or not male and female teens are allowed contact with each other on a frequent basis in a particular society. In traditional cultures where the sexes don’t hang out in the same room, there is a lower instance of teen pregnancy. You can’t compare this to a world where teens are in contact with each other through school, without supervision, for the majority of their time. It’s the lack of supervision which leads to teen sex. Whether or not you accept teen sex isn’t going to prevent them from having it when you aren’t watching.