Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
People do want to adopt, but the market is all for infants (ideally white). To get these desirable infants most people now go for overseas adoptions.
Older kids, or kids from troubled situations or with special needs, are sadly plenteous the world over.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
What I have never understood about the pro-life positon in the US is what they wish to do about all the unwanted children. In the US, the dysfunctional foster care system is already bursting with unwanted children, especially children of color and any with special needs. You create a scenario where a woman who lacks the resources for a healthy pregnancy is forced to carry a fetus she feels ambivalent about or even hostile towards, Anyone who has ever been pregnant knows the dedication it takes to create a good outcome and women under duress will not do all that needs to be done. They will not forgo unhealthy habits, may eschew prenatal care (access to which is limited for poor women in the US), suffer mental and emotional angusih (which has been shown to affect the fetus), etc. In the end you have an unwanted child who has not been properly cared for during pregnancy put into an overloaded system rife with neglect and abuse. I just never understand how that is a desirable situation. In the meantime the lack of any support for women in the US means she may lose her job (many women in the US are their family's primary bread winner) and not be adequately able to care for her previously born children and others she is responsible for. Pregnancy is more than a process its a relationship and although you can reduce a woman to the biological function of gestation you cannot force her to create the relationship required for a healthy outcome, physically, mentally or emotionally.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

It's possibly the attitude that there is a kind of conspiracy to force a woman to see a pregnancy through rather than understanding that some people care about human life, and see the unborn baby as human life too, that stands in the way of progress.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's possibly the attitude that there is a kind of conspiracy to force a woman to see a pregnancy through . . .

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's possibly the attitude that there is a kind of conspiracy to force a woman to see a pregnancy through . . .

---

The term "conspiracy" seems a bit inaccurate since it implies a level of secrecy. The anti-abortion movement is pretty open about their goal of using the state's criminal justice powers "to force a woman to see a pregnancy through".

---

Posted                       

1. There is a pool of people waiting to adopt children - finding numbers is difficult but there are very low numbers adopted from that number of children in care - that BPAS page gives the following figures from that 69,000 children in care:
   

   quote:

   ---

   5% (3,580) were placed for adoption
   4,820 children had an adoption decision but were not yet placed at 30th September 2014.
   3,470 children had a placement order for adoption but were not yet placed at 30th September 2014

   ---

   That's around 12,000 from the 69,000, so around one sixth or 17% of all the children in care. It doesn't look as if adoption is the solution for those children already in care.
2. The women involved are willing to jeopardise their health and careers for a possible baby;
3. That having persuaded all these women to carry to term the babies will be available for adoption immediately, not after the home situation has broken down, leaving more older children in care.
4. That whoever involved in organising this new policy will be happy to fund the additional costs of full term pregnancy and birth, the prenatal care of up to $25,000, hospital costs of delivery - up to $37,227 for uncomplicated vaginal delivery, up to $71,000 for a caesarean, maternity costs: the new wardrobe including bras to cope with the changing shape of the woman both during the pregnancy and following, time off work for prenatal appointments, as against the costs of termination of pregnancy ($800) (using US prices as easier to source)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I did say that I was using US figures. However my point still stands: the NHS or UK Government funds those additional costs. So that might play into Government willingness to enforce such a policy.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Here is a question which may be worthy of its own thread:

From the point of view of those people who believe abortion is not morally wrong, what are your thoughts about an anti-abortion/pro-life (pick whatever name you wish) movement whose focus is specifically not to make abortion illegal again, but to create that social safety net I mentioned above as a way to lower the number of abortions?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What I find utterly repulsive about the more strident pro-life faction is their blatant hypocrisy. (Far, far too many examples to insert here, but if you want a fresh one hot from today's headlines put in the word "Duggar" into a search window. And then step back and hold your nose.)

So, yes: if the focus of the pro-life movement could shift from the "what is between your legs, I get to manage" bit over to the actual caring for, you know, life, then my ire would diminish greatly. They could then ease back from the misogynist oppression agenda. And then, when a major figurehead of the movement is found with his pants down with his sister, the furor might not be less, but the embarrassment would hopefully be cooler. The element of "the law, it is for those little people, not me" would be gone.

---

quote:

---

The problem with this is that the formal legal status of abortion is essentially irrelevant to whether the wives, mistresses, and daughters of people like Scott DesJarlais and John McCain will be able to obtain safe abortions. They are fully aware of this when they vote for every abortion regulation and ban to come down the pike. And the disjuncture also illustrates that these votes are appalling. All women should have access to safe, legal abortions, not just women who are affluent or who have access to the patronage of people like Scott DesJarlais.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In the UK there were 185,331 terminations of pregnancy in 2013¹ and as of 31st March 2014 there were 68,840 children in care², 6% of whom were under a year.

There are some assumptions in the proposition of asking women to carry those nearly two hundred thousand babies to term to provide more children for adoption.

1. There is a pool of people waiting to adopt children - finding numbers is difficult but there are very low numbers adopted from that number of children in care - that BPAS page gives the following figures from that 69,000 children in care:
   

   quote:

   ---

   5% (3,580) were placed for adoption
   4,820 children had an adoption decision but were not yet placed at 30th September 2014.
   3,470 children had a placement order for adoption but were not yet placed at 30th September 2014

   ---

   That's around 12,000 from the 69,000, so around one sixth or 17% of all the children in care. It doesn't look as if adoption is the solution for those children already in care.
2. The women involved are willing to jeopardise their health and careers for a possible baby;
3. That having persuaded all these women to carry to term the babies will be available for adoption immediately, not after the home situation has broken down, leaving more older children in care.
4. That whoever involved in organising this new policy will be happy to fund the additional costs of full term pregnancy and birth, the prenatal care of up to $25,000, hospital costs of delivery - up to $37,227 for uncomplicated vaginal delivery, up to $71,000 for a caesarean, maternity costs: the new wardrobe including bras to cope with the changing shape of the woman both during the pregnancy and following, time off work for prenatal appointments, as against the costs of termination of pregnancy ($800) (using US prices as easier to source)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Here is a question which may be worthy of its own thread:

From the point of view of those people who believe abortion is not morally wrong, what are your thoughts about an anti-abortion/pro-life (pick whatever name you wish) movement whose focus is specifically not to make abortion illegal again, but to create that social safety net I mentioned above as a way to lower the number of abortions?

---

The hypothetical movement you describe sounds a lot like the pro-choice movement

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
I think that the problem with too many pro-life supporters is that they either completely ignore the reality of the situation, fantasize that the women will suddenly have a change of heart or that there are countless safe, adoptive homes awaiting, or have a craven disregard for what happens to the children born of these situations.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The pro life side does not have to justify its moral objections to abortion by providing a contingency plan for every unwanted pregnancy or finding some magic that avoids all unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I did say several pages back that the moral solution was to change society's attitude to sex, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Practically, termination of pregnancy is the least bad solution as the outworkings of policies that insist outlawing medical abortions are not great when you (general you) start looking at what is actually involved.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

On your first point, I would say we are on a long recoil from a period of sexual repression. I don't think you can do much about it, it's a bit like being starved for a period, you tend to feel hungry. Moral exhortation may also rebound.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, examples are not hard to find. An aunt of mine nearly died in childbirth, after begging for an abortion, as previous births had been very difficult. This was in the dark days, and her obstetrician was Catholic, and refused. She was in hospital for two months, no doubt ruminating on the moral arguments pro and con.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
First, let's distinguish between "solving" the issue and ameliorating it. Just because we may not "solve" this problem by throwing money at it, does not mean that we should not throw money at it. I think it is entirely defensible to say that the state should invest a few billion currency units to help pregnant women and young families. That is a damned good idea as such and likely more helpful to society than say buying a few nuclear submarines at the same price tag. And in addition it is likely to prevent some unnecessary abortions by giving some women opportunities they did not have before. I fail to see how anybody in either the pro choice or pro life camp can be against that outcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And yes, if you think that having sex whenever you want and with whom you want is a human right, or at least so desirable as to trump other concerns, then this means contraception.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, examples are not hard to find. An aunt of mine nearly died in childbirth, after begging for an abortion, as previous births had been very difficult. This was in the dark days, and her obstetrician was Catholic, and refused. She was in hospital for two months, no doubt ruminating on the moral arguments pro and con.

---

This assumes that the abortion would have gone smoothly, of course.

The answer to this sort of question is one to be made on a proper clinical basis. On a spectrum, at one end the mother is going to die regardless. In that case, the doctors should do all possible to ensure a safe delivery. The other end is that the child will die come what may, and in that case a course which involves termination is justified. In between is nowhere near as easy.

In our own case, Madame's very much wanted pregnancy was extremely difficult, and she spent quite some time in hospital before giving birth and a longer than usual time after. But she and Dlet both came through.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
I think that the problem with too many pro-life supporters is that they either completely ignore the reality of the situation, fantasize that the women will suddenly have a change of heart or that there are countless safe, adoptive homes awaiting, or have a craven disregard for what happens to the children born of these situations.

---

First, let's distinguish between "solving" the issue and ameliorating it. Just because we may not "solve" this problem by throwing money at it, does not mean that we should not throw money at it. I think it is entirely defensible to say that the state should invest a few billion currency units to help pregnant women and young families. That is a damned good idea as such and likely more helpful to society than say buying a few nuclear submarines at the same price tag. And in addition it is likely to prevent some unnecessary abortions by giving some women opportunities they did not have before. I fail to see how anybody in either the pro choice or pro life camp can be against that outcome. To insist on "all or nothing" to me sounds like privileging the ideological war over pragmatically improving the common good.

Second, it is unfair to demand of the "pro life" side that they must arrange society so that every unwanted pregnancy can become a wanted baby. The primary solution to unwanted pregnancies is of course to not become pregnant unless you want to. And yes, if you think that having sex whenever you want and with whom you want is a human right, or at least so desirable as to trump other concerns, then this means contraception. Or, given the still too high failure rates we see with contemporary contraception, developing better contraception or perhaps using sterilisation. There are other possible solutions, too. Like not having sex as much and/or increasing the number of children you want. But how terribly unrealistic these other solutions might be to your mind does not change that this simply is a different discussion.

The pro life side does not have to justify its moral objections to abortion by providing a contingency plan for every unwanted pregnancy or finding some magic that avoids all unwanted pregnancies in the first place. It would be beautiful if this were possible, but the sad truth is that unwanted pregnancies which are not terminated will in many cases result in hardship. And the way these things work out, it is a safe bet that these hardships will disproportionally affect women and children. But from that it neither follows that the moral objections against abortion are invalid, nor that those who voice these moral objections hate women and children.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

quote:

---

On your first point, I would say we are on a long recoil from a period of sexual repression. I don't think you can do much about it, it's a bit like being starved for a period, you tend to feel hungry. Moral exhortation may also rebound.

---

It is the same thing with women's rights. After many millennia of second-class status, within my lifetime we have (as the ad used to say) come a long way, baby. And so we are rather stroppy with things like this Trans Vaginal Probes, You Love 'em

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

In the US "pro-life" is not merely a moral/philosophical position but a political movement. In the US the pro-choice lobby seeks to end all legalize abortion for any reason and is seeking a constitutional amendment that grants full person-hood to a fertilized egg. This would end all abortion, even those required to to spare life and health and those for children who are victims of incest and all women/girls who have victimized by rape. It has the added benefit of outlawing several of the most reliable forms of contraception because the lobby "believes" they cause abortion. ... THese are societal questions with real life and death consequences to actual families.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
While I don't find this argument convincing, I find it easy to see how a good number of people could be against that outcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The only reason to get bent out of shape about women choosing their own sex partners is if you feel that they'll pick wrong and it's somehow your responsibility to prevent this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Once you've postulated that lifelong chastity is a reasonable demand to place on the poor (i.e. the only people whose decisions regarding abortion are likely to be influenced by a massive increase in social spending), then lifelong chastity will be seen as the much more economical option, from a government spending perspective.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
From past experience of discussing this with other women I have often found that people seem influenced by their own experiences and emotions. Those who have had fertility problems have found the termination of any pregnancy inconceivable and offensive; those who are so fertile that birth control methods are insecure may think that abortion is an evil, but see it as a necessary evil.

A rising number of terminations in the UK are for older women. There have been articles in the press highlighting this and discussing reasons, one of which is they are no longer eligible to use the contraceptive pill (only recommended for under 35 smokers and 45 for non-smokers with no other contraindications). From the 2013 statistics¹, table 4a

Women aged 34-39 - 18,955
Women aged 40-44 - 7,662
Women aged 45-49 - 686
Women aged over 50 - 24

So about 15% of the 181,000. This suggests that contraceptive failure continues to be an issue even into later years of fertility, and abortion is not just a problem for feckless teenagers and young women.

(Those 2013 statistics were released in June 2014, which suggests the 2014 statistics are due out soon.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
In the US the pro-choice lobby seeks to end all legalize abortion for any reason and is seeking a constitutional amendment that grants full person-hood to a fertilized egg. This would end all abortion, even those required to to spare life and health and those for children who are victims of incest and all women/girls who have victimized by rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
It has the added benefit of outlawing several of the most reliable forms of contraception because the lobby "believes" they cause abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
Any political movement that seeks to change the law is responsible for explaining to fellow citizens why they wish to change the law, what benefit(s) to society will result and what the plan is to mitigate harm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
It is the pro-life side re-arranging society so they are responsible to ensure "every unwanted pregnancy can become a wanted baby."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
How will society respond to the overwhelming number of unwanted children?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Or a massive increase in sterilisation and prostitution.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Or a massive increase in sterilisation and prostitution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, and a return to double standards, probably; men have affairs and shag prostitutes, women have a pure unsullied life as vessels of domestic harmony and propriety.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And yes, if you think that having sex whenever you want and with whom you want is a human right, or at least so desirable as to trump other concerns, then this means contraception.

---

The only reason to get bent out of shape about women choosing their own sex partners is if you feel that they'll pick wrong and it's somehow your responsibility to prevent this.

---

Foetuses do not spontaneously pop into existence in wombs. If I am supposed to worry about unwanted pregnancies, then that inevitably leads to worrying about the sexual choices people make, which lead to these unwanted pregnancies.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except that some of the information you seem to think is critical is actually irrelevant. Your claim that the identity and number of sex partners ("whom you want") is just as important as frequency of intercourse ("whenever you want") when assessing the chance of unplanned pregnancy seems of that nature. As I've stated before, if you know the latter the former is largely irrelevant if your interest is in shaping public policy to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Your focus on taking some kind of sexual census seems prurient, creepy, and about as relevant to questions of pregnancy as assessing the religious affiliation of sex partners.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
In particular, it will mean women returning to a general attitude of careful selectivity and exclusivity concerning their male sexual partners. As for men, it will likely mean a considerable reduction in their overall sexual activity. In general, it will be advisable to have sex with someone only if you believe that they will be a parent to the potential child.

---

Oh yeah. Right. That'll happen. That's what people did in the olden days, and we could/should just go back to that.

[ 29. May 2015, 16:31: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
What I did say is that if you want to screw around freely (whenever you want, with whom you want) but with no unwanted pregnancies resulting, then you need contraception. That's a fairly uncontroversial statement, I would say. The "whenever" may be enough to give you an inkling about the likely chance of pregnancy, but the "with whom" usually is a key factor concerning the question whether the pregnancy is unwanted. If you fancy shagging someone, but do not fancy having their child, then what do you do? Exactly, you use contraception. This is a different question to how often you want to shag them. I hope I don't need to belabour the point any further. The statement I made is straightforward and as such does not really take any sides. What you are making out of it says more about the state of your mind than mine.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The "whenever" may be enough to give you an inkling about the likely chance of pregnancy, but the "with whom" usually is a key factor concerning the question whether the pregnancy is unwanted.

---