Planned Parenthood

[RedScare]

...which creates a culture where sexuality is separated from childbirth and treated as a pleasure device

I'm RedScare, and I approve of this message.

[H-Town Man]

Hate to break it to you, but contraceptives have been around for almost a thousand years -- possibly longer. Way before "our culture." Condoms have been recovered from the cesspools of European castles dating back to the 1200's. And chemical/herbal methods, while less effective than what we have today, have been used for at least that long.

I guess you're not a history teacher.

They were around, but became suddenly much more widespread with new technology after midcentury. This led to the "sexual revolution" of the 60's. Yes, I am aware of ancient methods of contraception.

Are you also against hiring exterminators to eradicate infestation of mice? They're alive, too, have beating hearts...and some of them are even pregnant. Or does your interpretation of the concept of the sanctity of life only apply to humans? And if so, why?

No Niche, I think human life is more sacred than the life of mice. We are conscious beings, mice are not. I guess you're one of those people who puts livestock slaughter by the beef industry on the same moral level as the Holocaust?

Personally, I like the concept of abortion. Someone that doesn't want to be a parent probably isn't going to be a very good one. And crappy parenting creates social ills that are far more damaging than pest control...or mice genocide for that matter.

Would you be okay with parents killing their children after birth if they decided that they did not want them?

The Greeks had this figured out thousands of years ago.

Homosexual contact is for pleasure; heterosexual contact is for reproduction.

Such a sensible system.

Which Greek said that?

Speaking of the Greeks, did you know that the original Hippocratic Oath included the promise never to perform an abortion? Of course the medical community did away with that part as soon as it became inconvenient for modern culture.

Maybe this will interest the history buffs on the board, like Editor.

All right friends, I'm headed home for the day. Been nice talking to you; I'll look forward to seeing what you write tomorrow.

[BryanS]

I don't think men should have any say whatsoever when it comes to abortion. Let the womyn of the country decide the issue as it is about their bodies, not mens.

[Jax]

Would you be okay with parents killing their children after birth if they decided that they did not want them?

How about the idea of stopping a pregnancy before the pregnancy results in a life being created? In that case, I would say it is better than having a child born and seeing that child suffer.

Most Jews don't have as much of a problem with abortion as Christians do, mainly because Jews consider an embryo only "potential life" rather than life itself. I always thought that was interesting.

I don't think many biologists would consider a blastocyst or an embryo to be alive. I have a hard time understanding why people consider early stage abortions to be evil, although I guess it is probably because some religious leader decided that life starts at conception and religious people aren't really allowed to think critically about that idea.

[TheNiche]

No Niche, I think human life is more sacred than the life of mice. We are conscious beings, mice are not. I guess you're one of those people who puts livestock slaughter by the beef industry on the same moral level as the Holocaust?

No. Jews are for the most part productive members of society. Society is made better off by allowing Jews to go about their lives within the economy than to have them slaughtered like cattle. ...besides which, human meat is supposed to be difficult to distinguish from veal aside from that it is a little bit more stringy. And veal is less expensive to farm than is Jew.

Would you be okay with parents killing their children after birth if they decided that they did not want them?

Up until a few months ago, I'd have said no. But I've got a friend that is majoring in philosophy, and he put a fairly compelling argument forward that even the concept of sanctity of life shouldn't really kick in until somewhere around the age of three. I myself would still be hesitant to say that killing babies is OK once they've been born. But I don't know, and there's got to be a cutoff line somewhere.

What is clear is that there are conditions when killing someone is appropriate and even preferable. Attempts to define those conditions will always be controversial, but I cannot think of a single culture in which a concept of the sanctity of human life was enforced without exception.

[memebag]

...which creates a culture where sexuality is separated from childbirth and treated as a pleasure device rather than a sacred thing, ultimately increasing the need for abortion.

That's just not historically accurate. Sex has always been a source of pleasure, and people have always had ways of dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Modern contraception made it safer and less traumatic, but it didn't create an entirely new culture. If you want to place blame, you can start with the screw. Not that kind, the metal kind. The modern precision machined screw facilitated interchangeable parts, which fueled the industrial revolution, which drew workers from farms to cities, which reduced the need for children made raising them less convenient. The demand for modern contraceptives was fueled by increased population densities brought about by assembly lines. The desire for sexual pleasure never changed; the extended family support systems available for raising kids on traditional farms was replaced with the nuclear family, so population needed to be controlled.

[H-Town Man]

How about the idea of stopping a pregnancy before the pregnancy results in a life being created? In that case, I would say it is better than having a child born and seeing that child suffer.

Most Jews don't have as much of a problem with abortion as Christians do, mainly because Jews consider an embryo only "potential life" rather than life itself. I always thought that was interesting.

I don't think many biologists would consider a blastocyst or an embryo to be alive. I have a hard time understanding why people consider early stage abortions to be evil, although I guess it is probably because some religious leader decided that life starts at conception and religious people aren't really allowed to think critically about that idea.

So any religious person who has an opinion on something isn't thinking critically (unless they are Jewish!), and any non-religious person who has an opinion is? Interesting...

If an unborn fetus has a beating heart and is able to move itself around, is it not alive? Because that is what you are destroying when you have an abortion. How about fetuses that, if removed from the woman's body, could survive on their own? Is the difference between life and death simply being inside or outside of another body?

I think that fifty years of feminist brainwashing is keeping many of us from seeing the obvious: When two living human beings come together in the sexual act, they create LIFE. Life begins at conception and ends at death. There is no "potentially alive," "somewhat alive," "half alive," "alive in a way but in a way not," etc. A moving, kicking, unborn fetus is alive, and anyone who kills it has a serious crime on their hands.

I don't think men should have any say whatsoever when it comes to abortion. Let the womyn of the country decide the issue as it is about their bodies, not mens.

If it was just about women's bodies, I might agree with you. But it is also about the human beings inside women's bodies, which includes both defenseless men and women. So I will have to disagree.

Edited November 12, 2008 by H-Town Man

[sevfiv]

I don't think many would argue that termination of pregnancy is a pleasant thing for anyone involved (involved is the the key word here), or deny your right to your religious and moral beliefs, but again, whether anyone likes it or not, folks are going to have sex, women are going to get pregnant, and for whatever reason feel that this is the best choice for them (them, not you).

With such highly personal and difficult situations that are going to occur regardless, imo providing a SAFE atmosphere is important and also promoting safe sex education as much as possible to prevent the need for unwanted pregnancies (assuming that the pregnancy wasn't because of rape, which is a whole other issue).

[H-Town Man]

That's just not historically accurate. Sex has always been a source of pleasure, and people have always had ways of dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Modern contraception made it safer and less traumatic, but it didn't create an entirely new culture. If you want to place blame, you can start with the screw. Not that kind, the metal kind. The modern precision machined screw facilitated interchangeable parts, which fueled the industrial revolution, which drew workers from farms to cities, which reduced the need for children made raising them less convenient. The demand for modern contraceptives was fueled by increased population densities brought about by assembly lines. The desire for sexual pleasure never changed; the extended family support systems available for raising kids on traditional farms was replaced with the nuclear family, so population needed to be controlled.

You make an interesting argument, although I never said that sex shouldn't be a source of pleasure - it just shouldn't be engineered so that it is merely a source of pleasure. I don't think that the modern industrial revolution necessitates population control. For one thing, technology has made it possible for an industrial region to not have overly dense neighborhoods (e.g. Houston), so that the era of dense cities was a brief aberrancy in the history of industrialized countries, and one that happened before contraceptive use became widespread.

And the widespread use of contraception most definitely has changed Western culture, to the point where it barely resembles what it was before. The pill was approved in 1960, and the "sexual revolution" followed closely in its wake. Now we live in a culture that is barely recognizable to the one we had fifty years ago. Sex used to be immeasurably more sacred, more hallowed, more revered than it is today. Almost all of its mystery and specialness has been drained out. It has become as casual and pedestrian as drinking a cup of coffee in the morning, and the effect on families has been devastating.

Edited November 12, 2008 by H-Town Man

[crunchtastic]

I don't think that the modern industrial revolution necessitates population control.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. When a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate!

[H-Town Man]

I don't think many would argue that termination of pregnancy is a pleasant thing for anyone involved (involved is the the key word here), or deny your right to your religious and moral beliefs, but again, whether anyone likes it or not, folks are going to have sex, women are going to get pregnant, and for whatever reason feel that this is the best choice for them (them, not you).

When a human life gets destroyed, it involves me. This same argument was used by Southern apologists against abolitionists: "It doesn't INVOLVE you."

[memebag]

You make an interesting argument, although I never said that sex shouldn't be a source of pleasure - it just shouldn't be engineered so that it is merely a source of pleasure. I don't think that the modern industrial revolution necessitates population control. For one thing, technology has made it possible for an industrial region to not have overly dense neighborhoods (e.g. Houston), so that the era of dense cities was a brief aberrancy in the history of industrialized countries, and one that happened before contraceptive use became widespread.

How will we pay for all of these extra humans? Who will raise them? Will we lower our standard of living so that one parent can stay home to raise children? Will we give up our independence and privacy and live in extended family households? Just so we can make sex "sacred" for you again?

And the widespread use of contraception most definitely has changed Western culture, to the point where it barely resembles what it was before. The pill was approved in 1960, and the "sexual revolution" followed closely in its wake. Now we live in a culture that is barely recognizable to the one we had fifty years ago. Sex used to be immeasurably more sacred, more hallowed, more revered than it is today. Almost all of its mystery and specialness has been drained out. It has become as casual and pedestrian as drinking a cup of coffee in the morning, and the effect on families has been devastating.

I challenge the assertion that sex was "immeasurably more sacred" 50 years ago. I see no evidence to support that statement. Where are you getting your information? "Leave it to Beaver"?

[editor]

If an unborn fetus has a beating heart and is able to move itself around, is it not alive? Because that is what you are destroying when you have an abortion.

This is incorrect. One cell is not a heart. Two cells or four cells are not a human heart, either. And a small mass of cells cannot move itself around. I don't have any numbers (and I'm willing to bet you don't either), but I believe that only a tiny portion of abortions performed in the United States are done on fetuses with beating hearts that are able to move themselves around.

That's the problem with your logic through this whole thing -- you've been very black-and-white. There is no grey in your logical world.

Earlier you stated that if a facility performs even a limited number of abortions, those procedures cannot be outweighed by the good things the facility does. I also pointed out, and you agreed, that the Texas Medical Center does a certain number of abortions each year.

So, by your black-and-white logic, the Texas Medical Center is an abortion mill. Again, by your logic, we should close down almost all hospitals because no matter how many millions of sick people they heal, there are abortions performed.

Seriously, take a step back and think about what you're saying. You are advocating a world without hospitals just because you have chosen to take such a hard-line on this issue.

[H-Town Man]

This is incorrect. One cell is not a heart. Two cells or four cells are not a human heart, either. And a small mass of cells cannot move itself around. I don't have any numbers (and I'm willing to bet you don't either), but I believe that only a tiny portion of abortions performed in the United States are done on fetuses with beating hearts that are able to move themselves around.

That's the problem with your logic through this whole thing -- you've been very black-and-white. There is no grey in your logical world.

Earlier you stated that if a facility performs even a limited number of abortions, those procedures cannot be outweighed by the good things the facility does. I also pointed out, and you agreed, that the Texas Medical Center does a certain number of abortions each year.

So, by your black-and-white logic, the Texas Medical Center is an abortion mill. Again, by your logic, we should close down almost all hospitals because no matter how many millions of sick people they heal, there are abortions performed.

Seriously, take a step back and think about what you're saying. You are advocating a world without hospitals just because you have chosen to take such a hard-line on this issue.

It is true that not all abortions are done on babies with beating hearts, although many of them are (and I can't understand how people who defend this practice can be so complacent about the ones that are!). Still, the problem becomes where do you draw the line regarding what is too early and what is too late? To me it seems silly to say that life begins at a certain stage of development, and that prior to that stage the fetus is "not alive." If it is growing and developing, it is alive.

I don't think we should shut down hospitals that perform abortions, I just think we should prevent those hospitals from performing abortions (unless the life of the mother is at risk).

[memebag]

Still, the problem becomes where do you draw the line regarding what is too early and what is too late?

I don't think we should shut down hospitals that perform abortions, I just think we should prevent those hospitals from performing abortions (unless the life of the mother is at risk).

So it's OK to draw some lines but not others. Or it's OK for you to draw lines but not OK for other people to draw them.

[H-Town Man]

How will we pay for all of these extra humans? Who will raise them? Will we lower our standard of living so that one parent can stay home to raise children? Will we give up our independence and privacy and live in extended family households? Just so we can make sex "sacred" for you again?

Maybe you misunderstood me... I don't advocate any legislation to prevent contraceptive use. It is not a "we" decision, but rather a decision to be left up to each individual (unlike abortion, where I think that because a life has been created, it must be protected by law). I merely think that the route people have taken regarding contraceptive use and the conveniencing of sex that it has led to has been detrimental to our culture.

I challenge the assertion that sex was "immeasurably more sacred" 50 years ago. I see no evidence to support that statement. Where are you getting your information? "Leave it to Beaver"?

Nope, not from "Leave it to Beaver," although the tv shows and movies, taken as a whole, that our grandparents found entertaining leave a telling record as to their interests and motivations. Sex is a natural, holy, beautiful thing. But as C.S. Lewis once pointed out, something that is natural can reach a level of interest that is unnatural, even bizarre.

Take for instance eating bread. Pretty natural, right? But imagine a society in which people did not merely eat bread, but were in fact obsessed with bread... all of the forms of entertainment were replete with images of bread and references to bread; in every advertisement for any product, a loaf of bread was included to help make the product sell; people bought magazines or surfed websites just to look at pictures of bread; songs were composed about bread; people sought counseling for addictions to bread; other people went to special clubs in which they ogled at large, particularly delectable pieces of bread dangled on stages in front of them under special lighting.... Wouldn't you think that something rather bizarre had happened regarding this culture's interest in bread?

So it's OK to draw some lines but not others. Or it's OK for you to draw lines but not OK for other people to draw them.

You are skimming my posts and missing my point. My point was that it is a bad idea to have to draw a line somewhere. That is why all human life should be protected, and not just human life that falls after some arbitrary line.

[sevfiv]

Well, until there are no more unwanted pregnancies, there will be abortions. If abortion is illegal, it will be performed illegally (and probably unsafely).

I also rarely see anyone who is outspoken against abortion offer any practical solutions to the root of the problem (which I think Planned Parenthood is taking good measures toward in its programs). Not everyone is religious, and not everyone is abstinent, but everyone should have access to education and information.

[memebag]

Maybe you misunderstood me... I don't advocate any legislation to prevent contraceptive use. It is not a "we" decision, but rather a decision to be left up to each individual (unlike abortion, where I think that because a life has been created, it must be protected by law). I merely think that the route people have taken regarding contraceptive use and the conveniencing of sex that it has led to has been detrimental to our culture.

But you said " I don't think that the modern industrial revolution necessitates population control", then talked about how we don't have to live in dense cities. I'm just asking how we will shape our modern world without population control. If every conception was brought to term, where would we put those people? Who would care for them?

Or are you saying that population would be controlled, but only through abstinence or the "rhythm method"?

Nope, not from "Leave it to Beaver," although the tv shows and movies, taken as a whole, that our grandparents found entertaining leave a telling record as to their interests and motivations. Sex is a natural, holy, beautiful thing. But as C.S. Lewis once pointed out, something that is natural can reach a level of interest that is unnatural, even bizarre.

OK, so where are you getting this information about the sacredness of sex 50 years ago?

Take for instance eating bread. Pretty natural, right? But imagine a society in which people did not merely eat bread, but were in fact obsessed with bread... all of the forms of entertainment were replete with images of bread and references to bread; in every advertisement for any product, a loaf of bread was included to help make the product sell; people bought magazines or surfed websites just to look at pictures of bread; songs were composed about bread; people sought counseling for addictions to bread; other people went to special clubs in which they ogled at large, particularly delectable pieces of bread dangled on stages in front of them under special lighting.... Wouldn't you think that something rather bizarre had happened regarding this culture's interest in bread?

Sure, but bread ain't sex. Humans have been obsessed with sex throughout all of history. This is nothing new. The US is more accepting of this obsession now than it was 50 years ago, but the obsession is the same. And other places and other times have been much more accepting than we are now.

You are skimming my posts and missing my point. My point was that it is a bad idea to have to draw a line somewhere. That is why all human life should be protected, and not just human life that falls after some arbitrary line.

But that's you drawing your line. Conception is your arbitrary line. Plausible arguments could move that line forward or backward in time. You also draw the line about a mother's life being "at risk". That's a very fuzzy line. If a baby will impoverish a mother, doesn't that increase her level of risk?

[H-Town Man]

But you said " I don't think that the modern industrial revolution necessitates population control", then talked about how we don't have to live in dense cities. I'm just asking how we will shape our modern world without population control. If every conception was brought to term, where would we put those people? Who would care for them?

Or are you saying that population would be controlled, but only through abstinence or the "rhythm method"?

This sounds like the old Malthus paranoia of population becoming too big. I think we'll be fine. But as I'm not advocating any legislation on this issue, I think it's a relatively minor point and we can agree to disagree.

OK, so where are you getting this information about the sacredness of sex 50 years ago?

Sure, but bread ain't sex. Humans have been obsessed with sex throughout all of history. This is nothing new. The US is more accepting of this obsession now than it was 50 years ago, but the obsession is the same. And other places and other times have been much more accepting than we are now.

No, the obsession isn't the same. Obviously something involving a culture's overall characteristics cannot be measured or proven, but it can be supported by numerous statistics such as the ever-lowering age at which children report first having sexual experiences, the ever-increasing mentions of sex in media and public life, etc.

But that's you drawing your line. Conception is your arbitrary line. Plausible arguments could move that line forward or backward in time. You also draw the line about a mother's life being "at risk". That's a very fuzzy line. If a baby will impoverish a mother, doesn't that increase her level of risk?

Conception isn't arbitrary, it's a concrete event. Saying that, for instance, on day ninety of pregnancy a fetus hasn't become "alive," but on day 91 it has, is arbitrary.

"Impoverishing" a mother is not an acceptable reason for killing a life, just as we don't allow mothers to kill their children when they find them burdensome. But a situation in which a fetus poses a unique risk to a mother's health can, I think, warrant an abortion.

Since you are so sensitive to the fact that different people have different views on where life begins, would you be willing to allow different states to come to their own decision on when life should be protected?

[memebag]

This sounds like the old Malthus paranoia of population becoming too big. I think we'll be fine. But as I'm not advocating any legislation on this issue, I think it's a relatively minor point and we can agree to disagree.

But you can't wave your hands and solve population problems. Contraception wasn't as necessary in an agrarian America with high infant mortality rates as it is in an urban America with low infant mortality rates. If you want to make sex more sacred by getting rid of contraception, you'll have to figure out what to do with all of the extra people.

No, the obsession isn't the same. Obviously something involving a culture's overall characteristics cannot be measured or proven, but it can be supported by numerous statistics such as the ever-lowering age at which children report first having sexual experiences, the ever-increasing mentions of sex in media and public life, etc.

Let's see those statistics, then.

Conception isn't arbitrary, it's a concrete event. Saying that, for instance, on day ninety of pregnancy a fetus hasn't become "alive," but on day 91 it has, is arbitrary.

But using conception as the line is arbitrary. You could just as easily define life beginning with the production or release of sperm and ova. Aren't sperm alive, by your definition?

"Impoverishing" a mother is not an acceptable reason for killing a life, just as we don't allow mothers to kill their children when they find them burdensome. But a situation in which a fetus poses a unique risk to a mother's health can, I think, warrant an abortion.

Again, you're drawing lines for other people. I don't know what a "unique risk" is, but I know it's a line that would have to be agreed upon, just like the age of a fetus.

Since you are so sensitive to the fact that different people have different views on where life begins, would you be willing to allow different states to come to their own decision on when life should be protected?

No. I'm willing to let people decide for themselves and leave the state out of the question.

[H-Town Man]

But you can't wave your hands and solve population problems. Contraception wasn't as necessary in an agrarian America with high infant mortality rates as it is in an urban America with low infant mortality rates. If you want to make sex more sacred by getting rid of contraception, you'll have to figure out what to do with all of the extra people.

For the third time, I do not propose "getting rid of contraception" by any forceful method. This is for individual families to decide. But I am not persuaded by fears of population explosions. There was no population explosion before the 1960's, when contraceptive use became widespread.

Let's see those statistics, then.

They are well documented and numerous. Do a search. I am not going to make a bibliography for you.

But using conception as the line is arbitrary. You could just as easily define life beginning with the production or release of sperm and ova. Aren't sperm alive, by your definition?

A sperm is not a human life. It will not develop into a human being. An embryo is and will. This is not arbitrary.

Again, you're drawing lines for other people. I don't know what a "unique risk" is, but I know it's a line that would have to be agreed upon, just like the age of a fetus.

No. I'm willing to let people decide for themselves and leave the state out of the question.

Letting people decide for themselves whether to kill a human life is not something I am willing to permit. We'll just have to disagree.

[editor]

To me it seems silly to say that life begins at a certain stage of development, and that prior to that stage the fetus is "not alive." If it is growing and developing, it is alive.

I think that's one of our differences. For me it's not about what's "alive." I kill lots of living things every day. The carrots I'm munching on right now are alive and would continue to grow if I didn't get hungry. For me, it's about when does something become a "person." Six cells? Not really a person -- I've got more skin flake DNA than that suck underneath my computer keyboard.

I don't think we should shut down hospitals that perform abortions, I just think we should prevent those hospitals from performing abortions (unless the life of the mother is at risk).

Well, now you're into a whole new debate -- there are plenty of people who would be willing to call you a baby murderer and throw red paint on your house because you make the exception for the life of the mother. I bet they're disgusted that their tax dollars are being used for such things.

[memebag]

For the third time, I do not propose "getting rid of contraception" by any forceful method. This is for individual families to decide. But I am not persuaded by fears of population explosions. There was no population explosion before the 1960's, when contraceptive use became widespread.

Force isn't the issue. You're saying sex was more sacred when it was more likely to produce a new person and you want to return to that.

The US population in 1860 was 31 million, 20% urban. By 1960 it was 189 million, 70% urban. (source) Contraceptive use increased long before 1960, with the advent of vulcanized rubber condoms and later, their automated production.

They are well documented and numerous. Do a search. I am not going to make a bibliography for you.

I've searched and don't see it. I see that most of these numbers weren't measured for most of human history, so I don't know how you can make these claims.

A sperm is not a human life. It will not develop into a human being. An embryo is and will. This is not arbitrary.

A sperm will develop into a human being under the right conditions, just like an embryo will.

Letting people decide for themselves whether to kill a human life is not something I am willing to permit. We'll just have to disagree.

Are you willing to let individual states decide?

[N Judah]

Society is made better off by allowing Jews to go about their lives within the economy than to have them slaughtered like cattle.

I don't know how you could possibly know that for sure.

What is clear is that there are conditions when killing someone is appropriate and even preferable. Attempts to define those conditions will always be controversial, but I cannot think of a single culture in which a concept of the sanctity of human life was enforced without exception.

Thankfully, that doesn't preclude such a society from ever being able to exist.

[TheNiche]

But using conception as the line is arbitrary. You could just as easily define life beginning with the production or release of sperm and ova. Aren't sperm alive, by your definition?

If I were an extremist nutjob, I might argue that there should be no line, no cutoff; that sperm and eggs are part of the process of the creation of life, and that that entirety of the process is sacred; that any kind of action that discourages new life is as unholy as filicide. That would have implications to the issue of abortion, contraception, acts of conception, fertility treatment/enhancement, and the application of such laws to public policy might require that men wear loose-fitting pants and undergarments and that unattached women visit an OB/GYN every month for state-arranged mating.

Any unborn child would be a travesty, the loss not only of an individual but of all of their progeny. ...never mind that the overpopulation of our planet would deplete our resources, push our environment beyond its carrying capacity, and ultimately cause mass starvation and the miserable deaths of untold billions of people. Think of the children!

There was no population explosion before the 1960's, when contraceptive use became widespread.

It's besides the point, but yes there was. There was a boom...of babies.

I don't know how you could possibly know that for sure.

95% confidence interval.

Thankfully, that doesn't preclude such a society from ever being able to exist.

Yeah, it pretty much does. Such a society would be attacked, overrun, conquered, and ultimately assimilated by neighboring societies.

[TheNiche]

Conception isn't arbitrary, it's a concrete event. Saying that, for instance, on day ninety of pregnancy a fetus hasn't become "alive," but on day 91 it has, is arbitrary.

Other concrete and observable events, as told by a source that you'll trust: http://www.ncrtl.org/LifeLine.htm.

Any one of them can be picked as the date when the baby becomes "alive".

Similarly, there are concrete and observable events throughout childhood development. At what point does a child become self-aware? Maybe that should be the cutoff point beyond which abortion is disallowed.

Or perhaps there is an actuary out there that can develop a formula to determine whether particular children are more likely to be a burden on society than a benefit, and that way parents that decide that they don't want to care for children can give them up for state adoption, and the state can raise the ones expected to be sufficiently productive to justify their cost and euthanize the ones that will be a burden...just like the SPCA does for stray pets. And if a non-profit wants to step in and save some of the marginal babies with its own funding, that'd be OK. I don't mind when individuals act on their own sense of morality; I just don't want to be imposed upon by such folks.

I don't claim to know what is the best course. But I do have an open mind to discussions of this nature, and I do recognize the inherent limitations in the concept of "sanctity of life."

[editor]

Similarly, there are concrete and observable events throughout childhood development. At what point does a child become self-aware? Maybe that should be the cutoff point beyond which abortion is disallowed.

I think 17 might be a little late.

[H-Town Man]

Force isn't the issue. You're saying sex was more sacred when it was more likely to produce a new person and you want to return to that.

Right, but I am not going to force anybody to do anything or stop doing anything based on what I think. You are devoting a lot of time to basically arguing something that I have only presented as my opinion.

The US population in 1860 was 31 million, 20% urban. By 1960 it was 189 million, 70% urban. (source) Contraceptive use increased long before 1960, with the advent of vulcanized rubber condoms and later, their automated production.

Nothing compared to the increase after 1960 with hormonal birth control. Condoms, although available before 1960, were not nearly as common as they were after, especially in the wake of Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. I don't see what your statistics on urbanization are intended to show, other than that our economy was primarily agrarian in 1860 and industrial in 1960. The main contributor to U.S. population growth during that time period was immigration, not uncontrolled births. Contraceptive use was rare, and population growth was not at the crisis level that you suggest would be the case if people didn't use contraceptives.

I've searched and don't see it. I see that most of these numbers weren't measured for most of human history, so I don't know how you can make these claims.

lol, somehow I knew you wouldn't. I referred to how our culture in America has changed since contraceptive use become much more widespread in the 1960's. I did a quick search just now (google terms "age sexual experience"; I'm sure I could find much more info.

Here are statistics at none other than the Durex site! http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2005Content.asp?intQid=941

Notice that the age of first sexual experience is much lower in those developed countries where contraceptive use is most widespread, and also the conclusion from data in the U.S. that "young people continue to have sex at an earlier age than previous generations."

A sperm will develop into a human being under the right conditions, just like an embryo will.

Human life is conceived when a sperm fertilizes an egg. After that point, destruction of the embryo means the killing of a human life.

Are you willing to let individual states decide?

Of course. What do you think I am working towards? Right now there is a court decision that prevents individual states from deciding, based on an extremely suspect and creative reading of the constitution. I am for that court decision being overturned.

It's besides the point, but yes there was. There was a boom...of babies.

Meme is arguing that without widespread contraceptive use, the world will overpopulate. I think that if this argument is to hold up, it has to be shown that population growth was out of control before contraceptive use became widespread in the 1960's. An isolated boom period between 1945 and 1960 doesn't show that. How do you explain the relatively flat growth before 1945? Contraceptive use wasn't widespread then....

[memebag]

Right, but I am not going to force anybody to do anything or stop doing anything based on what I think. You are devoting a lot of time to basically arguing something that I have only presented as my opinion.

I'm just asking how you see the consequences of your opinion. And you won't answer my questions.

Nothing compared to the increase after 1960 with hormonal birth control. Condoms, although available before 1960, were not nearly as common as they were after, especially in the wake of Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. I don't see what your statistics on urbanization are intended to show, other than that our economy was primarily agrarian in 1860 and industrial in 1960. The main contributor to U.S. population growth during that time period was immigration, not uncontrolled births. Contraceptive use was rare, and population growth was not at the crisis level that you suggest would be the case if people didn't use contraceptives.

My point is that contraceptive use increased because we moved from farms with large extended families to cities with small nuclear families. We control our births more than we used to because of the industrial revolution. That's not a radical view of history; I thought it was widely accepted.

lol, somehow I knew you wouldn't. I referred to how our culture in America has changed since contraceptive use become much more widespread in the 1960's. I did a quick search just now (google terms "age sexual experience"; I'm sure I could find much more info.

Here are statistics at none other than the Durex site! http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2005Content.asp?intQid=941

Notice that the age of first sexual experience is much lower in those developed countries where contraceptive use is most widespread, and also the conclusion from data in the U.S. that "young people continue to have sex at an earlier age than previous generations."

You said there were "numerous statistics such as the ever-lowering age at which children report first having sexual experiences, the ever-increasing mentions of sex in media and public life, etc.". Sorry, that survey isn't even one of those statistics.

Human life is conceived when a sperm fertilizes an egg. After that point, destruction of the embryo means the killing of a human life.

According to you.

Of course. What do you think I am working towards? Right now there is a court decision that prevents individual states from deciding, based on an extremely suspect and creative reading of the constitution. I am for that court decision being overturned.

Wait, so it's OK for states to decide when abortion is legal, but not for individuals, and not for the federal government? Why states? What gives them better clarity on this issue than the more specific or more general entities involved?

Meme is arguing that without widespread contraceptive use, the world will overpopulate.

No he isn't. Meme is asking you how the world would work if we made sex "sacred", all about reproduction and not about pleasure. Meme is arguing that contraceptive use increased because we can't take care of all the kids we used to take care of and because more of them survive infancy. I'm not arguing that the world will overpopulate.

[TheNiche]

Meme is arguing that without widespread contraceptive use, the world will overpopulate. I think that if this argument is to hold up, it has to be shown that population growth was out of control before contraceptive use became widespread in the 1960's. An isolated boom period between 1945 and 1960 doesn't show that. How do you explain the relatively flat growth before 1945? Contraceptive use wasn't widespread then....

As I said, it was beside the point. But your statement was in error.