Let's immediately begin funding research into an artificial womb. Once an AW can be developed, abortions can be replaced with fetal transplants into AWs, effectively ending the major points of contention between the so-called "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" camps. With an artificial womb, no fetuses would need to be killed, and no unwilling mothers would need to carry said fetuses to term. Ideally, the technology could be developed to make the transplant at least as safe and quick for the mother as an abortion and could even eliminate the "safety of the mother" and "rape/incest" clauses espoused even by most "pro-life" advocates. Unwanted babies born of artificial wombs could be given up for adoption. The costs of the procedure could be paid for by the same resources that currently fund the enormous efforts of the two opposing camps today.
Comments? Criticisms??
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It will never happend, for a number of reasons.
First, the very act of getting pregnant can be fatal...not the fun part before, but actually getting pregnant. An artificial womb probably will require some sort of formal gestation period before the fetus will be able to removed from the mother. Some women will not be able to carry the fetus to term even that long, it would be either too painful or risky.
Second, this will be a surgical procedure, and you can't force anyone to undergo a surgical procedure against their wil...and some women won't want to do this, for whatever reason.
Also it opens up all sorts of problems...who will pay for it, who will pay to raise the child, what types of rights does the mother have after birth, can the cild trace his/her parents....
Not that I think an AW is a bad thig...just the opposite, I think it is a great start.
But only a start.
Kwea
[ January 19, 2005, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Second, this will be a surgical procedure, and you can't force anyone to undergo a surgical procedure against their wil...and some women won't want to do this, for whatever reason.
Abortion is an elective surgical procedure also. No one (to my knowledge) is forced to undergo an abortion. This procedure would replace the abortion procedure.
quote: First, the very act of getting pregnant can be fatal...not the fun part before, but actually getting pregnant. An artificial womb probably will require some sort of formal gestation period before the fetus will be able to removed from the mother. Some women will not be able to carry the fetus to term even that long, it would be either too painful or risky.
The (theoretical) AW would be perfected to sustain an embryo from the moment of conception. Ideally couples who so desired would be able to conceive in-vitro and have the embryo directly implanted into the AW.
The (theoretical) transplant procedure would be perfected to be even safer than the abortion procedure today. There may be mishaps where (due to urgency, frailty of the mother, or special complications) the embryo or fetus does not survive, but there is some risk in all medical procedures.
quote: Also it opens up all sorts of problems...who will pay for it, who will pay to raise the child, what types of rights does the mother have after birth, can the cild trace his/her parents....
Actually, I don't think it "opens up" any of these problems. Who pays for abortions? Who pays to raise all the unsupported children today? What rights does a woman have who puts a child up for adoption today? Can adoptive children trace their parent today? None of these are new issues. There may be some new facets to these issues and I'd be happy to debate specifics.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Barring any improvement in the ability to reduce conceptions, I approve of your idea, and I approve of the tax increases necessary to give it government support.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: This procedure would replace the abortion procedure.
To clarify, this procedure would make abortion unnecessary. The only reason to choose abortion over this option would be specifically to kill the embryo or fetus. (By all accounts, no one gets an abortion simply because they want to see something die.) Therefore, abortion could be eliminated as a legal surgical procedure altogether.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Barring any improvement in the ability to reduce conceptions, . . .
I'm guessing I'll agree with you, but would you care to clarify?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
First of all, it won't replace abortion...that is what I am saying. Some women won't allow this, for whatever reasons, and we can't force them to....nor should we want to.
Second, it DOES open up all sorts of issues. Right now an abortion is sometimes paid for by the parent, but is also covered my insurance.
The kids college costs, the cost of feeding ang raising them, all that would need to be covered, Not all the kids would be adopted, so who pays? The "parent"?
None of this would address the actual question..when does human life begin.
I think it would be a step in the right direction, to be sure, but we are a long way from any of this technology being ready, even in a beginnig stage.
It is easy to say in this thread "no risk involved" or " can sustain life from conception", but the reality is that is isn't going to happen within our lifetimes. There are too many complications, and too many liability isses, for this to happen any time soon. The people who claim otherwise are probably trying to seel something.
Kwea
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Karl-- I think we need to find a more effective way of teaching children about the effects of sex.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Scott R - I whole-heartedly agree.
Kwea -
quote: First of all, it won't replace abortion...that is what I am saying. Some women won't allow this, for whatever reasons, and we can't force them to....nor should we want to.
Why won't it replace abortion? What is the position of the (theoretical) woman who would rather have an abortion than the transplant. I won't say at this point that women should or shouldn't be forced to accept this as an alternative to abortion. You'll have to provide a more compelling reason than "for whatever reason".
As for who would pay, well, I think the procedure itself would have the same claim to coverage (i.e. insurance) as an abortion does today. "Pro-life" groups would also have the opportunity to "put their money where their mouth is" so to speak and put their vast energies into fund raising to pay for situations where the procedure is un-funded. Or alternatively, the government could raise taxes to pay for it. I'd vote for that.
Who pays for the kid? Well any un-wanted children would be orphans. Who takes care of them now?
None of this is meant to address the "when does life begin" question. It's meant to make the question irrelevant.
I've said from the beginning this is theoretical. I know it won't happen tomorrow, though I'm not 100% sure it couldn't happen in my lifetime (from a technological standpoint - politics is a different matter entirely). But none of this is a reason we shouldn't pursue this technology. AIDS may not be cured in my lifetime. Does this invalidate the need for or usefulness of that research?
Posted by Homestarrunner (Member # 5090) on :
That would be a pretty good alternative. I would wonder, though, whether it would actually be available to every woman who wanted to be rid of the pregnancy.
And if the woman gave up the fetus to be developed in an artificial womb, would she have any rights to the child when it was "born"? I could see a lot of second thoughts at that point.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Here's a better solution (I mentioned it on the other thread, but no one commented). Parents should put their children on birth control when they hit puberty, and no one should go off birth control until he/she wants to have a child.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
One big problem with this idea is that it seems to me that one problem some women have with giving up children for adoption is that they don't like the idea of their offspring running around in somebody else's care. It seems that some people feel that if their child ends up being born and becomes an actual human, then it is their responsibility to care for it. That is what makes abortion so handy -- it removes that responsibility from the world.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The development of this womb would inevitably lead to the destruction of unborn children along the way, so I don't find developing one to be an acceptable alternative.
Were it to magically come into existence, I don't think I'd have a problem with it. Assuming the operation to remove the embryo were as safe or safer than any form of abortion, even current constitutional jurisprudence on abortion would probably allow such a device's mandated use.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: The development of this womb would inevitably lead to the destruction of unborn children along the way, so I don't find developing one to be an acceptable alternative.
If the volunteers were those who would have an abortion anyways, I would definitely prefer the costs of development to the cost of not having it down the road.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Parents should put their children on birth control when they hit puberty, and no one should go off birth control until he/she wants to have a child.
I agree with this, but keep in mind that there are not, as far as I know, any 100% effective birth control methods.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Parents should put their children on birth control when they hit puberty, and no one should go off birth control until he/she wants to have a child.
You cannot force this to happen without denying a lot of people the freedom to practice their religion.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I agree with this, but keep in mind that there are not, as far as I know, any 100% effective birth control methods.
Castration is the only one that I can think of.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Okay, no 100% effective reversible birth control methods Posted by Homestarrunner (Member # 5090) on :
quote:I agree with this, but keep in mind that there are not, as far as I know, any 100% effective birth control methods.
Hunting storks to extinction.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
What’s wrong with personal responsibility? Like you choose to have sex, then you have responsibility for the baby.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Because the capability to have sex does not equal capability to deal with the results.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I think the transplant procedure would be far more safe and easier on the mother than an actual abortion. The reason? Rather than scraping out the whole uterus and risking such problems as accidental perforation, the transplant would have to proceed carefully with a scope and very small instruments to harvest the embryo successfully. After that, the woman would have a normal, if heavy, period. It probably would be more successful before the development of the placenta begins. So, you see, I think it would need to occur earlier rather than later.
What cases of pregnancy are so dangerous from early on that they couldn't benefit from this? This technology would be miraculous to the only situation I can know of that is so severe as to threaten death. Ectopic pregnancies could actually be saved. Indeed, such technology would require the ability to successfully transfer an embryo and could be applicable not only from the fallopian tube to an artificial womb, but possibly even to the woman's womb.
But ectopic pregnancies are extremely rare. No one really considers them an abortion when the pregnancy is terminated because the pregnancy was not viable to begin with. What other dangerous situations would indicate an abortion over an embryo transfer?
Dagonee,
Do you think that offering the procedure to a woman who would have an abortion no matter what could be considered the lesser of two evils? Instead of automatically causing death, at least there is some effort to save the child. The woman asking for an abortion would also sign away all parental rights.
There are many, many adoptive parents out there looking only for babies. They wait for years on lists. I don't think finding parents for the children would be a problem.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Jay, some people have more willpower than others. Personal responsibility has a poor track record as a contraceptive. It works 100% until self-control breaks down (which is quickly and often, for many people).
The issue I have with an artificial womb is that it will surely be expensive. No insurance company is going to want to foot a huge bill for an unwanted child, nor anyone else. It sound awful, but I think it's true.
I think we should attempt to engineer ourselves to reproduce by subdivision. Like certain critters that grow an extra arm, the arm falls off, and turns into another critter. Now that would be cool!
[ January 19, 2005, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What’s wrong with personal responsibility? Like you choose to have sex, then you have responsibility for the baby.
Because the supreme court has ruled that we cannot force that responsibility on others. Whether they are right or wrong, that's the law of the land, and we have to deal with it.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
For some other perspectives, check out this thread from a few months ago.
I had a long argument with someone before that thread, and basically it came down to that she would never support making abortion illegal, even should this sort of alternative be available. In her opinion, a new alternative should just be one of many choices.
It wasn't really a good conversation. It came down to her telling me I was only saying what I was saying because I was a man.
Anyway, she also mentioned something along the lines of what Porter said. She has had friends that gave up children for adoption and it apparently caused them a great deal of emotional trauma to know that their children were out there in the world.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you think that offering the procedure to a woman who would have an abortion no matter what could be considered the lesser of two evils? Instead of automatically causing death, at least there is some effort to save the child. The woman asking for an abortion would also sign away all parental rights.
There are many, many adoptive parents out there looking only for babies. They wait for years on lists. I don't think finding parents for the children would be a problem.
I don't have a problem with offering the procedure. I do have a problem with developing it, because of the trial and error issues related to the death of the experimental subjects. And it's not just death - I'm sure some will be brought to term with serious conditions caused by such devices before they are perfected.
It's akin to saying we could cure cancer if only we could vivisect 100 cancer patients first.
Sure, in a pure numbers game it's worth it. But not in a moral sense.
I'm just not a consequentialist, I guess.
Dagonee
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
That always makes me shake my head. It causes them more trauma that they gave someone a life than that they killed a child because they didn't want it.
I've known someone with an abortion who was extremely traumatized about it. She wished over and over that she'd kept the pregnancy and given the child up.
So where does that leave us?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Dag, if we're going to assume that the volunteers for the experimental phase are going to have an abortion anyways, what's the risk? Some babies saved is better than none. At the very least, holding off research now would only punish future generations. Look, we as pro-life advocates have to understand something, we are still not in power. Unfortunately, we don't have the bargaining power even with a Bush presidency. We have to essentially take what we can get.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If we're that out of power, then my opinion won't stop it from getting developed. And if we're in power enough to stop it, then we're in power enough to illegalize abortion.
My opposition to abortion comes from a single, simple premise: at the moment of conception, a new human being, fully endowed with personhood, comes into being. For me to be consistent with that premise, I have to be unwilling to allow medical experiments that will result in death and serious bodily harm to be conducted upon them.
Dagonee
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Most trial and error issues, I assume, would occur with animals way before any attempt would be made with humans. And like I said, human trials would only occur with the embryos of women who would refuse the pregnancy no matter what.
Ahh, but here does come your most sticky point: Just because such a womb would bring the child to term safely doesn't mean the child coming out of it would be healthy. There could be a lot of harmful effects from being gestated in this way before solutions to problems were found.
But what if the risk were very little? There are two technologies right now that I think could make the development of this less cumbersome in a hundred or so years. Biotechnology, genetics, and nanotechnology are very hot fields right now. I see a point where we could know how to do this without much actual trial and error.
Research that would need to occur:
Continuous monitoring of hormones in the blood from weeks before conception to weeks after delivery. Possible probably only by microscopic samplers and transmitters residing in the mother's bloodstream.
Monitoring of uterine environment during same time frame. Same technology as before but with an addition. I think we'll need some visual monitoring here, on both a microscopic and macroscopic level.
Replication of what we find.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote:Dag, if we're going to assume that the volunteers for the experimental phase are going to have an abortion anyways, what's the risk? Some babies saved is better than none.
I think the point Dag is getting at is, what about those who survive the AW, but are worse for it?
quote:So where does that leave us?
People play the what if game all the time. With children it just happens to raise the stakes. I'm not answering your question, but simply commenting that this problem has no silver bullet solution.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Research that would need to occur:
Continuous monitoring of hormones in the blood from weeks before conception to weeks after delivery. Possible probably only by microscopic samplers and transmitters residing in the mother's bloodstream.
Monitoring of uterine environment during same time frame. Same technology as before but with an addition. I think we'll need some visual monitoring here, on both a microscopic and macroscopic level.
Replication of what we find.
I have no problem with any of that, assuming informed consent, IRB approval, etc. But I doubt anyone would think we could create such a device and expect it to be at all reliable the first time it's used on a human being.
I am concerned that people seem to think that the result of a disabled child being born from this is somehow worse than the child dying in-pseudo-utero, but maybe that's just because I'm not willing to look at the death from abortion as the equivalent incident as the death from experimentation.
Dagonee
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
While I think an artificial womb would be a wonderful developement, I don't view it as a 100% replacement for abortion.
And I don't like the idea of raising millions of children on tax payer money. Because if was offered, people WOULD use it as birth control. It doesn't even carry the guilt and stigma of abortion.
Imagine all the children who have been aborted (alive, yes, wonderful) but who are now living on the dole? And scarred for life having not grown up in a family?
Nasty.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: It's akin to saying we could cure cancer if only we could vivisect 100 cancer patients first.
Sure, in a pure numbers game it's worth it. But not in a moral sense.
Unless the cancer patients choose to undergo the procedure.
I realize that the infants can't make that choice.
But are parents allowed to decide for their children whether the children will undergo risky medical procedures?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Risky, yes, but not if there's no hope of benefit from it. And the benefit to the children would only come from the parent's pre-existing desire to abort the child, so I don't count that as a benefit.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, yeah. It doesn't make sense to give the guy with the gun the option of breaking kneecaps instead.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote:I am concerned that people seem to think that the result of a disabled child being born from this is somehow worse than the child dying in-pseudo-utero, but maybe that's just because I'm not willing to look at the death from abortion as the equivalent incident as the death from experimentation.
It's certainly less final than an abortion. With an abortion, the fetus is dead. If the child were somehow damaged by an artifical womb, but survived, I think that would be much more painful to the parents on a day-to-day basis.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I can see the continuous monitoring devices occuring on a far different track than as a precurser to artificial wombs.
There are lots of conditions we could find the cure for if we could only have continuous data about the chemical and biological state of the blood and organs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, exactly, (Edit: Amka). Such research is probably useful, and will probably save many lives.
[ January 19, 2005, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And I don't like the idea of raising millions of children on tax payer money. ... Imagine all the children who have been aborted (alive, yes, wonderful) but who are now living on the dole?
I don't think this would be a big problem. As was stated before, that is a big desire for adoptable babies. If people could adopt the baby starting at birth, millions of people would jump at the chance.
Whether there would be enough people wanting to adopt *all* of the no-aborted babies, I don't know. But by no means would it be all of them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's certainly less final than an abortion. With an abortion, the fetus is dead. If the child were somehow damaged by an artifical womb, but survived, I think that would be much more painful to the parents on a day-to-day basis.
What about the child? Once he or she is old enough to understand, do you think they'll be glad to know that the mere fact they exist is considered the worst outcome? That not existing was the preferred result?
Dagonee
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Well, Annie and I are both female, Mormon, and we wear glasses. I guess we also both like Orson Scott Card. Not a bad person to be mistaken for Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Imagine all the children who have been aborted (alive, yes, wonderful) but who are now living on the dole? And scarred for life having not grown up in a family?
Pix, I don't understand what you're talking about here. Could you link to some stories about such children? Considering how hard it is to adopt a newborn baby in the US, I don't understand how an attempted abortion that resulted in live birth could end up growing up without a family. Unless there were very serious birth defects. Which would mean they'd be on public assistance all their lives anyway.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I like the idea of saving unborn lives...but I don't think an artificial womb could adequately replace the real one. There is also the possibility that if one was developed, there would be some pressure on women with wanted pregnancies to gestate them artificially.....some scientists would love the idea of constantly monitoring every pregnancy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, Annie and I are both female, Mormon, and we wear glasses. I guess we also both like Orson Scott Card. Not a bad person to be mistaken for
Sorry. Typing too fast, I guess. Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote:What about the child? Once he or she is old enough to understand, do you think they'll be glad to know that the mere fact they exist is considered the worst outcome? That not existing was the preferred result?
I wasn't arguing the position, or at least not very hard . I don't know what the child would think, nor do I have any basis for speculation. I have some experience with parents though, and I know that if thier child were damaged by their decision, it would be a source of pain.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't like the idea of it being available because then, as dpr said, there would be pressure on people with wanted pregnancies to use it. What employer wouldn't prefer his employee gestate artificially, so there are none of those pesky doctor's appointments and other things that cause her to miss work so much?
If we want people to be more responsible, and not get pregnant in the first place, there need to be consequences. So, while I'd support the idea of an aritifical womb if it prevented abortions (though I think there are too many inherent problems with the idea to make it totally workable) I think the parents should be the ones to pay for the child if it's not adopted.
Note I said parents, not mother. Babies aren't conceived alone. The men involved should also be forced to bear some of the cost. The parents should pay child support until the kid is 18.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Pix, I don't understand what you're talking about here. Could you link to some stories about such children? Considering how hard it is to adopt a newborn baby in the US, I don't understand how an attempted abortion that resulted in live birth could end up growing up without a family. Unless there were very serious birth defects. Which would mean they'd be on public assistance all their lives anyway.
From what I understand there is a shortage of White babies and an even larger shortage of white MALE babies. But there is an excess of non-white babies, especially non-white, female babies.
Now I can't link anything to this. This is what I've heard and I haven't done any research on it.
Ok, here's a link from an organization promoting adoption over abortion. Even they admit there's a problem.
Actually, there are enough couples wanting these babies, but, sadly, they frequently aren’t adopted. Reasons include unwillingness of the natural mother to release the child, unrealistically high standards for minority parents to meet in order to qualify, and unwillingness of agencies to allow white parents to adopt them.
E. Lee, "White Couples’ Obstacles to Adopt Nonwhites," Wall Street Journal, Feb. 27, 1987
Black people make up 12% of the population in the U.S., but 42% of the children in foster care are black. There are 450,000 in foster care, of whom 42% (or 189,000) are black. In an industrialized state, about two-thirds of children awaiting adoption are black, e.g., in Cincinnati 84 of 87 such children were black.
Cincinnati Enquirer, Gregg, May 9, 1996
From that same site... Imagine the glut on the "adoption market" if 1.5 million new babies a year were thrown into the mix? How many minority babies would be adopted then?
quote: How many babies are adopted?
4% of non-marital births are placed for adoption. In the U.S. this is about 50,000 non-related adoptions a year compared to 1,500,000 babies aborted.
Pix
[ January 19, 2005, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee -- I tend to agree with you regarding consequentialism. However, it would be possible to develop this device in what I feel is a morally reasonable fashion.
Basically, there are some instances where using such a device would be the only alternative which offered a decent possibility of keeping the mother and the child alive. For instances, those pregnancies which are judged to constitute a very high risk to the life of the mother.
If the development of such a device were conducted with testing only occurring in such situations until the device were considered to have a comparable risk to modern childbirth techniques, I would support its development.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I agree.
We haven't really addressed the fact that we already have 'experiment or let the baby die' procedures when it comes to premature babies.
A device that more closely resembles an artificial womb would raise their chances of life and reduce disabilities would certainly be an improvement over current technology. There is already much damage done in trying to save their lives, but it can't be helped. It is either risk the damage or let the child die.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:How many babies are adopted?
4% of non-marital births are placed for adoption. In the U.S. this is about 50,000 non-related adoptions a year compared to 1,500,000 babies aborted.
This is how many are currently available to be adopted, not how many would be adopted if they could be.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I wasn't arguing the position, or at least not very hard [Wink] . I don't know what the child would think, nor do I have any basis for speculation. I have some experience with parents though, and I know that if thier child were damaged by their decision, it would be a source of pain.
Under the circumstances we've been talking about, these are children who would have been aborted. So presumably the parents wouldn't know about it, right?
quote:Dagonee -- I tend to agree with you regarding consequentialism. However, it would be possible to develop this device in what I feel is a morally reasonable fashion.
Basically, there are some instances where using such a device would be the only alternative which offered a decent possibility of keeping the mother and the child alive. For instances, those pregnancies which are judged to constitute a very high risk to the life of the mother.
If the development of such a device were conducted with testing only occurring in such situations until the device were considered to have a comparable risk to modern childbirth techniques, I would support its development.
Yes, this could be acceptable, at least to me. Or at least less troublesome, depending on the details.
quote:We haven't really addressed the fact that we already have 'experiment or let the baby die' procedures when it comes to premature babies.
A device that more closely resembles an artificial womb would raise their chances of life and reduce disabilities would certainly be an improvement over current technology. There is already much damage done in trying to save their lives, but it can't be helped. It is either risk the damage or let the child die.
This is a very good point. Treatments intended to assist the particular patient aren't problematic to me, even if they carry grave risk of harm or death, as long as certain basic guidelines are met and the physician is truly working for this patient's well-being.
For example, I'd trust CT in such a situation implicitly. I've heard some horror stories about research that would give me pause with an unknown doctor.
Of course, in such a situation I'd probably not be thinking at my best.
Dagonee
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:You cannot force this to happen without denying a lot of people the freedom to practice their religion.
Obviously I wouldn't make the birth control thing a law. That would be a clear infringement of the right to self-determination. Instead it should be an aspect of (mainstream) culture. It should be considered normal and wise for people to be on birth control when they aren't trying to conceive. Those who follow anti-birth-control religions are also (ideally) not going to have much pre-marital sex, so it could have a big effect on the problem of unwanted children.
quote:Because the supreme court has ruled that we cannot force that responsibility on others.
And even if the SC did rule that you could force it on people, realistically abortion will never be banned in all states.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Would there be some form of birth control for the boys to take too, or is this just something you would suggest for the girls?
I mean, it's not possible for a guy to wear a condom at all times, just in case.
[ January 19, 2005, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Hopefully they'll develop something that men can use. I've got my fingers crossed!
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm pretty sure I saw an article on an experimental hormonal treatment that temporarily stops sperm production. It was apparently very effective in the trials.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Oddly enough I see men being less than thrilled about using it. Not all men, but...
Guys? What's your take?
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I wouldn't mind, as long as there were no long-term side effects. I have no insecurities about my virility.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
See, I would think it would be so manly to even *need* to be using it that there's no reason to feel insecure.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Are you saying the pills should come on a poster that says, "I take birth control pills because I have a lot of SEX! Yeah, that's right, I'm so pi-imp!"
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yes. Definitely.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
You have a poor impression of most males. Although not altogether incorrect. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I know that it's not rational, but it would bother me somewhat to take birth control.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm mainly kidding. I don't want my son to see ads like that.
And I admit that I have not the best impression of males, which I am trying to remedy.
Some guys I meet and I think they're great and trust them to be good people, but often my idea of "men" includes a lot of things I wish it didn't.
[ January 19, 2005, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
PSI Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
A lot of sexually active teens and young men are terrified of impregnating their girlfriends. I think any irrational fears would be trumped by this rational one, if such a thing were available and accepted by the culture.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think you're right. I don't like wearing a condom, but it's preferrable to an unwanted pregnancy.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I can think of at least one guy who doesn't take that stance. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I can think of at least one guy who doesn't take that stance.
Probably because condoms are uncomfortable. A lot of guys feel that way. That's why we need a male birth control pill.
But having the pill isn't the entire answer, or even most of it. My point is that it needs to become normal and accepted to use such drugs constantly from a fairly young age until one decides to reproduce.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
going back to earlier posts it was mentioned that the pill could be made mandatory. What about those women whose body rejects the pill and/or reacts emotionally to it? I know several women who are unable to take the pill due to reactions, both mental and physical.
...
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I didn't mean mandatory as in legally mandatory. I meant that parents should make their kids get on the pill. If there are side effects the girl should stop taking it, and inform her partner(s) of this.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
From the teenagers I know, "making" them get on the pill just does not work. I had freinds who tried that with their oldest. She is 20 and expecting #2. (This one as conceived because she went to get the Depo, was told when she stopped it "could" take her "up to" 6 months to get pregnant, which she chose to interpret as "I'm good for 9 months".) Education and open communication between parents and kids is key, but in the end, kids will do what they choose to do.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Why did she stop taking it?
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
She meant to get it again,but she thought the nurse was telling her she needed to come back in 9 months. I know this is a terrible, terrible thing to say, but she's not playing with a full deck.
[ January 19, 2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: dread pirate romany ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I meant that parents should make their kids get on the pill.
I can tell you at least one parent who isn't going to do that.
<-- this one
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Since your kids are going to be taught that premarital sex is wrong wrong wrong -- and in Utah they're likely to encounter only other kids who believe the same thing -- they're not likely to get pregnant.
If I were a Mormon living in less idyllic circumstances, I would consider the possibility that some less-scrupulous kid could fool one of my daughters into having sex with him, and develop a backup plan in case that happens. This is an unlikely scenario, but teen pregnancy is a very bad situation, so taking extreme measures makes sense.
As it is, I don't believe that premarital sex is morally wrong, so my kids (if/when they exist) will be put on birth control and advised to wait until they're really in love.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
mph, you're not the only one. Pregnancy isn't the worst that can happen when kids have sex.
In one of Heinlein's books, he describes how in a survival test, it's not a great idea to take a gun. Why? 'cause it makes you feel all invulnerable like you can take on the world. Someone who wants to survive in the wild needs to be very aware of their fragility and having a gun short circuits that. (Tunnel in the Sky paraphrased)
Same thing putting kids on birth control, IMO. They may never intend to need it. They may have every conviction in the world of waiting until marriage, or the right one, or true love. But the assurance the birth control gives them takes away an edge that they may well need when faced with a temptation they never expected.
'Course for kids who have every intention of getting as much *** as they can, best to go ahead and give them whatever they need to be as safe as they can given the choices they're making.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:and in Utah they're likely to encounter only other kids who believe the same thing
I am not naive enought to believe that.
Besides, I doubt we'll be be here in Utah that long.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
In that case, you might want to think about it. I'm not a parent, so I don't feel very comfortable giving advice about parenting to anyone. But even teens who have a very good moral compass and are taught well can have pretty bad judgement in the heat of the moment, and are very susceptible to pressure from other kids.
I'm sure that your problem with birth control comes about at least partly because it seems like advocating sex. But I think it's quite possible to communicate to a kid that you're not advocating it, you're just taking steps to minimize risk in case of a mistake.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:In one of Heinlein's books, he describes how in a survival test, it's not a great idea to take a gun. Why? 'cause it makes you feel all invulnerable like you can take on the world. Someone who wants to survive in the wild needs to be very aware of their fragility and having a gun short circuits that.
That's just false. If you're well trained in how to survive in the wild, more equipment can only be beneficial to you.
Recoupling your analogy to the real world, if the kid is well educated, extra protection from the bad consequences of sex won't do him/her any harm.
quote:Pregnancy isn't the worst that can happen when kids have sex.
Actually, I think it pretty much is. Except in very poor areas of the country, AIDS is almost unknown among children. Any STD that a kid picks up is likely to be treatable. Even something quite serious like herpes is not going to ruin a kid's career and life plans the way an unwanted child will, or traumatize the kid as an abortion well might. Also, the risk of infection is less broad that the risk of pregnancy. If both kids are virgins, neither is going to pick up an STD, but pregnancy is still quite possible.
quote:They may never intend to need it. They may have every conviction in the world of waiting until marriage, or the right one, or true love. But the assurance the birth control gives them takes away an edge that they may well need when faced with a temptation they never expected.
OK. In that case it depends on the specifics -- how much extra temptation is there with birth control, vs. how much extra risk without it? My guess is that the extra temptation is a definite but small factor, while the extra risk is quite considerable.
quote:'Course for kids who have every intention of getting as much *** as they can, best to go ahead and give them whatever they need to be as safe as they can given the choices they're making.
The problem is, no parent is ever going to be perceptive enough to realize, "Yes, my kid is just out to get as much tail as he can." Nobody can think that way about his own child.
[ January 19, 2005, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
** warning...post may contain information that might be classified as "too much information about jeniwren" ... skip post if you are MPH **
Sorry, Destineer, but I have genital herpes (have had since I was 19) and it is not a picnic. Sure, it's not a death sentence, but it is also a distinct hinderance when searching for a spouse. It was easier to find a compatible partner willing to take on my son than it was to find one willing to risk an incurable STD. That's not an exageration. It seriously limits your choices when looking for a permanent partner. Far more so than if you have children. (Which is not to say that I think having a baby when you're a teen is in any way *better*.)
quote:The problem is, no parent is ever going to be perceptive enough to realize, "Yes, my kid is just out to get as much tail as he can." Nobody can think that way about his own child.
Um..I think you're a bit naive then. I know a father who included sexual techniques in educating his son about the facts of life. He not only encouraged him to have sex, he found his son's first partner for him. He thought it was part of being a good father.
Aside from that, not all parents wear blinders about their kids. We all miss some cues, I think, but good parents do try to have as realistic a view of their kids as possible -- you can't effectively counter something you deny exists.
*edited to add spoiler warning at top*
[ January 19, 2005, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Pregnancy isn't the worst that can happen when kids have sex.
I agree.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:** warning...post may contain information that might be classified as "too much information about jeniwren" ... skip post if you are MPH [Smile] **
Thanks, but I went ahead and read it anyway. And I'm not sad that I did.
[ January 19, 2005, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I'm still for altering human DNA so that we enter puberty at 25... though I realize that the repercussions are probably pretty awful.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
OK, this is one of those situations where it doesn't seem right to argue the point any further. Jeni, I wish you all the best, and I'm sorry if I said anything hurtful.
quote:I'm still for altering human DNA so that we enter puberty at 25... though I realize that the repercussions are probably pretty awful.
Probably. I'd be very surprised if a species could go through the sort of intellectual and emotional maturing process that humans do during adolescence without maturing sexually at the same time. If you delayed puberty somehow, you'd probably end up with a bunch of 25-year-olds who acted like they were 14.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The last I heard on male birth control (and this was a year or so ago so it's quite possible the situation has changed) a very effective male birth control shot was in testing, but nothing else. I wouldn't be comfortable doing it but that's because I hate needles. If there was a pill form I wouldn't feel any werider taking that than I would about my SO taking birth control.
Hobbes Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Male birth control, eh ?
It's a nice thought/option, but I've read the threads trashing guys for not remembering to put down a toilet seat. This seems like it would be a much bigger "whoops".
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
(((MPH))) I'm glad.
Destineer, thank you for that courtesy. That's very kind of you. I only shared that info with you so you'd hear a perspective from someone who has been there. No pain to apologize for, and I have a wonderful husband now so it's not like I'm still looking. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:t's a nice thought/option, but I've read the threads trashing guys for not remembering to put down a toilet seat. This seems like it would be a much bigger "whoops".
I don't forget to put it down. I leave it up on purpose.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Darn skippy.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
As long as we're theorizing about perfect technologies, here's what I'd like to see.
Mandatory, reversible sterilization at birth. Reversible only upon heterosexual marriage.
That'd pretty much eliminate abortion, and on a global level, would help with population issues.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yay for fascism and lack of religious freedom!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The cost issue here can't be brushed aside so easily.
Currently, the average cost for neonatal intensive care for very pre-mature babies is around $250,000. Let's assume that a baby could be gestated in an artificial womb for the same cost. This is probably conservative since the gestation period would be 3 times as long and the technology would be more complex. If the $1 million babies who were aborted every year transferred to the AW, the total cost would be $250 billion/year. That's also probably a low number since there are many woman now who choose not to have an abortion because they don't want to kill the baby. Add to that the number who might not use birth control if they perceived the AW to be an easy no moral qualms solution to an unwanted pregnancy and we are talking serious money.
When you consider that about a quarter of our population can't afford basic medical care, would it be just to put those resources into giving woman an easy out from an unwanted pregnancy?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:As long as we're theorizing about perfect technologies, here's what I'd like to see.
Mandatory, reversible sterilization at birth. Reversible only upon heterosexual marriage.
The reversible sterilization is a technology. Making it mandatory has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with politics.
And yeah, that would be a sever violation of people's rights to force it on them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:When you consider that about a quarter of our population can't afford basic medical care, would it be just to put those resources into giving woman an easy out from an unwanted pregnancy?
In my view, the purpose behind this isn't to give the woman an "easy out". It's to give the baby a possible out that includes survival.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There is another possible out for the baby -- require the mother to carry the baby to term.
I'm not saying that there are not problems with that option, but with the exception of cases where the mother's life is in immediate danger (which would cause the death of the baby as well) it is an option. The advantages of the AW over this option are all for the mother, not the baby.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Yep, I know it's pretty much impossible politically.
I think that unwanted pregnancies are a major problem, no? Single parents, unacknowledged children, abortions, and the population issue (if over population is a genuine problem).
All those problems would be largely solved - and no one would be losing a choice they value anyways. How many people plan to conceive out of wedlock?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I've known a few people who have planned to conceive out of wedlock.
On the other hand, I've never known anyone whose planned to conceive and then have an abortion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I should also note that I have known quite a few people who have had unplanned pregnancies in wedlock. I suspect that abortions among married persons are not that uncommon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:On the other hand, I've never known anyone whose planned to conceive and then have an abortion.
Sad to say, I know of two planned pregnancies that ended in abortion.
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I know of one as well (although it was for unforeseeable medical reasons).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Neither of the ones I know about was medical-related. One divorce, one job w/ no economic pressure.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It sickens me that people have so little respect for life.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Ouch. Was there a reason they couldn't just give the kid up for adoption?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You can't do that and keep it secret.
What would the neighbors think?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Maybe there should be less of a stigma in giving up a child you won't/can't care for.
There's always the possibility of telling everyone the child was stillborn, if you are willing to lie.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But then they'd have to feel guilty when everybody came by offering condolences.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Sure, but I would consider it better than aborting the child.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:None of this is meant to address the "when does life begin" question. It's meant to make the question irrelevant.
Not so fast...you aren't getting out of it that easy.
Legally it would still matter.....because you are forcing someone to do something they might not want to do, and currently you would have no legal basis to do so. The fetus has no "right to life", and is unlikely to have one any time soon.
It would be a great option, but there are MANY problems, and not all of them relating to costs...although that is a HUGE one. The current infastructure we have for adoptions isn't working as it is, not well at least, and dropping 1.5 million babies a year (conservitly) into it isn't going to be easy....it may not be possible at all, to be honest.
If someone feels that it isn't in their best interest to use an AW, how could you legally force then to do so....and if you did, wouldn't that be as much of a violation of their rights as forcing them to carry it to term?
I think that a lot of people would choose to use it though, so the abortion rate would plummet. As long as they had no responsibility to the kids, that is.
All of this is a moot point..I don't think it will ever be a viable option. It is WAY ahead of where we are right now....it reminds me of the cloning issues raised a few years ago. Sure, we can do it, but not well, and we don;t understand why Dolly died so young, or how to prevent it form happening again....
[ January 20, 2005, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Kwea - Well I'll grant you that point on the right to life issue.
Actually, I've toyed with the idea of an AW for some time, but never really considered it in light of the abortion issue. I just thought of that recently, thus the thread. As it stands I'm pretty convinced that although it could be a good option for women with unwanted pregnancies who abhor the idea of abortion, it probably couldn't be implemented in any kind of mandatory manner, and certainly wouldn't end abortions. At least not in our current social/political climate.
Oh well, it was an interesting and surprising civil discussion on the matter, no?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Sure, but I would consider it better than aborting the child
So would I. I was trying to point out that it is probably selfish reasons that lead people do do that.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
quote: The fetus has no "right to life", and is unlikely to have one any time soon.
I'm sorry, but that attitude of society sickens me. Legally true or not, it is one of the most abhorrent manifestations of selfishness regularly condoned and fought for in this country.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Re male birth control, I know of at least two men who I know would consider such a thing to be damaging to his manliness. I imagine he's not the only one by a long shot.
quote:I'm sorry, but that attitude of society sickens me. Legally true or not, it is one of the most abhorrent manifestations of selfishness regularly condoned and fought for in this country.
You may believe this to be true, and you have the right to believe that; however, for those of us who don't believe sentient life begins at conception, to give the fetus rights is like giving rights to a freckle or a mole on one's cheek. It isn't that people who believe that are selfish; it's that they don't believe what you do.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Re male birth control, I know of at least two men who I know would consider such a thing to be damaging to his manliness.
*raises hand*
I would feel that way, but I would still be willing to do it.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
If people require sentience of the fetus, then I guess it is okay to "abort" beyond birth. Because sentience isn't really happening in the neo-nate. Their upper brain, because of a lack of myelin sheathing, does not function at a sentient level. It has the potential to, but it doesn't yet.
But every other definition of life, and being human, is within both the embryo and fetus though.
Genetically and uniquely human Growing Metabolizing Cells are reproducing
And once you get to the fetal stage, there is no mistaking that bit of life for any other creature. It is easily recognizable on a macroscopic level.
You cannot compare it to a freckle. You destroy a freckle, and no genetic uniqueness has been lost. You destroy an embryo, and a unique, human lifeform has been lost.
I understand that some people believe it isn't real in the first few months. But I still feelk it is a rationalization. Anyone who puts some thought into the matter realizes that such a belief is only that and as such, is a mere opinion. And it is only that opinion, on the shaky foundations that it rests, which allows them to destroy the embryo with no guilt. They must allow for the fact that they may be wrong, and it making the choice to terminate the pregnancy based on that possible error, they may be doing something wrong. And to go through with it anyway shows some selfishness.
I may be wrong, but my error will be on the side of giving rather than taking away life.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Maybe there should be less of a stigma in giving up a child you won't/can't care for.
Shi, I wish this were true right now -- not just to reduce the popularity of choosing abortion over adoption, but to help very young mothers who really would prefer not to keep their babies but feel social pressure to do so. I would love to see young women feel that adoption is a noble thing, one of the greatest self-sacrifices possible, which IMO, is the epitome of true love.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:You cannot compare it to a freckle. You destroy a freckle, and no genetic uniqueness has been lost. You destroy an embryo, and a unique, human lifeform has been lost.
If genetic uniqueness defines what is valuable about a fetus, then there should be no problem arising from voluntary abortion of one of a set of identical twins. I don't think that's what you mean to claim, though.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
KarlEd, it occurs to me that you might have missed saxon75's thread, Ethics and Abortion Substitutes from late last year. There are some links to the current state of artificial womb technology. Additionally, Lois McMaster Bujold has addressed some of this in her science fiction novels -- you might find them an interesting read.
Amka, like you I am very interested in artificial wombs for the sake of caring for micropreemies. Thanks for that insight -- it is indeed something we often fail to consider in debating he worth of the technology. It hadn't occurred to me until you mentioned it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
CT, thanks for the link. It wouldn't be the first time I've had an idea and then found out it was already out there and developed beyond what I had imagined.
(I once started a story about a guy who plugged himself into a computer only to find out there was a whole established genre of the stuff called Cyberpunk. So much for being an original thinker. )
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh, no! I didn't mean that at all.
Okay, now I'm worried.
I think it's an excellent (although, of course, potentially problematic -- as Dag notes) idea, and I thought you might enjoy the thread. You and I have been thinking along similar lines, that's all. I think these things tend to seethe around a bit in the background before they bubble up to the surface, anyway.
My trigger was Anne Kate's recommendation of LMB's books, where I was absolutely struck by the implications of artificial gestation. I was in the NICU at the time, so I did some reading up on it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One possibility for coming up with the technology would be to start developing it as protective incubators and nutrient/oxygen delivery systems for preemies, and gradually moving the viability line backwards. In such a context, I think at some point preemie care would evolve into artificial wombs.
Dagonee
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
As long as we're not talking about axlotl tanks...
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Oh, no! I didn't mean that at all.
Okay, now I'm worried.
Worried? About what? If it's that I'm offended, don't be, even a little bit. First I'm not offended and second, you'd have to try pretty hard to say anything offensive that wouldn't automatically get the benefit of the doubt from me.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Good. I was worried that it might be read in a snippy, superior tone, when actually I was just excited about the goats. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As long as we're not talking about axlotl tanks...
Talk about not ending the debate on reproductive rights.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
The thing that irks me about debate, not just debates about abortion but most of them, is the attempt to pigeonhole people by assuming that the are creating a double standard. I’m in favor of making most abortions illegal because: a fetus displays the signs of life that Amka mentioned, it is not a part of its mother but genetically distinct, it has the potential to function on its own in some sense, it is completely innocent in regards to the situation that has led to the consideration of its abortion, and has zero voice in its own future.
Does that mean that every single thing on earth that can’t speak up for itself should be protected? Even rocks and plants? No.
Does that mean that anything genetically distinct from another person should be protected no matter what? Or, like Sara mentioned, that anything that is not genetically distinct can be destroyed? No.
[edit: It also doesn't mean that something has to perfectly, 100%, meet those requirements to be protected.]
You can try to pick this apart into a million pieces and there will be nothing left. But you can do that with anything. My decision to support some serious regulation of abortions, to the point of illegalizing nearly all of them, comes from the consideration of all of these points, weighing them individually, and attempting to create a bigger picture. Very little in this world is black and white. I would say that, in general, a potential human deserves a voice. In general, innocence should be protected. In general, something that exhibits the signs of being an individual life form with human characteristics should have rights. That does not and can not extend to every single thing that might possibly meet some of those criteria. It’s not a double standard. It’s about making a decision. I can see the value of debate and considering all angles. But the only reason we have this freedom to sit here and talk about it all day is because people out there are actually making decisions and putting them into effect. Sometimes those decisions are wrong, but nothing will be gained by refusing to make any decision at all until we can be sure it’s perfect. That will never happen.
/pointless rant
[ January 20, 2005, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
PSI, just for clarification: I'm not trying to pick apart you or Amka, or your arguments, or to establish that anyone is trying to set up a double standard. Really, I'm not. Although I am very familiar with the tactic, and I'm sympathetic to the automatic bristling that comes up when it seems like someone is edging into that hostile territory.
But really, what I'm trying to do is puzzle through reasons, when it is reasons (as opposed to pure faith) that is offered. I'm suspicious of the strength of my own position and constantly re-evaluating it. Even so, the best I can do is along the lines of an essay of reasoning filled with caveats and exceptions -- nothing at all tight, clean, and clear-cut.
I'm both puzzled and intrigued when someone presents a tight, clean, and clear-cut version of their own position, and I find it fascinating to try to figure out what I'm missing in understanding it. That's all. When someone says "this is terribly complicated, and I'm not quite sure but I think this is where it goes for me," I'm not as intrigued. So, for example, I normally wouldn't get excited about responding to your rant above, because I "get" where you are coming from already.
Don't mean to be a spoilsport, just find the topic so important and so meaningful that I can't resist trying to understand it better.
[ January 20, 2005, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm not trying to blame you, Sara. It's more of a generalization of what half of the purpose of debate seems to be. I like the part about finding answers and understanding people. Not the other part. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Scoring points sucks, eh?
Gets in the way of a good conversation every time.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm sorry. I wish I hadn't put your name in there. I was trying to use it as an example, and I thought if I left it with your name off , then it would be obvious that I was annoyed with you or something. I really am not trying to single you out.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
No worries! (((PSI)))
I have very broad shoulders (to hold up my freakishly huge head), and I don't take things as more than they were intended.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Are you saying the pills should come on a poster that says, "I take birth control pills because I have a lot of SEX! Yeah, that's right, I'm so pi-imp!"
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
PSI![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)