[QUOTE=Yahnich;38830349]abortion has never been the man's decision[/QUOTE]
And since there are lots of contraceptives and information out there using abortion as a contraceptive is just almost unjustifiable.
[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;38833903]And since there are lots of contraceptives and information out there using abortion as a contraceptive is just almost unjustifiable.[/QUOTE]
except contraceptives fail. the best fail at a low rate, but when you have millions of people using contraception, it's bound to happen to some people (and does).
[editline]15th December 2012[/editline]
also, nobody "uses abortion as a contraceptive". it's in the name. a contraceptive prevents conception. if you have to get an abortion then chances are you've, y'know, conceived.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;38834055]except contraceptives fail. the best fail at a low rate, but when you have millions of people using contraception, it's bound to happen to some people (and does).[/QUOTE]
It does happen. It's true. I just can't look at abortion that way - the contraceptive way. And the thing is, there is a huge number of people out there who use abortion as one uses the pill. without any weight in their conscience whatsoever.
Although a bunch of cells may not be considered a human being yet, those have a human potential. And for me, it lifts up lots of moral and philosophical questions to just be like "ok, let's get this thing done" with abortion.
I may have casual sex once in a while and when I used to be in a relationship I had sex very often, but I still take sex very seriously and as responsibly as I can.
From my point of view, I think I'd rather assume the responsibility of having a child than feel kinda guilty for just taking an easy way out for a big problem.
However, don't take me wrong. I don't judge other people's views on abortion and I can only imagine how painful can an abortion be for a woman.
If my gf ever got pregnant and she decided to abort, well I may not agree with abortion, but if that would be her wish, I'd support it.
But these are just my views and I do not intend to force them on others.
[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;38834273] And the thing is, there is a huge number of people out there who use abortion as one uses the pill. without any weight in their conscience whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
tho i'm a dude i have a super-hard time believing anyone like that exists
pretty much every single method of abortion around right now is pretty traumatic
If a child can't be raised well, I don't think they should be born.
At least £20k [i]minimum[/i] should be set aside for the first 10 years of a Child's life.
If you can't raise that, you shouldn't have any kids yet.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;38834558]If a child can't be raised well, I don't think they should be born.
At least £20k [i]minimum[/i] should be set aside for the first 10 years of a Child's life.
If you can't raise that, you shouldn't have any kids yet.[/QUOTE]
as much as i agree with this, it would probably curb population growth [i]massively[/i] but then this is the girlfriends thread im not supposed to be talking about this nerd shit
[QUOTE=Bobie;38834586]as much as i agree with this, it would probably curb population growth [i]massively[/i] but then this is the girlfriends thread im not supposed to be talking about this nerd shit[/QUOTE]
Yeah it'll decrease the population growth of ne'er-do-well's who never work a day in their lives and exist simply to create more children.
[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;38834273]And the thing is, there is a huge number of people out there who use abortion as one uses the pill. without any weight in their conscience whatsoever.[/quote]
beyond some daily mail-style nutter cases, I really don't think this is the truth.
[quote=National Abortion Federation]
MYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.
[B]If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year - 30 or more during her lifetime.[/B] In fact, most women who have abortions have had no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%).5 Considering that most women are fertile for over 30 years, and that birth control is not perfect, the likelihood of having one or two unintended pregnancies is very high.[/quote]
[url=http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm]source for stats[/url]
[quote]Although a bunch of cells may not be considered a human being yet, those have a human potential.[/quote]
should we seriously consider that acorns have oaken potential, and therefore prosecute people as if they had chopped down a tree (which is a serious offense, don'tcha know)? I know you said you don't think it should be illegal/you'd support your girlfriend's wishes, but your thought process kind of drifts that way. I don't see what "human potential" means. your kid could be the next Einstein, but it could be the next Hitler with equal probability. it's a totally neutral thing
[quote]And for me, it lifts up lots of moral and philosophical questions to just be like "ok, let's get this thing done" with abortion.[/quote]
like what, exactly? I agree that forcing people to get abortions is every bit as fucked up as forcing people to carry a child they don't want to birth. that's where the choice bit of pro-choice comes in
[quote]I may have casual sex once in a while and when I used to be in a relationship I had sex very often, but I still take sex very seriously and as responsibly as I can.[/quote]
that's an admirable quality (I'm not being snide here, being responsible about sex is something everyone should learn)
[quote]From my point of view, I think I'd rather assume the responsibility of having a child than feel kinda guilty for just taking an easy way out for a big problem.[/quote]
I see no reason to feel guilty, other than a vague sense that you played a part in putting your girlfriend through a nasty situation. and I don't see how it's an "easy way out". having a kid when you cannot support it simply because you don't like abortion is masochistic.
[quote]However, don't take me wrong. I don't judge other people's views on abortion[/quote]
you kind of did at the start of the post. not to anyone's face, but it was a judgement nonetheless. that's okay, everyone makes judgements
[quote]and I can only imagine how painful can an abortion be for a woman[/quote]
it's good that you can empathise
[quote]If my gf ever got pregnant and she decided to abort, well I may not agree with abortion, but if that would be her wish, I'd support it.[/quote]
can't say fairer than that, really
umm
are you saying if you can't set 20k pounds aside when you have a child you're part of the "ne'er-do-well's who never work a day in their lives"?
because that's a really ugly and stupid judgmental thing to say
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;38834558]If a child can't be raised well, I don't think they should be born.
At least £20k [I]minimum[/I] should be set aside for the first 10 years of a Child's life.
If you can't raise that, you shouldn't have any kids yet.[/QUOTE]
One wonders then how there are poor people out there who manage to be happy way bellow that minimum with more than 2 kids.
Raising a child properly has nothing to do with money. Putting a price on life is just to cold and revealing of how western mentality and capitalism spoiled us. It's like we're no longer happy if we don't have enough money to not have a single care in the world.
[QUOTE=thisispain;38834694]umm
are you saying if you can't set 20k pounds aside when you have a child you're part of the "ne'er-do-well's who never work a day in their lives"?
because that's a really ugly and stupid judgmental thing to say[/QUOTE]
I think he just means you should have this amount or money, or an income which can support paying that amount of money on a child so you can give them a non-strained environment to grow up in.
edit:
It takes a lot of money just to feed and cloth a child over the years until they are old enough to support themselves even partially. A family where the parents are skimping on food for themselves to support the childs health, or any other such thing arn't a good environment to grow up in.
[QUOTE=Rhenae;38834744]I think he just means you should have this amount or money, or an income which can support paying that amount of money on a child so you can give them a non-strained environment to grow up in.[/QUOTE]
yeah that's far more agreeable than the second post he made lmao
What about indigenous tribes? what about women in africa, or India. They have lots of kids and are payed way bellow any of our minimum wages.
I wonder if they consider abortion just because they don't receive 20k...
oh, and did I mention that there aren't as much contraceptives as we have here?
It's just ridiculous and revealing of how western people are so spoiled and dependent on material possessions such as money in order to be happy.
[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;38834732]One wonders then how there are poor people out there who manage to be happy way bellow that minimum with more than 2 kids.
Raising a child properly has nothing to do with money. Putting a price on life is just to cold and revealing of how western mentality and capitalism spoiled us. It's like we're no longer happy if we don't have enough money to not have a single care in the world.[/QUOTE]
Actually, there's a very high amount of correlation between family wealth and child intelligence and success.
[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;38834768]What about indigenous tribes? what about women in africa, or India. They have lots of kids and are payed way bellow any of our minimum wages.
I wonder if they consider abortion just because they don't receive 20k...
oh, and did I mention that there aren't as much contraceptives as we have here?[/QUOTE]
Behemoth stop taking things to an extreme to prove your point. Its not a good way to prove a point.
I'm pretty sure the discussion here is about developed nations where contraceptives and abortions are an option and where simply finding enough food or water arn't more of an issue. Also simply saying women is a bit odd since in India (and most places where women are payed terribly) it is a society where a woman is supported by a man, and he is the one who really makes money to pay for things.
[editline]14th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=mblunk;38834799]Actually, there's a very high amount of correlation between family wealth and child intelligence and success.[/QUOTE]
Most of which is due to opportunities provided to the wealthy, because you have to pay for everything and I think we all know that. This would be less of a thing if as a society the west could be more supportive and helpful to those who are lower down and don't have those opportunities.
[QUOTE=Rhenae;38834818]Behemoth stop taking things to an extreme to prove your point. Its not a good way to prove a point.
I'm pretty sure the discussion here is about developed nations where contraceptives and abortions are an option and where simply finding enough food or water arn't more of an issue. Also simply saying women is a bit odd since in India (and most places where women are payed terribly) it is a society where a woman is supported by a man, and he is the one who really makes money to pay for things.
[editline]14th December 2012[/editline]
Most of which is due to opportunities provided to the wealthy, because you have to pay for everything and I think we all know that. This would be less of a thing if as a society the west could be more supportive and helpful to those who are lower down and don't have those opportunities.[/QUOTE]
The trend shows up before there's any "rich people only" opportunities to be taken advantage of. [url]http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/rich-people-smarter[/url]
Edit: For clarification, see my post below
[QUOTE=Rhenae;38834818]Behemoth stop taking things to an extreme to prove your point. Its not a good way to prove a point.
I'm pretty sure the discussion here is about developed nations where contraceptives and abortions are an option and where simply finding enough food or water arn't more of an issue. Also simply saying women is a bit odd since in India (and most places where women are payed terribly) it is a society where a woman is supported by a man, and he is the one who really makes money to pay for things.
[/QUOTE]
In fact thinking that western middle class civilization only represent about 20% of the world's population, "extreme" situations are a great way to see ourselves in the world and how most of us 20% take most things for granted.
But, ok, let's focus on western culture then:
The minimum wage here is 400€.
There are lots of families here that receive altogether 1400 to 1500€ a month with 2 to 4 kids.
Did they abort because of that? No.
In most countries in Europe you at least may be poor and not be able of having luxuries or much posesions but one thing is certain: You won't starve and social state will never let your children die.
This is something we take for granted in our society since these small privileges we ignore everyday only represent bellow 20% of the world's population.
So basically there are at least 80% of people out there who would change their misery for our misery anytime and have kids in this "misery".
My grandfather is 96 years old, lives with us and is still very healthy.
He grew up in the countryside in the 20s with 3 brothers. My great grandmother worked in the fields and my great grandfather used to transport merchandise in his ox cart between villages. They lived in a house with no electricity nor tap water. Their feeding depended on the livestock and the crops and the water came from the house's spring.
This all happened during a harsh fascist regime.
Did they ever considered not having my grandfather and his brothers? Nope.
I'm not telling you the story of their lives but my grandfather managed to grow up with a pretty decent education. He studied law and became captain of the Police in his district and later moved to this city where he married and had my mother who later had me.
So basically being poor doesn't mean your kid isn't going to grow up properly or end up in a whole life of suffering. He may not be as smart or as skilled as people who grew up in more healthy environments but at least they are given a chance to work for it.
[QUOTE=mblunk;38834933]The trend shows up before there's any "rich people only" opportunities to be taken advantage of. [url]http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/rich-people-smarter[/url][/QUOTE]
eh your link contradicts your sentence
[QUOTE=Rhenae;38834744]I think he just means you should have this amount or money, or an income which can support paying that amount of money on a child so you can give them a non-strained environment to grow up in.
edit:
It takes a lot of money just to feed and cloth a child over the years until they are old enough to support themselves even partially. A family where the parents are skimping on food for themselves to support the childs health, or any other such thing arn't a good environment to grow up in.[/QUOTE]
This is pretty much what I meant..
[QUOTE=thisispain;38834758]yeah that's far more agreeable than the second post he made lmao[/QUOTE]
Yeah what I really meant by 'ne'er do wells' is: There is a large social group, especially prevalent in the UK, who intends to never work, live on council estates, allow their 7-year-old kids to stay out till any time in the evening and do practically anything they want whilst sitting back and not caring/ encouraging them to get a good education or make any changes in their lives. Their sole motivation/ purpose is 'have kids, receive cheques'.
Sure there are cases of council house masterful parents who despite hardships and lack of money manage to raise a great family of kids that go onto great and successful lives - however this is not the reality for easily over a million people in the UK.
I suppose a fair way to do it is, if you expressed an interest in saving and agreed to give away a percentage of your earnings to go into the 'child fund' you could be allowed to have a child there and then.
So that'd give you 10 years to accumulate the £20k to put towards your child, whilst trickling back to you when and where you need it.
[QUOTE=mblunk;38834933]The trend shows up before there's any "rich people only" opportunities to be taken advantage of. [url]http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/rich-people-smarter[/url][/QUOTE]
I read this much:
[quote]From an early age, children of lower socioeconomic backgrounds display lower levels of testable intelligence than children of middle-class or wealthy parents. This trend starts in elementary school and even earlier, and then persists through high school and beyond. [/quote]
And stopped, this is not before higher money amounts effects development opportunities at all! Its a huge middle class phase to do as much to prime your kid for school as early as possible. A child in a lower class family may not be provided the same pre-school learning opportunities, which different toys and activities. Also a lower class family likely has less free time for teaching a child, and may not spend as much time reading to them, teaching them to read, and providing other learning opportunities. Many or even most learning games require a parent to be involved, or involve semi-expensive technology.
They are also of course speaking of "testable" intelligence, which of course goes right back to reading and writing and numbers. The sort of things children may or may not be taught to a large degree at home before hand.
[QUOTE=thisispain;38834971]eh your link contradicts your sentence[/QUOTE]
I interpreted "opportunities" as in better colleges, ease of getting into better jobs, etc. Having a comfy amount of surplus income is relevant as soon as (even before) the child is born. Yeah it's (probably) not going to kill the kid to be born into a comparatively deprived lifestyle, but it certainly helps.
[editline]14th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rhenae;38835007]I read this much:
And stopped, this is not before higher money amounts effects development opportunities at all! Its a huge middle class phase to do as much to prime your kid for school as early as possible. A child in a lower class family may not be provided the same pre-school learning opportunities, which different toys and activities. Also a lower class family likely has less free time for teaching a child, and may not spend as much time reading to them, teaching them to read, and providing other learning opportunities. Many or even most learning games require a parent to be involved, or involve semi-expensive technology.
They are also of course speaking of "testable" intelligence, which of course goes right back to reading and writing and numbers. The sort of things children may or may not be taught to a large degree at home before hand.[/QUOTE]
I misread your post earlier, I agree completely.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;38834978]This is pretty much what I meant..
Yeah what I really meant by 'ne'er do wells' is: There is a large social group, especially prevalent in the UK, who intends to never work, live on council estates, allow their 7-year-old kids to stay out till any time in the evening and do practically anything they want whilst sitting back and not caring/ encouraging them to get a good education or make any changes in their lives. Their sole motivation/ purpose is 'have kids, receive cheques'.
Sure there are cases of council house masterful parents who despite hardships and lack of money manage to raise a great family of kids that go onto great and successful lives - however this is not the reality for easily over a million people in the UK.
I suppose a fair way to do it is, if you expressed an interest in saving and agreed to give away a percentage of your earnings to go into the 'child fund' you could be allowed to have a child there and then.
So that'd give you 10 years to accumulate the £20k to put towards your child, whilst trickling back to you when and where you need it.[/QUOTE]
you're just making big sweeping judgements about people whose lives you don't know anything about; you sound like an old-school Tory MP it's gross
[QUOTE=mblunk;38834933]The trend shows up before there's any "rich people only" opportunities to be taken advantage of. [URL]http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/rich-people-smarter[/URL][/QUOTE]
As true as that proves to be it is still a poor excuse for abortion.
Intelligence does not determine who you are or if you're deserving of having a place in the world. And it's not the one decisive trait that makes you have an impact in the world you live in.
You may not aspire in math or science but you may aspire in music or sports.
Not saying you're doing it, but using that as a justification to abortion is almost like only having a kid if you can only be 100% sure he will be engineered for perfection.
Also it's not poor people's fault for being dumb or poor (well, most of the times it isn't). Those "amounts" usually tend to be the cause of bad policies taken over the years.
[QUOTE=thisispain;38835043]you're just making big sweeping judgements about people whose lives you don't know anything about; you sound like an old-school Tory MP it's gross[/QUOTE]
I guess I didn't work on tills in a supermarket and have some scummy woman mock me for working behind a till and stating that I'd 'never catch her working in a store because she'd never worked a day in her life'. Particular woman is renowned for practically shitting out kids as quickly as possible.
I guess the evidence of this lifestyle was not prevalent at my school, where I was surrounded by at least 30 kids in my year alone, who dropped out at age 13, never got jobs, and now, 10 years on, still do not have jobs, but have 2+ kids.
If this wasn't direct experience from my life, I'd say 'fair enough, maybe it's not as bad as I think' but this stuff visibly happened in plain sight of people.
I'd say you're the one making big sweeping judgments here. You're sounding like some guy who read some statistics online and assumes that everyone acts a certain way because they're supposed to.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;38835195]I guess I didn't work on tills in a supermarket and have some scummy woman mock me for working behind a till and stating that I'd 'never catch her working in a store because she'd never worked a day in her life'. Particular woman is renowned for practically shitting out kids as quickly as possible.
I guess the evidence of this lifestyle was not prevalent at my school, where I was surrounded by at least 30 kids in my year alone, who dropped out at age 13, never got jobs, and now, 10 years on, still do not have jobs, but have 2+ kids.
If this wasn't direct experience from my life, I'd say 'fair enough, maybe it's not as bad as I think' but this stuff visibly happened in plain sight of people.
I'd say you're the one making big sweeping judgments here. You're sounding like some guy who read some statistics online and assumes that everyone acts a certain way because they're supposed to.[/QUOTE]
I believe the problem here in this discussion is it seems like you are applying this standard to all people who do not have a middle or upper-middle class income. Since those people although very noticeable are not generally the majority. Although they are more noticeable because they drop out and you see that happen you may not even know which kids in your year arn't that well off otherwise and are doing fine and working towards a higher education.
[editline]14th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;38835065]As true as that proves to be it is still a poor excuse for abortion.
Intelligence does not determine who you are or if you're deserving of having a place in the world. And it's not the one decisive trait that makes you have an impact in the world you live in.
You may not aspire in math or science but you may aspire in music or sports.
Not saying you're doing it, but using that as a justification to abortion is almost like only having a kid if you can only be 100% sure he will be engineered for perfection.
Also it's not poor people's fault for being dumb or poor (well, most of the times it isn't). Those "amounts" usually tend to be the cause of bad policies taken over the years.[/QUOTE]
Its not an excuse for an abortion, but wanting to provide your child with the best possible start is. Many couples who abort a child at some point do so because they could not reasonably support the child at that time, but intend to have one later under better circumstances.
Being able to provide good, or at least reasonable opportunities for your child is one of the reasons, not specifically wanting to raise the smartest child possible.
[QUOTE=Rhenae;38835249]I believe the problem here in this discussion is it seems like you are applying this standard to all people who do not have a middle or upper-middle class income. Since those people although very noticeable are not generally the majority. Although they are more noticeable because they drop out and you see that happen you may not even know which kids in your year arn't that well off otherwise and are doing fine and working towards a higher education.[/QUOTE]
Alright.. I can see how I'm biasing it.
I suppose the real problem isn't actually income. It's to do with beliefs/ego and how they're formed by experiences.
If you're in a low income family but your grandfather/central role model was a hard worker, charismatic and had a key role in your life - your ego from experience would be more inclined towards working hard and being aspirational.
Likewise a similar situation might arise in a high income family - if your role model was never there or socially active toward you, your ego would probably grow in a similar way, and you might end up failing hard.
Of course there are countless events/scenarios that shape everyone's journey. It was silly of me to discount all low-income people into a stereotype - however it is equally silly to assume that this journey-writing and the stereotypes that result do not exist.
GUYS
I think all anyone is really trying to say is that you shouldn't have a kid unless you are prepared to support and care for that kid, whether that be monetarily or general love and support.
As in you should not have a kid if you are not prepared to care for it, to love it, and to give it the best you can in it's life. In countries like India or Africa that may not be a lot, but as long as you are dedicated to your child's welfare it's what counts. In western nations, having the greatest interest in your child's welfare would normally dictate you work hard to get money to support it as well as loving it.
I don't think anyone is trying to say "You NEED X amount of money to raise a kid", just that you need X amount of care, and in many nations, when you care about your kid you work to be able to get them the best you can.
Alright guys?
Alright.
Now pay more attention to me! :v:
[QUOTE=Rhenae;38835249]abort a child[/QUOTE]
hey I don't mean to tread on your toes here (I was almost waiting for someone to say this, it's very common) but nobody aborts a child. people abort [I]foetuses[/I], not children.
I think it's important to get the language right
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;38835195]I guess I didn't work on tills in a supermarket and have some scummy woman mock me for working behind a till and stating that I'd 'never catch her working in a store because she'd never worked a day in her life'. Particular woman is renowned for practically shitting out kids as quickly as possible.
I guess the evidence of this lifestyle was not prevalent at my school, where I was surrounded by at least 30 kids in my year alone, who dropped out at age 13, never got jobs, and now, 10 years on, still do not have jobs, but have 2+ kids.[/QUOTE]
so you meet a couple of bad people and you decide to cast judgement on random people without even trying to understand why these things are and deciding that women have to earn the right to use their ovaries???
this is nasty stuff
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;38835195]You're sounding like some guy who read some statistics online and assumes that everyone acts a certain way because they're supposed to.[/QUOTE]
no i'm the guy who was raised in the environment you're blagging off about.
doesn't matter what's happened to you, it's no bloody reason to be such a snob
whenever somebody says 'abort a child' it reminds me of this video
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqZPt3lSNtA[/media]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
