posted
Belle, see, that's where I disagree, especially the last 5-10 years. Every show I watch, at least, does portray pregnancy as a BIG DEAL. Sure everything turns out okay in the end, at least in sitcoms, but they are _sitcoms_.
Some of us have also had it replaced with comprehensive sex education/science class that explained the processes involved.
Like I said, it all depends on which angle you are coming from.
posted
My mother, aunt, grandmother, and great-grandmother all got pregnant out of wedlock. This is not a new thing. (I hope it isn't a genetic thing!)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, see, that's where I disagree, especially the last 5-10 years. Every show I watch, at least, does portray pregnancy as a BIG DEAL. Sure everything turns out okay in the end, at least in sitcoms, but they are _sitcoms_.
Some of us have also had it replaced with comprehensive sex education/science class that explained the processes involved.
Like I said, it all depends on which angle you are coming from.
posted
Given the turn the discussion has taken, I think it might be worth pointing out that you could nearly sum up the pracitcal (as opposed to mystical) aspects of the Catholic view of sex by saying that severing that tie is a dangerous thing to do...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From talking to women now in their 60s and 70s who grew up on farms, in many families in this area at least girls were kept away from the animals when breeding was going on. Their brothers had a working knowledge of reproduction, but they didn't. And, of course, boys are not the ones who bear (most, sometimes any) of the consequences when someone gets pregnant.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Again, the contention (my contention at least) isn't that kids didn't used to have sex. It's that in having sex they were more conscious of the potential of a pregnancy and more psychologically prepared to take on the responsibility when it happened. I know lots of farm families where children are born out of wedlock, but I don't think that disproves my point.
<edit> dkw-
That's very interesting. I haven't heard similar stories; I wonder if it's a regional thing. </edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that the time at which people are emotionally ready to have sex is very different from the time at which people are emotionally ready to have children.
I agree... but I think that in order to be completely ready for something, you have to not only be ready for it, but ALSO be ready for the consequences of it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And we replaced that with television series which show attractive young people bed-hopping with no consequences whatsoever. Where if someone does get pregnant, it's a punchline and they give birth to a perfect, beautiful baby then carry on their sitcom lives as if nothing ever happened.
Honestly, I have no idea what shows you must be watching. Every show I've seen in the past seven or eight years (which is about as long as I've been paying even slight attention to TV) has been pretty up front and realistic (insofar as anything portrayed by Hollywood is realistic) about the risks, problems and consequences inherent in being sexually active.
Edit:
quote:And, of course, boys are not the ones who bear (most, sometimes any) of the consequences when someone gets pregnant.
Yeah, kind of like how (most, sometimes all of the) women who get pregnant are bitchy, indecisive sluts.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think that education in a sex ed class, no matter how comprehensive, is a poor substite for exposure through everyday activities.
As for the tv shows: Ross & Rachel? C'mon. Except for a couple obligatory "look how hard this is" episodes, I don't think any aspect of parenthood was represented in anything resembling a remotely realistic fashion.
I will say, however, that not all tv shows are equal offenders. I've seen several tv shows (e.g. My Wife & Kids, Everwood, 7th heaven) that I think did a fairly good job in this respect.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we're talking about accurate descriptions of parenthood, I hope you're not arguing the notions of parenting acquired by watching farm animals are "anything resembling a remotely realistic fashion".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
erosomniac, I'm not sure what you're implying. Are you really suggesting that the idea that in a teenage pregnancy the girl bears most of the consequences is an untrue stereotype?
edit: particularly, as in the cases I was refering to, 50 years ago, before paternity testing was even a possibility?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'd say observing farm animals offers a much more realistic demonstration of the connection between sex and parenthood than Friends. Of course, I'd say observing almost anything would provide a much more realistic ... yadda, yadda, yadda. _rimshot_
I'm not suggesting farm animals provide the model by which we should parent (although I believe we do use lots of metaphors in parenting derived from nature generally), but rather that the true effects of sex are more apparent in nature and on farms than on tv shows like Friends.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:erosomniac, I'm not sure what you're implying. Are you really suggesting that the idea that in a teenage pregnancy the girl bears most of the consequences is an untrue stereotype?
Nowhere did anyone mention "teenage."
quote: edit: particularly, as in the cases I was refering to, 50 years ago, before paternity testing was even a possibility?
I assumed that because the sentence I quoted was the one present tense sentence in your post that you were referring to present day.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I think emotional readiness for sex and emotional readiness for parenthood ARE two completely separate things.
Using methods of birth control and such, in my opinion, is definitely an indication of emotional readiness.
At the same time, as I said before, there are plenty of people having sex who just really aren't ready to have kids. There are plenty of married couples who wait a long time before deciding to have children. Therefore, saying that one shouldn't have sex unless one is prepared to have children isn't a very strong position to me, unless one also believes that some marital sex is also immoral.
My question remains, are you claiming that the idea that the female partner bears the greater consequences in unintended pregnancy is false?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Sorry about the double-post, internet hiccup]
The thing is, there are more shows than just Friends. So to say our culture/mass media have replaced down-home learning with this schizophrenic potrayal of sex/pregnancy is a bit hyperbolic, IMO. It's a convenient story to convince ourselves that a manner of living that we consider (and largely rightfully so) clean and decent is superior to other forms. A sort of elitism, IMO.
Maybe some people just respond better to different ways of explaining these facts. I had no need to watch animals being birthed to get it into my head the realities and fallout of sex. Perhaps there's a correlation, but what do you propose as an alternative? Obviously we can't all live on farms anymore. Is toning done entertainment without providing the equivalent to "The Farm" satisfactory? Can we overwhelm the media potrayal with repeated and comprehensive sex education? Could more explicit/less censored television be an answer, allowing producers to not only show more about the act (which is also highly sanitized on TV, particularly sitcoms), but also more of the fallout?
To me, this indicates a believe that sex is wrong, as "fallout" has a very negative connotation. Which is also my problem with saying that sex has "consequences." Consequence, to me, implies punishment.
And we all already know how I feel about teaching young'ns that sex is wrong and dirty.
At any rate, I suppose to me, abortion isn't a waiver of responsibility. I think that discussing such issues with one's partner beforehand is the responsible thing to do.
posted
I'm afraid you still haven't answered my question, erosomniac. Do you dispute that the female partner carries the greater share of the consequences of unintended pregnancy?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that the time at which people are emotionally ready to have sex is very different from the time at which people are emotionally ready to have children.
I agree... but I think that in order to be completely ready for something, you have to not only be ready for it, but ALSO be ready for the consequences of it.
I thought that was a good point Tres.
pH-I know you are saying that they are two seperate things, sex and producing offspring. I'll agree that it's easier being ready for sex than parenthood. After all, what's to get ready for, it's AWESOME (to quote Puppy). However, in my mind you can't divorce the two. Like drinking heavily without impaired judgement or the hangover. I don't see the consequences as some sort of punishment for drinking. Nor do I see pregnancy as the punishment for sex. It's just the natural outcome.
If you aren't ready for the potential consequences of an action, you aren't ready to take the action.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm afraid you still haven't answered my question, erosomniac. Do you dispute that the female partner carries the greater share of the consequences of unintended pregnancy?
You keep rephrasing your question and completely changing my answer. As the question exists now: no, I will admit that given that there are physiological consequences experienced by the woman alone, the greater share is typically endured by the woman. Your original question suggested that MOST, if not ALL consequences are endured by the women, which is complete and total tripe.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone is really expressing the thought that abortions should be banned because we want the woman to suffer the consequences of having sex. Rather, I think the key argument is that the fetus deserves to live.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is also my problem with saying that sex has "consequences." Consequence, to me, implies punishment.
The consequence of eating correctly and exercising is a healthier body than one would have otherwise. The consequence of not doing so is a less healthy body than one would have otherwise.
If one is not ready for the possibility of a child, one is not truly ready for an act which can result in that child. Even married couples trying to delay children need to be ready to handle a pregnancy if birth control fails.
Acknowledging this does not mean one thinks sex is wrong. It might mean one thinks that deciding to have sex when one cannot face the possible consequences is wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In terms of television shows, there has never been an instance where a character has underwent an abortion.
Just saying that that aspect of the media certainly doesn't encourage that method of dealing with pregnancy, even if it is oversexed.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: ph, is that an alternative to "fallout"? "Eventualities" perhaps?
(Just trying to find an amenable term).
-Bok
"Possible result," maybe.
The thing is, to me, accepting the fact that one may need to have an abortion is also taking responsibility for possible results. I think that couples should decide beforehand what they should do...even if they change their minds later, it's good to have that conversation. And I don't mean that they should say, "Oh, it's okay honey, if we have unprotected sex and you get pregnant, you can just get an abortion! YAY!"
quote:Maude had an abortion in November 1972, and the episodes which dealt with the situation are probably the series' most famous and certainly its most controversial. Maude, at age 47, found herself pregnant, and she and Walter did not want to become parents again. Her daughter, Carol, brought to her attention that abortion was now legal in New York state. After some soul-searching, Maude decided at the end of the two-parter that the abortion was probably for the best. Noticing the wide controversy around the episode, CBS decided to rerun the episodes in August 1973, and members of the country's clergy reacted strongly to the decision. At least 30 stations dropped the show.
There have been others, but usually guest characters.
Your larger point is well-taken, though.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the tidbit. There MUST have also been one on Degrassi as every episode on that show is "very special".
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do people actually have sex with the idea, well, if I get pregnant, I'll just get an abortion? The people I know who actually think through the act to the possible consequence tend to be big on birth control. The people I know who have unprotected sex generally went with the claim, but I won't get pregnant or you can't get pregnant the first x times or something along those lines. A lot of denial or just no thought at all. I would say we need better sex ed that makes sure people understand that connection in order to change behavior. Favorite stupid sex story has to be the 2 couples having sex in a car. Only one had a condom so when they finished, they passed the condom to the other couple, who flipped it inside out and used it. The girl in the second couple got pregnant with the first guy's baby. (Was a court case on the news and such, not an urban legend- unless the teen was lying to everyone).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scholar: I know a lot of people who do in fact believe that; they accept an unwanted pregnancy/abortion as an eventuality.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't remember an abortion on Grey's Anatomy. There was that secret tubal ligation, and that intern's miscarriage, but I don't remember an abortion. But if Addison did it I probably didn't even notice. I find her character more unrealistic than the others, medically speaking, so I pay her less attention.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do people actually have sex with the idea, well, if I get pregnant, I'll just get an abortion?
With regards to unprotected sex, I suspect it happens less often than pro-life activists would tend to believe and more often than pro-choice activists would tend to believe (both being generalities - specific people in each category will have different beliefs). That's a suspicion - all I can attest to is that some people definitely say this.
I know I've encountered people who have said that they will have an abortion if they get pregnant, some of whom used no birth control. One who had said this using a less-reliable form of birth control ended up getting pregnant and not getting an abortion.
There are many (at least, I have met many as a percentage - the sample is surely not scientific) people who acknowledge abortion as a fallback position prior to having sex, but either take better precautions or (as you described) think they are taking better precautions but aren't.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On Grey's Anatomy, the intern was going to get an abortion- had an appt set and everything. But, instead it turned out to be a tubal pregnancy, which is different from a miscarriage. Ectopic pregnancies do not lead to a baby and often cause damage leading to fertility problems, which was the case in Grey's Anatomy- the intern has only one functioning tube now.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see no problem with deciding to take birth control measures and also deciding that if it is necessary, one will have an abortion.
I see a problem with using abortion as a primary method of birth control. Abortion is not simply a shirking of responsibility to me, which is how many seem to paint it. Abortion is not happy fun time.
posted
Me three about TV. Though for me GA reruns aren't that bad since I probably missed half of the season.
I was only just starting to get into Grey's Anatomy when Yang found out she was pregnant and then I missed whatever episode it was where she ended the pregnancy. It was pretty understated, though I recall a scene were she was watching a very pregnant Bailey on an airplane. I assumed she went through with the abortion since Yang clearly didn't stay pregnant. Sorry about that.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there have been a few times that people on SVU decided to get abortions. Like that girl whose dad told her that she had to have babies as her duty to the family...
quote:Originally posted by pH: I see a problem with using abortion as a primary method of birth control.
Why? Granted, abortion is somewhat more troublesome and risky than just keeping up with the Pill, etc. -- but what business is it of yours if somebody wants to use abortion as their primary method?
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: I see a problem with using abortion as a primary method of birth control.
Why? Granted, abortion is somewhat more troublesome and risky than just keeping up with the Pill, etc. -- but what business is it of yours if somebody wants to use abortion as their primary method?
I, personally, don't find that to be the preferable method.
But I also don't think that it's the business of the law to enforce morality so much.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My mother, aunt, grandmother, and great-grandmother all got pregnant out of wedlock. This is not a new thing. (I hope it isn't a genetic thing!)
That made me snort soda on the screen.
*grin*
Seriously, though . . . that points up a fairly big cultural difference. A change just since my mom's time.
Out-of-wedlock pregnancy more often ended up in forced adoptions, abandoned children, or shot-gun weddings.
Now, those women that become pregnant out of wedlock find that they have some other choices. Raising the child as a single parent and legal abortion.
Are any of the choices absolutely stunningly wonderful?
Nope.
But as a society, we have expanded the options open to women.
If, as a society, we would like to narrow them, I would hope we could do so without forcing other options on these women (or young girls,as the case may be.)
I.e., let's address some of the other issues that add to the perplexity of the problem.
This has been a fascinating thread to follow. Carry on.
posted
I'm afraid that is not the sole role of law in our society, pH. That may be what you would like it to be.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It isn't a human, not at that point anyway. Not a complete one, and it's rights don't outweigh the mothers.
Let's suppose it's granted that a fetus is at no point prior to birth a human being-since you're going from the purely legal standpoint, in one way...
You're speaking as though one right is equal to a completely different right, and violating one in favor of the other is a gross inequity. But there are rights and there are really big rights. For instance...
By the reasoning you're using here-one party's rights (or, I suppose since many pro-choicers would hesitate at even that distinction) thing's rights are completely subordinate, even its most important rights, to much less vital rights of the other party.
So, if someone robs me, I get to apprehend, imprison, and interrogate them myself, right? After all, their rights certainly don't outweigh mine. If someone harms a loved one of mine, then I get to do equal harm to that perpetrator because their rights did not supersede my loved one's rights, did they?
I have never heard it explained very well why a woman's right to terminate a voluntary pregnancy-as it almost always is, so long as you define 'voluntary' to mean 'outcome that could have been cheaply and painlessly avoided'-is somehow more worthy of protection under the law than the right of the fetus to have a life.
We protect animals from harm and death and maltreatment, even from their owners if society becomes aware of mistreatment. I fail to see why an animal has a greater right to protection than a fetus which could have been avoided entirely.
It's like saying, "Yeah, I ran that red light but whoever's in that intersection better get the hell outta my way! I got a right to go where I wanna go!"
quote: Originally posted by Dag:
So it isn't, by definition, a baby, nor can it be dehumanized.
Kwea, once again, you are attempting to assert that the particular state of our laws are somehow definitive in a discussion which is about whether those laws are just.
It's kind of like someone quoting the Bible to prove to an atheist that God exists - you're using the conclusion of one of the sides as a starting premise, and it's just not sound to do so in this circumstance.
Whether or not the law should recognize an unborn fetus as a human being is the issue being debated. Stating the law's lack of recognition as a proof that one isn't a human being is begging the question.
I wasn't using the law as precedent, but rather as an example of how not everyone agrees with your beliefs. I am not even really taking about the law at all, but peoples perspective of the issues.
Someone said that calling a fetus a baby would be a better choice, because people would be less likely to abort it, and someone else mentioned how the word fetus was "dehumanizing".....and I was trying to make the point that it ISN'T a baby, by legal definition, by the definition of the word itself, and in the mind of a lot of people.
Also, insisting that a fetus be called a baby would be the same thing, in reverse, that pro-choice people were being accused of....changing the definition of a word to make resistance to their political/moral agenda harder to oppose.
Also, I don't believe that the fetus' rights outweigh the mothers, regardless of what the law states. I am glad that the law agrees with me at this point, but at no point do I agree that a fetus has ANY rights until it is born. I don't see any in the laws, or in my own mind; at least none that outweigh the obvious rights the mother does have.
Nothing has a RIGHT to be born, although once they are they gain rights accordingly....just like any other human being. You may wish they do, and even try to make it so, but you won't convince me you "know" anything of the sort. You believe it, strongly, but I don't acknowledge it...and I am hardly a staunch pro-choice person.
Nor do I stand alone in this belief.
ANY line of demarcation is subject to interpretation, so I feel that I have to defend either the nebulous rights of something that may become human at sometime in the future, or the rights of a human who's intent and decisions I know beyond a doubt.
But my argument is not a circular legalese argument. Far from it, actually. One way or another I have decided. even though the thought of abortion disturbs me, I will always defend the rights of the individual in this case. I may not like their choice (I know I wouldn't) but that in no way gives me the right to remove that choice from them.
quote:Far from it, actually. One way or another I have decided. even though the thought of abortion disturbs me, I will always defend the rights of the individual in this case. I may not like their choice (I know I wouldn't) but that in no way gives me the right to remove that choice from them.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
