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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't mind, as long as there were no long-term side effects. I have no insecurities about my virility.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I would think it would be so manly to even *need* to be using it that there's no reason to feel insecure.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!"
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're right. I don't like wearing a condom, but it's preferrable to an unwanted pregnancy.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
** 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.
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.
posted
I'm still for altering human DNA so that we enter puberty at 25... though I realize that the repercussions are probably pretty awful.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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".
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
