Actions, Consequences
There is an old saying that once you choose an action, you choose the consequences as well. The inverse of that (as Bujold points out) is that, if you want a consequence, you must choose the actions that will enable it to come about.
One such action is abortion. Over on Scio, Scio's blog, there's a debate as to its moral stature. I do not intend to revisit that discussion here. Instead, I would like to take the problem from the other end. You see, in my perfect world abortion would be legal, safe, and never used. So what steps can I take to make such a world a reality? What actions must I take and encourage others to take to make the consequence follow? Here are a few; please feel free to add others or to comment on the likelihood that the actions will create the consequences.
1. Personal responsibilty - I take responsibility for my reproductive organs, and would encourage others to do so as well. That includes everything from regular medical checkups to proper diet [A].
2. Education - Abstinence can be good, but abstinence only programs fail our children. They have been shown not to work (in the sense of delaying sexual activity or reducing the rates of teen pregnancy and STDs). What has been demonstrated to work is a combination of abstinence emphasis and prophylactic information (in other words, telling them the best thing to do is to date "Rosy Palm" but to wear a rubber if they are going out to play); these programs reduce both pregnancy and STD rates. Though the majority of Americans are in favor of "abstinence plus" programs, a vocal minority opposes them on religious grounds, thus creating the consequences that they claim to abhor.
3. Care - Prenatal care is essential to the health of both mother and child. Without proper nutrition, environment, and exercise, the developing child is at greater risk of some problem that will cause the need for an abortion to save the mother's life. As we have discovered, not only does a mother's environment affect her current baby, but those that will follow; thus, money spent on proper prenatal care is money invested in future healthy children. Again, this seems like a no-brainer, but prenatal care programs are regularly opposed by soi disant "Pro-Life" groups and their political candidates.
4. Social support - It used to be that the social stigma attached to teen/unmarried pregnancy drove many to abortions. Given that teens will continue to have sex and that some inevitable sub-set of them will become pregnant because of it (even with the best precautions, pregnancy can still happen), the only choice is to reduce the stigma associated with it [B]. We do this by encouraging the teens to have the child and give it up for adoption, and by providing the social network that they will need to carry the child to term - while making them change diapers and wash out milk bottles at 3 AM as a reminder of the consequences of their actions [C]. Again, many social conservatives would hold that this is morally reprehensible. My reading is that they think reprehensible part is that it deprives them of someone else to demonize.
That's my quick list. What can you add to it? How would you change it? No sacred cows here, just a quick set of ideas to discuss.
John
[A] It also includes not letting them go out on their own; they must be supervised by an adult at all times!
[B] Nota Bene: This does not mean that we absolve the kids (guys as well as girls) of their responsibility in getting pregnant. We still make them suffer the consequences of having to work more and party less. We just don't make them social pariahs for it.
[C] Truthfully, I think that simply making teen boys spend a couple of months doing diaper duty at the average nursery school would do a heck of a lot toward ending teen pregnancy. Some of those diapers are nasty! (I worked my way through the BS in a nursery. Other than an addiction to "new baby smell", I am no worse for the wear.)
Comments
Ah, well - at least you think this is interesting!
John
Should we deny children life because their father was a rapist? I think not.
Should we force the woman to be continually raped for nine months? From their point of view, that is exactly what being forced to carry their rapist's child to term is - an extension of that rape.
And your numbers are low. According to a study in the American Journal of Obstretic Gynecology, the incidence rate of pregnancy from rape is 5% and an astonishing 32% of those who became pregnant did not discover it until the second trimester.
John
Yes. Making it unlawful doesn't stop it and does cause more harm. And too many of the folks in favor of making it unlawful seem unwilling to take the steps to make it unecessary.
My sympathies on being a survivor. I am glad to know you and to know that you have become a strong person despite the evil that was done to you.
John
For what it's worth, I believe in life imprisonment for child molesters. I would not argue against the death penalty, either.
My numbers were abortions because of rape and incest, not pregnancies resulting from rape. Here is a fairly recent paper on the reasons given for abortion.
We are losing sight of the intent of this thread. It is not to debate the rightness or wrongness of abortion; we will take is as a matter of fact that abortions will happen so long as pregnancy happens. The intent of this thread is to come up with ideas on how to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the situations that lead to them. In the case of rape, the obvious solution is to reduce the number of rapes by imposing stricter punishment on the rapists.
John
I could never ask a woman to risk her life for a pregnancy she did not want. I could never ask a woman to shoulder a lifetime responsibility she does not feel she can bear with grace.
I believe that abortion is the taking of a life, but it is not murder.
The reality of abortion is not black or white. It is not good or evil. It is human struggle, filled with blood and grief and fear and pain and humiliation. Nobody plans to get pregnant just so they can have an abortion. Abortion is not used as a primary method of birth control, not by any sane, valued being.
And that brings us to what our society would consider the dark side of abortion and what I consider the bright side of it. Relief. Abortion is a safety valve for families. The choice to abort or not allows the woman and her family freedom and safety. It is a considered action that dignifies the value of human life and the human soul by considering all parts of the equation and not just the one unknown cipher. Like any act of great human consequence, there are times when abortion is the right and only thing to do, and times when it is a terrible mistake. The pregnant woman is the only one who can make that decision, and once made, we, as a society, cannot ethically and morally judge her choice, not and remain a moral and ethical society.
Who are we to second-guess her choice, a choice that is never as simple or easy as it sounds?
We have the wealth, the technology, and the ability to make every child born a wanted child, to prevent unwanted pregnancies, to safely abort dangerous or unwanted pregnancies, to provide support while any children are entirely dependent upon the mother, to make families stronger and safer.
We don't.
There are those who will cry out, "But what about the father's right to choose?"
And to them I answer: The father's right to choose takes place before the act of coitus and orgasm. Once he decides to squirt his sperm and conception occurs, he hands over the decision for what happens next to the woman. It is her body, her life, her family, her community, her spiritual well-being that informs her decision. She may choose to allow him a part in her decision, but it is ultimately and completely her decision, and it will remain hers until we develop something along the lines of the Bujoldian uterine replicators. When we have artificial wombs that put no woman's life at risk to carry a baby to term, that involve no woman's emotions, bodies, or families; then men can decide to take custody of the embryo, grow it in the artificial womb, and raise it themselves.
So, as you say, John, consequences have acts that lead to them, and pregnancy - and potentially abortion - is a consequence of an act.
When women can walk away from the pregnancy as easily as men can, then men can decide.
addendum: You are a what?
It is never the only thing to do, and there is still quite a bit of debate about whether it is ever right.
So a woman has no say in whether she has sex? And a husband who helps conceive a child in good faith has no say if the wife should, say, changer her mind? Good luck staying married after that.
I don't even know what those are, but they sound like something I saw in a Superman comic once.
I'm beginning to think you have something very wrong with you.
Men have just as much at stake as women, if you acknowledge that they are actual humans, which you do. It's not all about economics. Men are intellectually capable of making rational arguments about things they cannot experience, such as little strings that hold the universe together, or what would happen if a person stepped on Jupiter with no protection. Women should stop being sexist about this issue and allow that just because they get pregnant doesn't mean they have a lock on the issue.
John, I promise I'm going to make a substantive post about your proposals, but I felt compelled to respond to this first.
My position on sex education is that I should be able to educate my child at home about contraception and proper sexual conduct. I don't want the government telling my children how to do anything. However, if they learn the mechanics of sex at school then I don't have a problem with that. I think that the main thing to stress at school is that sex leads to pregnancy, and that you should talk with your parents about it at home. We should encompass the beliefs of all parties by putting the ball in the parent's court. As I like to say, "Just the facts, please."
And if the parents can't be bothered, that's a whole separate issue...
I agree with you that prenatal care is essential. I would favor government supported prenatal programs for women who would otherwise not receive any care or would have difficulty obtaining it. The danger is that women would be given handouts, welfare. I kind of think that the only people who really deserve welfare are those who are in the womb. So I'd also favor them entering some sort of program where they weren't just handed funds, but had their needs met instead.
I would also stress the fact that Americans are the most generous nation on earth. Charity is part of our culture, and if we increased our efforts to supporting women then that would drastically reduce the number of abortions. I believe that firmly.
Despite your defeatist attitude about teens having sex, I tend to agree that they should not be demonized for their mistakes. A consistent ethic of life will allow that people make mistakes and should be forgiven. I think having them do diapers is awesome.
By the way, a good conservative will always find something to demonize. In this case, it would be our sex-saturated culture, which I partly blame for attitudes we see in today's youth.
But the woman, and by association the child, should never be punished for her mistake...that is inconsistent.
Sure it does. Not all killing is murder. There is justifiable homicide, manslaughter, and negligent homicide, to name just a few legal distinctions.
Let's restrict ourselves to commenting on the ideas, not personalities.
She is a numenist. As a matter of fact, she would be the equivalent of a bishop in Numenism if they went for that sort of thing (which they don't). She has written many of the treatises on their faith, and has studied others extensively (for example, her knowledge of Roman Catholic dogma makes mine look pale and wan in comparison).
Yes, there are indeed times when it is the only choice - unless you would doom two to die instead of one.
Neither of those are what she said.
They are an artificial womb, currently being studied by several scientists. Bujold is a writer who has made great use of them as a way to avoid abortion (something that she is emphatically against) even in cases of rape and congenital damage.
John
Amen! There would be no need for sex education in schools if parents would teach their kids about the birds and the bees themselves. Unfortunately, most parents apparently can't be bothered (or can't be bothered to get the facts, as opposed to what they learned on the streets).
See my previous comment. However, the last comment seems contradictory to the next. If you don't want the government telling your children how to do anything, then how can it be ok for the government to tell them the mechanics of sex? (Unless you mean the bare essentials of sex-based reproduction and the many variants seen in the natural world.)
And one very strong tine on the fork of this particular problem. Too darn many parents will ignore their child's education until the child fails/gets in trouble/gets pregnant - and then it is anybody but the parent's fault. (Yes, personal responsibility starts with the parents. [1])
What's the problem with that, as long as the handouts are tailored to ensure a healthy child? If giving live birth is so important, should our society work to increase the number of live births by providing the mothers with no monetary excuse not to take optimum care of their fetus?
You've never eaten "government cheese", I take it? There is no program so good that someone, somewhere won't find a way to pervert it (ala, short-changing welfare coupons for cash). But is that a reason to deny the aid to those who won't misuse it?
Easy to check. Compare the abortion rates in counties with strong pregnancy support charities to those with weak ones, and see what happens.
The word you are looking for is "realist", as in "based on the facts". The fact is, teens have sex. Let's teach them to do it without getting pregnant or catching an STD - and then get their parents to keep a strong enough watch on them so that the teen never has the chance to have sex. (Yes, I blame Britney's mom for her and her sister's pregnancies. Why do you ask?)
But does that make them a good conservative, or merely one who agrees with the others?John
I would like to say one thing about the education part of this. If parents feel strongly that they don't want the government teaching their kids about condoms and STDs and the like, then homeschooling is an option for them, particularly now as more homeschooling options exist online. Private schools are another option. If you want to have the final say about what your child is or is not taught, then teach them yourself.
However. Most parents have neither the time, the ability, nor the inclination to teach their kids this information. Because most children currently get most of their education from public schools, the concern and focus there has to be less on private decisions and personal morality (although those can and should also come into play--as has been noted, most people support teaching abstinence plus) and more on public health. STD transmission and unwanted pregnancies are public health concerns, i.e., the less we have of them the better off we are as a society. I believe it is the responsibility of our public institutions, including public education, to do the things that are, in general, better for society as a whole. Because this is America, anyone who disagrees with that is free to find alternative schooling (including, certainly, religious schools).