That goddamn pregnancy thaaang...

QueenOfLeon

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Thankfully, the chances of me ever getting a girl pregnant are slim to none but if I'm being totally honest (and I'm not proud of this, but this is just the way I am) I would be one of those "run for the hills" deadbeat Dads. It would obviously be 100% up to her if she wanted to keep the baby or not, but I would probably do everything I could to encourage her to either give it up for adoption or, if she didn't want to do that, have an abortion. If she did decide to keep the child, I would provide for her financially as much as possible but I don't think I could commit myself to anything else. I certainly could never be a good father to that child. Again, not proud of it, but I'm just being honest here.

This always kinda confuses me. And I'm not aiming this directly at you KnifeWRENCH, but since the baby is yours aswel, why should only one half of the couple decide? Say if a guy really wants to keep the baby, but the girl wants to abort, shouldn't they try sort it out together and not just let her have 100% of the decision making?

I know she has to deal with pregnancy, but thats only 9 months. Both of them would have to deal with the child when it is born.

Konata

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes but its chances of working lessen the longer you wait dont they?

Yes, but not by as much as you might think.

I'm all for it being available over the counter but there is that fear that, by being available so readily, it may begin to be used more frequently and not just in "emergencies".

I had to take the morning after pill once and let me assure you, it's not something you want to have to take on a regular basis. It makes you feel rather ill and contains VERY high doses of hormones which would be damaging to the body on a regular basis. That'd be the main reason for it to be kept on a prescription only basis.

QueenOfLeon

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What? Head on up to A&E?

If absolutely every other option wasn't available, if GP's and pharmacies weren't opening for a few days and if it was a particular time when pregnancy is most likely to happen, I would. Embarassing, expensive, whatever, if I thought I was going to get pregnant when I wasn't ready I'd do anything not to.

But this is why the normal pill was invented :P

KnifeWRENCH

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

This always kinda confuses me. And I'm not aiming this directly at you KnifeWRENCH, but since the baby is yours aswel, why should only one half of the couple decide? Say if a guy really wants to keep the baby, but the girl wants to abort, shouldn't they try sort it out together and not just let her have 100% of the decision making?

I know she has to deal with pregnancy, but thats only 9 months. Both of them would have to deal with the child when it is born.

People obviously have different opinions on this. But my view is that the girl is the one carrying the baby and the one who will have to carry it for 9 months, go through immense physical and emotional changes and labour. Her body, her decision imo.

If the guy doesn't want her to abort, then that's a sad situation for him. But imo a woman should NEVER be forced to give birth to a child that she does not want. And if the guy wants kids, he'll probably get another chance with a woman who actually wants one.

Wolfe Tone

Hotaru wrote: »

Yes, but not by as much as you might think.

I'm all for it being available over the counter but there is that fear that, by being available so readily, it may begin to be used more frequently and not just in "emergencies".

I had to take the morning after pill once and let me assure you, it's not something you want to have to take on a regular basis. It makes you feel rather ill and contains VERY high doses of hormones which would be damaging to the body on a regular basis. That'd be the main reason for it to be kept on a prescription only basis.

What did people do before the internet? Thanks.

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

If absolutely every other option wasn't available, if GP's and pharmacies weren't opening for a few days and if it was a particular time when pregnancy is most likely to happen, I would. Embarassing, expensive, whatever, if I thought I was going to get pregnant when I wasn't ready I'd do anything not to.

But this is why the normal pill was invented :P

I suppose, if it was really an emergency I would take her to the A&E.

Heaven forbid she would refuse to go.

Wolfe Tone

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

People obviously have different opinions on this. But my view is that the girl is the one carrying the baby and the one who will have to carry it for 9 months, go through immense physical and emotional changes and labour. Her body, her decision imo.

If the guy doesn't want her to abort, then that's a sad situation for him. But imo a woman should NEVER be forced to give birth to a child that she does not want. And if the guy wants kids, he'll probably get another chance with a woman who actually wants one.

Jayzus.



And as for having another kid, man thats a bit mad, would you say that to a couple whose child died, "ah sure yis can have another?" Thats how I would feel if any child of mine was aborted.

EuropeanSon

sock puppet wrote: »

Well I was thinking more of in the future where life expectancies are set to increase up to the mid 80's. Raising the retirement age to 70 would work though. There'd still be the absolutely enormous costs and the tax burden would be incredible.

China is, I imagine, a VERY long way off having a life expectancy in the mid-80s. It's still, for the most part, barely beyond being a third world country in terms of healthcare and services like that.
No developed countries at the moment are near the mid-80s afaik, though I think Japan may be at or around 80 now.

Konata

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What did people do before the internet? Thanks.

They find out from their doctor. Just like I did.

Wolfe Tone

Hotaru wrote: »

They find out from their doctor. Just like I did.

Being a bloke I never go to the doctor unless I feel I may die.

Would feel a bit embarrassed asking.

All hail internets!

EuropeanSon

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

People obviously have different opinions on this. But my view is that the girl is the one carrying the baby and the one who will have to carry it for 9 months, go through immense physical and emotional changes and labour. Her body, her decision imo.

If the guy doesn't want her to abort, then that's a sad situation for him. But imo a woman should NEVER be forced to give birth to a child that she does not want. And if the guy wants kids, he'll probably get another chance with a woman who actually wants one.

I personally am of the opinion that killing people is wrong, for the most part.

KnifeWRENCH

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

And as for having another kid, man thats a bit mad, would you say that to a couple whose child died, "ah sure yis can have another?" Thats how I would feel if any child of mine was aborted.

Well, I wouldn't say it to their face - I'm not completely tactless. And I'd do my best to console them obviously. But being honest, that's probably what I would think to myself. I'm very unsentimental (some people would say heartless) when it comes to pregnancy and kids tbh. But that's just me; I would never voice that opinion around anyone who had recently suffered a miscarriage or anything.

(Incidentally, my sister is currently about 4 months pregnant and when she went for her last scan, her doctor couldn't find the baby's heartbeat. She was sent to hospital and it was found eventually. They told her it's quite a common thing to happen but she was understandably scared for a while.)

EuropeanSon wrote:

I personally am of the opinion that killing people is wrong, for the most part.

Well good for you. :rolleyes:

Wolfe Tone

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't say it to their face - I'm not completely tactless. And I'd do my best to console them obviously. But being honest, that's probably what I would think to myself. I'm very unsentimental (some people would say heartless) when it comes to pregnancy and kids tbh. But that's just me; I would never voice that opinion around anyone who had recently suffered a miscarriage or anything.

(Incidentally, my sister is currently about 4 months pregnant and when she went for her last scan, her doctor couldn't find the baby's heartbeat. She was sent to hospital and it was found eventually. They told her it's quite a common thing to happen but she was understandably scared for a while.)

Holy sh!t. I would agree with the heartless point!

KnifeWRENCH

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Holy sh!t. I would agree with the heartless point!

Fair enough. No offence taken.

randylonghorn

sock puppet wrote: »

Would you say a lot of the teenagers you worked with were ignorant of such things before you taught them?

Well, I'd always have tried not to "teach" as such, they got enough of that in school ... I know what you mean though, sorry to get into semantics, it's just one of those buttons with youth workers or ex-youth workers which when you press you get the pre-recorded announcement!!

In terms of your question though, it varied. Some were quite knowledgeable, others knew little and what they knew was often BS ("you can't get pregnant standing up!") Not, mind you, that I would claim to be an expert, and certainly, not having done those sessions in years, there are bits I would have to revise myself if I was facing in to one tomorrow, esp. re: STIs and some more technical stuff. I generally got dumped with it because I (a) believed in the need for it, and (b) was pretty difficult to embarrass by the inevitable "well, so how often do you ... / have you ever ..." questions. Some very blunt questions, though (often out of mischief as much as anything else), and some funny funny moments!!

In general, I would say the level of knowledge usually primarily reflected the attitudes of their parents, though some (the minority) would have gotten decent input in school.

Easy access to t'internet was also making a difference, and that would probably be even more true now. Often, though, the latter meant they knew all sorts about unusual sex practices, and still feck all about STIs / conception and contraception / etc. Nor can the 'net give you a practical demo of how to make a banana waterproof! :pac: And, finally, depending on where on the 'net they were getting their info, it could be just as fallible as what they might hear in the schoolyard.

EuropeanSon

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Well good for you. :rolleyes:

Obviously there are exceptions. However, I have never seen a sufficiently valid counterargument to make abortion, in any situation, one of them.
If you do have one, please share. I am always open to correction.

Aoibheann

I think people are entitled to their own opinions on the whole abortion thing, and besides - haven't the moral discussions on that been done to death here? The argument never ends well because neither side wants to see the point of the other. >_<

I'm not saying I agree with KnifeWRENCH. Funnily enough, I kind of do, and I kind of don't. I certainly don't want children, as I've said in the thread already. That being said, I don't think I could ever go through with an abortion, because of how it would make me feel. Not everyone feels the same way about it though, and that's okay. One thing I don't think is okay though, is encouraging someone else to have an abortion, even if it's your own child. Yes, I think the potential father should have input, of course I do.. But to encourage would be a step too far, because clearly if you felt that way and they didn't/weren't sure, they would be the ones left with the unpleasant aftermath.

Edit: I just wanted to address the following too:

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Obviously there are exceptions. However, I have never seen a sufficiently valid counterargument to make abortion, in any situation, one of them.
If you do have one, please share. I am always open to correction.

What if the mother's life is at stake? What if there's a very, very high chance that in giving birth to this child she will die? Who do you choose then? If you're on the side that "chooses life"... Which life?

KnifeWRENCH

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Obviously there are exceptions. However, I have never seen a sufficiently valid counterargument to make abortion, in any situation, one of them.
If you do have one, please share. I am always open to correction.

The whole "supporting killing people" thing depends on circumstance; personally I support euthanasia but am against capital punishment and the death penalty. Abortion is trickier, because whether a foetus is regarded as a person with rights is a matter of opinion more than anything else.

I could debate abortion with you for hours. By the end of it, neither of us will have changed our position and everyone else will have been bored having to read it. You say there's no sufficient argument as to why abortion is acceptable, while I personally don't believe any pro-life argument is sufficient enough to deny a woman her right to choose.

But yeah.....it's a very pointless argument to have because it never ends with anybody being convinced to switch sides.

EuropeanSon

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

The whole "supporting killing people" thing depends on circumstance; personally I support euthanasia but am against capital punishment and the death penalty. Abortion is trickier, because whether a foetus is regarded as a person with rights is a matter of opinion more than anything else.

I could debate abortion with you for hours. By the end of it, neither of us will have changed our position and everyone else will have been bored having to read it. You say there's no sufficient argument as to why abortion is acceptable, while I personally don't believe any pro-life argument is sufficient enough to deny a woman her right to choose.

But yeah.....it's a very pointless argument to have because it never ends with anybody being convinced to switch sides.

I don't regard it as a person. However, abortion causes the existence of a person, which WILL exist within 9 months otherwise, to be prevented. Therefore, there is one less person in existence than there would have been otherwise, and so it is tantamount to actually killing a person.

On euthanasia, I agree. I support capital punishment in certain cases, primarily due to it's removal of an unnecessary strain on government resources, which has no tangible benefits (ie. The incarceration of a man for life).

randylonghorn

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

But yeah.....it's a very pointless argument to have because it never ends with anybody being convinced to switch sides.

I liked this line ... >_>

EuropeanSon

randylonghorn wrote: »

I liked this line ... >_>

That is ridiculous. Moral arguments approached logically should always end with everyone on the same page, if people can bring themselves to engage the topic dispassionately.
I have already stated my willingness to change my viewpoint if someone presents a good enough argument.

Pygmalion

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Therefore, there is one less person in existence than there would have been otherwise, and so it is tantamount to actually killing a person.

Thankfully you've never masturbated.
Nor have you gone more than a few days without donating sperm and/or impregnating a woman.

Aoibheann

EuropeanSon wrote: »

That is ridiculous. Moral arguments approached logically should always end with everyone on the same page, if people can bring themselves to engage the topic dispassionately.
I have already stated my willingness to change my viewpoint if someone presents a good enough argument.

Tbf, I think the argument I raised a couple of posts back would surely at least make you pause to consider that there are in fact some genuine reasons as to why abortion can be necessary? Oh, and this is (again) coming from someone who is personally anti-abortion, but would consider themselves pro-choice (again, that's the choice I've made for myself yada yada). I'm against people using them as a means of contraceptive (as so many have done with the morning-after pill), but I do understand that sometimes they do become necessary from a medical point of view - whether a woman is physically or mentally incapable of giving birth without causing fatal damage to herself, or some similar reason.

EuropeanSon

Pygmalion wrote: »

Thankfully you've never masturbated.
Nor have you gone more than a few days without donating sperm and/or impregnating a woman.

An odd point to raise, and one I've never considered before tbh. However, it's a tad far fetched. It presupposes that there is an opportunity for those sperm to become foetuses and then children that would not be taken up by another. In a sperm donation situation, it's unlikely that there is a huge shortage, given how many sperm are in the average ejaculation. So any sperm would just be taking up the place of another.
Also, if there are, say, a million sperm in an ejaculation, all but 1 are certain to die anyway, yes? Whereas in a pregnancy, there is only 1 baby (or possibly twins etc, but that's beside the point) and it/they are well over 95% certain to survive. Preventing a 1 in a million shot at life is hardly the same as preventing a near certainty.

EuropeanSon

Aoibheann wrote: »

Tbf, I think the argument I raised a couple of posts back would surely at least make you pause to consider that there are in fact some genuine reasons as to why abortion can be necessary? Oh, and this is (again) coming from someone who is personally anti-abortion, but would consider themselves pro-choice (again, that's the choice I've made for myself yada yada). I'm against people using them as a means of contraceptive (as so many have done with the morning-after pill), but I do understand that sometimes they do become necessary from a medical point of view - whether a woman is physically or mentally incapable of giving birth without causing fatal damage to herself, or some similar reason.

Aoibheann wrote:

What if the mother's life is at stake? What if there's a very, very high chance that in giving birth to this child she will die? Who do you choose then? If you're on the side that "chooses life"... Which life?

If the chances of her dying are greater than the chances the baby will survive, then yes, abortion is correct. However, I imagine a situation where there is a higher chance I'd her death than the baby's survival is exceedingly rare.
If, say, there is a 60% chance she'll die, but a 90% chance the baby will survive, I am still very much against abortion.

Insect Overlord

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Whereas in a pregnancy, there is only 1 baby (or possibly twins etc, but that's beside the point) and it/they are well over 95% certain to survive. Preventing a 1 in a million shot at life is hardly the same as preventing a near certainty.

Understanding Miscarriage

Miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy in the first 20 weeks. (In medical articles, you may see the term "spontaneous abortion" used in place of miscarriage.) About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks.
This doesn't include situations in which you lose a fertilized egg before a pregnancy becomes established. Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time.

Pregnancy and Baby

There are two statistics to answer your question regarding how often miscarriages occur. As far as we are able to determine, it can be approximated that in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy, the miscarriage rate is about 10-15 per cent of a clinically recognizable pregnancy. Often a woman may not know that she is pregnant, and after being slightly late for her period, get a heavier than usual menstrual cycle. This is often not recognized as a miscarriage but instead just a late, heavy period. That's why in the earliest part of pregnancy it is difficult to quantify actual percentages of miscarriages.

The second statistic is that if a live, appropriately grown fetus is present at 8 weeks gestation, the fetal loss rate (miscarriage) over the next 20 weeks (up to 28 weeks) is about 3 percent.

Pregnancy Baby Care

The term miscarriage is specifically used to describe the loss of an unborn baby in the first 20 weeks of gestation. Thereafter, if the baby dies within the womb, it is referred to as a stillbirth. If the baby is delivered before the 37th week of gestation, it is called a premature birth, even if the baby isn’t able to survive.

A miscarriage is an extremely trying period in the life of any expectant woman as she takes on the role of a mother right from the moment she realizes that she is pregnant. The awful truth is that a miscarriage is not an uncommon happening with almost 20 percent of known pregnancies ending in miscarriage and approximately 80 percent of these losses occurring within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.

Also, with regards to your "one in a million" comment, there are roughly 300 million sperm present per (average) ejaculate. How you hadn't picked up that little nugget of information before now astounds me...

Aoibheann

EuropeanSon wrote: »

If the chances of her dying are greater than the chances the baby will survive, then yes, abortion is correct. However, I imagine a situation where there is a higher chance I'd her death than the baby's survival is exceedingly rare.
If, say, there is a 60% chance she'll die, but a 90% chance the baby will survive, I am still very much against abortion.

But then, if she does die, and the child lives - you've chosen one life over the other any way. Even worse, if they both die, you've chosen one life over the other, and it's all gone completely wrong. Oh, and these situations are much more common than you'd think. Ever hear of pre-eclampsia? It occurs in somewhere in or around 10% of pregnancies. Now, it's much more often than not resolved in a safe manner for both the child and the mother, but that's not always the case. Eclampsia cerebral haemhorrage are two things that can follow on from this, and can be fatal. "The only known treatments for eclampsia or advancing pre-eclampsia are abortion or delivery, either by labor induction or Caesarean section" <- this quote is coming directly from wiki, but is backed up elsewhere.

Where do you stand on the cases of pregnancies as a result of rape? Granted, this only occurs in 0.01% of cases (or so I found when researching it for an assignment years back), but it's still a valid case. Of course, a lot of people will say that the guilt of aborting a child would be every bit as bad as having to (possibly) see your rapist's face staring back at you every day, to feel their child growing in you. And I understand that, to a certain extent. But at the same time, could you not see how someone would not want to carry a child that was conceived a result of their being raped?

There are so many reasons, not all of them particularly common, that someone could find an abortion necessary. We are not always privy to their reasons, and nor should we be. Nobody should have to explain themselves in these sort of cases.

EuropeanSon

IO and Aoibheann, thanks for all that information. I am happy to see people argue the point.
On the point of miscarriages, thanks for the information, but all that dies is change the percentages. My statements still hold within these new parameters. Also, I am again unsure, but aren't most abortions after the 12 weeks in which miscarriages are most likely to occur, according to your statements? That leaves a 96% chance of life, by the last estimate given (20% miscarriages, 80% of those in the first 12 weeks leaves 4% after).
Aoibheann, nobody can predict the future with certainty. Both may die, or neither, but I prefer to go on whatever the odds are estimated to be. Hindsight is 20/20, after all. My guesses at numbers were precisely that, guesses.
As for rape cases, they are unfortunate (to put it very mildly) but the child is not at fault, and adoption is an option.

Pygmalion

EuropeanSon wrote: »

An odd point to raise, and one I've never considered before tbh. However, it's a tad far fetched. It presupposes that there is an opportunity for those sperm to become foetuses and then children that would not be taken up by another. In a sperm donation situation, it's unlikely that there is a huge shortage, given how many sperm are in the average ejaculation. So any sperm would just be taking up the place of another.
Also, if there are, say, a million sperm in an ejaculation, all but 1 are certain to die anyway, yes? Whereas in a pregnancy, there is only 1 baby (or possibly twins etc, but that's beside the point) and it/they are well over 95% certain to survive. Preventing a 1 in a million shot at life is hardly the same as preventing a near certainty.

Well I did say it as a joke, and I can't say I'm in favour of the whole "Abortions for everyone" idea.

But the point behind it (if you want to read into enough to see a "point") is that you can't say with 100% that taking measures to prevent a life is always bad without also seeing sperm as sacred and being opposed to contraception (and some people do both these things), because there's a chance that both of these things will prevent life.
A line must be drawn somewhere and you didn't exactly make it clear where, you just suggested that a 0.0001% chance is on one side of the line and a 95% chance is on the other.
Are you suggesting that the line should be drawn at the moment of sex, for example (meaning no morning after pill), when the foetus becomes formed enough to have a decent chance of survival, or at some other arbitrary point?

randylonghorn

EuropeanSon wrote: »

That is ridiculous. Moral arguments approached logically should always end with everyone on the same page, if people can bring themselves to engage the topic dispassionately.

That's in a mathematical universe, not one involving humans.

I think I've pointed this out to you before!

Humans don't approach moral arguments involving life and death with nothing except logic, even less so when they're talking about abortion.

They can't, actually, because they're involved on an emotional level simply by virtue of being human.

No human can be entirely dispassionate about such matters, or claim to be totally disinterested or unbiased. If you think about it, for anyone to claim that they can is quite illogical in itself.

EuropeanSon

Any point must of course be arbitrary, but I prefer to draw it at the point where rather than doing something to make it happen (ie. Having sex) you must do something to prevent it happening (ie. Have an abortion).