Printable View
I have no idea what the situation is in India, but in the U.S. children born out of wedlock are not all that rare and I don't think the majority of people treat them as pariahs. More than a few very famous and successful Americans were illegitimate children.Quote:
Originally Posted by smilingtearz
Aww the situation here is really terrible...u know people come to dispise and detest children born out of a pre-marital relation...its disgusting u know...to look at all the humiliation the poor child has to undergo!
and later even while trying to get them into a school...there's this problem of what u'll write in the column called Father's Name :_____________
and they make so much fuss out of this!
i wish i could get a lot of people to protest against this!
Good idea. After all, the child didn't ask to be born out of wedlock, so why should he/she have to suffer?Quote:
Originally Posted by smilingtearz
I'm sorry it's like that in India, Smilingtearz. :( I imagine it must be that way in many other countries, as well. There are so many single parents in the United States, either by divorce or "illegitimate" conception, that I think it has largely ceased to be an issue of contention. So many people have a friend or family member involved in such a situation—either a child of a single parent, or someone who is/was a single parent,—that most people are sensitive to the issue. At least that's the way it is where I live. I know the Northeast isn't a always a good representative sample of the overall population.
Okay first off I didn't read the entire thread (to busy to read more than a page or so) but I need to say something that has been bothering me. Pro-life/Pro-choice, I think Penn Jillette said it best "...we're all pro-life and pro-choice, it's for or agianst abortion that you stand for..."
i stand against abortion...that comes under pro-life
What irks me is that these so called "pro-life" people are usually anything but. Its not like theyre out there protesting wars, famine and poverty...things that kill people every day. Its just that they have their own agenda. Often times these people are also "pro-capital punishment". On the other side of the coin I happen to be pro-choice (a term I hate because it almost sounds like your saying "I love abortions!") and anti-capital punishment, but I dont really give a darn if people die. Some people really deserve to die and I'm ok with that, honestly. I dont think abortions should be a cure-all for pregnancy, but I also dont think your religion should trump peoples personal choices, especially mine. I would never ask some chick I knocked up to get an abortion, I would take care of my child. But I'll be damned if I end up having to pay taxes to take care of someone elses, she should of aborted that pregnancy if he/she was too screwed up in his/her own affairs to take care of his/her child. And is adoption really a viable option, because I dont see these so called pro-life people lining up to adopt children out of foster homes and orphanages. In a world full of poverty, abandonment and neglect you Christians arent doing much to stem the tide. You promise heaven while everyone sits in hell. All talk no action. I dont do anything to change the current situation of the world, then again I dont claim to have all the answers written down in a leather bound, gold leafed, 2000 year old book. I'm done, it's hopeless, you people are hopeless...
I hope legal abortion performed by qualified doctors in sanitary places was "invented" because of the horrors that took place before it when women tried to do it on their own.
Abortion is probably as old as prostitution (and I don't mean to compare the two). All over the world women abort their pregnancies using whatever methods they have. Often it's the traditional old method of trying to instigate a miscarriage (carrying heavy stones, putting feet in warm water, and other such tricks or myths if you will). Those who are unable to instigate a miscarriage might resort to the worst: trying to get it out manually, or as already mentioned, kill it right after birth.
I don't view abortion in a clinic to be an alternative to contraception. I view it as a safe option to the more traditional ways of aborting pregnancies. Many, many women are going to do it anyway, whether in America or in some village in the Middle-East. We might as well make it a safe journey for them. And if you are indeed honestly pro-life, then you should automatically also be pro-choice, unless you either truly don't care about the mother, or you have a very unreal view of humanity.
I'm an atheist, and I find myself hard to place. Middle of the road, I suppose, but strongly leaning towards the so-called "pro-life" position. I think that in cases of rape, incest, or threat to mother's life, abortion should be allowed because the baby is likely to be unwanted, unhealthy (physically and emotionally, in life), or infeasible, respectively. But I'm against "abortion on demand," as the phrase goes, not on the grounds of the life of the baby (though that probably sounds heartless of me) but on the basis that I consider it a shirking of responsibility. I should probably wait until I'm older to form a definite opinion on sex and its social implications, but as it stands now, I can't help but feel like it shouldn't be so incredibly difficult for people to avoid having sex if they can't afford (financially or otherwise) to have a baby. Perhaps I'm being naïve or moralistic, but...well, there's my stance. It's open to debate and, if anyone presents a compelling enough argument, subject to change.
It's too idealistic, unreal, and naive to believe that adult human beings can avoid having sex. Sex, making love, intimacy, or whatever you what to call it, is as natural as eating and drinking, and most people will not stop doing it, whether they want children or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
Nevertheless, I have also always said that legality of abortion should always go hand in hand with good sex education and widely available contraception. Problem is that even this is too idealistic, unreal, and naive, as there are still too many countries where sex is considered taboo, and too many poor people who simply can't afford all these fancy gadgets.
Moreover, like I already said, whether you like it or not, women are going to continue trying to abort their pregnancies as long as that gender exists, as it has throughout the history of mankind. Legalizing abortion is simply a safer option for all these women who are going to do it anyway. Humanity is not perfect, and even contraception or other methods like withdrawal or counting days don't always work. Unless you want to see the women kill themselves while trying to abort their pregnancies. The foetus is going to die anyway. What about the women? Should we kill them too? That might of course be another option, but then don't label yourself "pro-life", because that would be a complete contradiction in terms.
Chuck, I understand where you're coming from, but the way you put things often comes out as hyperbole, generalization, and confrontation. I think you have good points, but the way you communicate them is somewhat offensive sometimes. It's hard to be calm when the issues are so heated, but I've seen what this forum is like when everyone is yelling at each other, and it's not a fun place to be. These discussions are only as peaceful as they are through the effort of those involved, and I feel like everyone but you is doing a fairly good job at biting their tongue and trying to be understanding of one another. Saying things like, "you people are hopeless" doesn't exactly lend itself to constructive discussion. We're all just here to try and understand one another, no matter what our beliefs may be, and it would be nice if you'd word your arguments more diplomatically. I know you're frustrated, but one can be frustrated and peaceful at the same time. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckBukowski
I used to think this way, too, RH, but parap's right; it isn't feasible. The problem is, sex is deeply entrenched in our emotions, and it isn't just a matter of procreation. It has a lot to do with the emotional bond between couples, as well as being nearly as strong a drive as thirst, hunger, and sleep. I didn't even realize how important it can be until I got a boyfriend (at long last), and I feel like I'm able to understand myself and others better than before. I've become much more peaceful and secure in myself. I'm not saying, "Everybody run out and have lots of sex!" because that kind of behavior will certainly not make you feel good about yourself (I know that, too), but within the context of a loving adult relationship, it can be a very wonderful thing. Kudos to those with self-restraint, but I could not have a boyfriend without making love to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
The problem with baby-less sex is, condoms are ten bucks a box! No wonder poor people have more kids than middle-class ones.
I do apologize, as I'm sure what follows will sound to many like the raving of an immature boy (which it conceivably is), but if I may be permitted to state my philosophy on love...
I, personally, distinguish love (the stuff of most realities) from true love (the stuff of most fantasies) with one important criterion. By my reckoning, love of any kind consists of a physical and an emotional sphere which exist in a closely-linked synergy, in which a strengthening of one sphere adds to the intensity of the other. Just as a kiss (or other physical interaction) between two people in love can strengthen their relationship, so can a deeply connected conversation be equally electrifying (and satisfying). My criterion for distinguishing between the two is this: true love is capable of existing for brief but significant periods of time (subjective phrasing, I know, but I'm still working out the kinks) in the absence of physical interaction IN THE PRESENCE OF (very important) adequate emotional compensation for that loss. I'm in a long-distance relationship with a girl who could be the girl of my dreams (at least from my inexperienced perspective), and though I wish I could be with her in person to touch her, kiss her, and hold her, I feel as if the emotional aspect is enough to last me until the day when I can see her again in person. I could be wrong, and my definition could very easily be just one heck of an effective placebo, but I do ask for as much constructive feedback as possible--my philosophy is something of a work in progress, in need of constant whittling in light of new information to refine it.
And I think I understand where parap and emily are coming from--my original intent was to put "teenagers" (the demographic I'm most qualified to observe and study) in the place of "people," but changed it for fear of making a stereotypical generalization. I am sorry if I offended anyone.
Ah, now that's a good distinction to make. I almost left my sentence at "loving relationship," but added the "adult" to make that very distinction. I am of the mind that teenagers (at least those under 17 or 18) should not have sex, and all the teenage pregnancies, aborted or not, that occur thereby, I see as the inevitable and tragic result.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
The old "wait til you're married" rule I believe to be outdated, though, since it harkens back to a time when people got married at 18, or even younger. In today's culture, children are sheltered by their parents for a much longer time, so that the mind of an 18-year-old these days is more like that of a child than it was when people began a trade early and had to fend for themselves. Now, in an age where the common marrying age is up to the late 20's/early 30's, I think we need to have a better rule. Teenagers hear, "Wait til you're married" and think, "Wait till I'm 30?? No way!" I would rather have parents tell them, "Wait til you're eighteen," so at least a few would see an alternative beyond having sex at 14 or 15. I know I certainly don't advocate a world populated by 30-year-old virgins—that much sexual frustration just isn't healthy, in my opinion. But a teenage relationship, I believe, is certainly sustainable within the confines of celibacy.
I also agree with you, RH, that a long-distance relationship, or celibacy for any other reason, is sustainable for a period of time, when people are in love. But I'll reference my hypothetical world of 30-year-old virgins again; personally, I don't want a child until I'm at least 25, preferably 30. I know, especially in the Westernized world, that this is becoming the prevailing opinion among young adults. In such a case, I think it unreasonable to expect that people remain celibate until they reach the point at which they're ready to be a parent. And, though I think it psychologically healthy for 18-year-olds to have sex, I think most 18-year-olds today lack the maturity to raise a child well.
That's an interesting discussion.But I think it is a common misconception about large families, as upper class individuals actually had many children in the past as well.The gentry use to breed alot to provide heirs to pass on the "strong"(in their own minds) genes and continue family prosperity in the future.Originally, it was the rich who had many children to ensure the continuation of the lineage.Many offspring died young, so they had to ensure that some males would survive to inherit the land or throne.Quite a few kings are renowned for producing alot of offspring, many who were illegitimate.Some had numerous wifes, and left one if they were deemed "infertile".The rich could afford more children, while the poor could bearly keep the ones they had.But nowdays, it does seem more common that the wealthy or bourgeois have fewer children, as we can see from the statistics spread across the globe which elucidate the birth rates in many nations.In developing countires, the children per women percentage is much higher than in industrialized western nations.In developed countries, there is a trend to have only one child or no children at all.Single households are on the rise, and the numbers of couples without children continues to grow.Today, there are more lifestyle choices, which allow individuals or couples to make up their own minds and gain access to a greater freedom.But this is still denied in many poor countries, where alot of children continue to live in a wretched and disadvantaged state.
Ah.... but back to the point if you don't mind. Is Abortion right in the first place? How can you define what is right and what is not if there is no standard?
For exactly that reason, without the Word of God, the world is going astray. They have no more basis upon which to have their laws their standards, and so of course their laws are allowed to become more corrupted and evil. Once man started to take out the Bible from the Courts and schools, we started having all this problem.
What is right to you? Why is wrong wrong?