ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , adoption issues , sexism issues

Reply
Old 6th August 2019, 04:02 PM   #81
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,691
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
And wherever you see an MRA, can wife beaters be far behind? Radical feminists may include but are not necessarily, misandrists.
The key word was "radical". I'm sure that a radical MRA is just as likely to be a misogynist. I'm not sure about the connection to "wife beater" though. That sounds more like a bully to me.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 04:13 PM   #82
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,889
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Discrimination on the basis of sex/race/religion/age/disability/etc is usually frowned upon. Maybe we should add "birth status" to the list?
Usually but not always. Age discrimination especially seems to be welcomed, at both ends of the continuum.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 04:54 PM   #83
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,668
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
He's trying to make it clear that we are talking about whether men (in general) have any right to decide for women (in general) as to whether or not they should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy.

Obviously, if the man and woman are acquaintances, that adds a whole layer of complexity which PW is trying to avoid.

See posts 1, 23 & 24

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...65&postcount=1

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=23

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5&postcount=24

If you still can't understand, then I have run out of options to explain it to you.
And I am interrogating a couple of unspoken premises in the question. Since it is directed specifically to men, and not women, and implies that the answer might be different if a man is a relative of the woman or in a relationship with her.

Would it really be any different for a woman to hold an opinion for anyone other than her own self? Would the answer be any different if you substitute "woman" for "man" in the question? Likewise, would the answer change if we included men in relationships with women as the target of the question?

As I said earlier, I am pro-choice. I'm guessing that's an acceptable answer. As a man, that's an opinion I have a "right" to have. But if I had the opposite opinion, would the incidental fact that I happen to be a man make it any less valid than for a woman holding the same opinion? Another question that comes up is whether men have the "right" to hold any opinion at all on the matter, even the pro-choice position? After all, if being a man makes your opinion invalid, then maybe that should apply even if your opinion is the correct one?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 05:13 PM   #84
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,668
Here's a question that I have posed to anti-choice people in the past, although I never got an answer (and the question works regardless of the person's gender):

If a woman came to your house and knocked on your door and she had a baby with her and she said the following, would you agree to take legal guardianship of that child? (Assume that abortion is illegal)
"I had this child against my will because it is illegal to have an abortion, but I cannot afford to raise this child. I want you to take full responsibility for raising this child from this day forward."
Would you agree to her demand? If not, why are you anti-choice again? It's not only about 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth, it's about someone now has to raise that child too. Once out of the womb, that person need not be the mother. Maybe that person should be you?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

Last edited by Puppycow; 6th August 2019 at 05:14 PM.
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 05:34 PM   #85
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,889
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Here's a question that I have posed to anti-choice people in the past, although I never got an answer (and the question works regardless of the person's gender):

If a woman came to your house and knocked on your door and she had a baby with her and she said the following, would you agree to take legal guardianship of that child? (Assume that abortion is illegal)
"I had this child against my will because it is illegal to have an abortion, but I cannot afford to raise this child. I want you to take full responsibility for raising this child from this day forward."
Would you agree to her demand? If not, why are you anti-choice again? It's not only about 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth, it's about someone now has to raise that child too. Once out of the womb, that person need not be the mother. Maybe that person should be you?
"Oh wow, I'm probably not qualified to be even a foster parent, but let me get my coat, and I'll bring you to someone who can help you right now."
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 06:23 PM   #86
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,668
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"Oh wow, I'm probably not qualified to be even a foster parent, but let me get my coat, and I'll bring you to someone who can help you right now."
No, that answer is a cop-out. First, let me give you a few numbers for context.

About 135,000 children are adopted in the United States each year. Source.

In 2014, there were 926,200 abortions performed in the US. Source

So, while under current law, where a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy, there are enough parents willing to adopt (although there's still a lot of kids in foster care). If we had almost 1 million extra unwanted babies each year, you would probably run out of adoptive homes pretty fast.

So saying that you aren't "qualified" to raise a child, isn't really a satisfactory answer. Someone has to do it. If not the person who says that abortion should be illegal, than whom? If you sincerely hold the position, then you should be willing to adopt. Otherwise, you aren't willing to personally accept the consequences of such a policy.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

Last edited by Puppycow; 6th August 2019 at 06:24 PM.
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 06:41 PM   #87
pharphis
Master Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,015
I'm not anti-choice (or "pro-life" since we should use the positive labels for each side, imo, rather than being selective about it), but asking any specific person to take responsibility for a random kid isn't anything but an emotional pull and a jab at someone not willing to take responsibility for someone else's action (it's not like it's a minor commitment).

Also there is this option (which I would really rather not be used excessively if at all - I have mixed feelings about it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 06:42 PM   #88
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,144
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The key word was "radical". I'm sure that a radical MRA is just as likely to be a misogynist. I'm not sure about the connection to "wife beater" though. That sounds more like a bully to me.
The thing is that neither link exists. You went with the popular Ebil Feminazis meme. I countered with the "MRAs are misogynists and wife-beaters" a less popular but nevertheless common theme.

If you stay away from stupid generic statements, I will. Deal?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 06:51 PM   #89
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,668
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
I'm not anti-choice (or "pro-life" since we should use the positive labels for each side, imo, rather than being selective about it), but asking any specific person to take responsibility for a random kid isn't anything but an emotional pull and a jab at someone not willing to take responsibility for someone else's action (it's not like it's a minor commitment).

Also there is this option (which I would really rather not be used excessively if at all - I have mixed feelings about it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law
I think it's a reasonable question myself, at least for the purposes of making the person truly grapple with the issue. It's about asking them to take responsibility for the consequences of a policy which they support. I realize that it's not a minor commitment, which is exactly the point.

As I pointed out in my previous post, there would be about 900,000 more unwanted babies every year needing homes. Do we bring back orphanages? How do we as a society handle that? These are questions which the pro-life person should be willing to answer, if their position is sincere.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 06:59 PM   #90
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,889
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
No, that answer is a cop-out. First, let me give you a few numbers for context.

About 135,000 children are adopted in the United States each year. Source.

In 2014, there were 926,200 abortions performed in the US. Source

So, while under current law, where a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy, there are enough parents willing to adopt (although there's still a lot of kids in foster care). If we had almost 1 million extra unwanted babies each year, you would probably run out of adoptive homes pretty fast.

So saying that you aren't "qualified" to raise a child, isn't really a satisfactory answer. Someone has to do it. If not the person who says that abortion should be illegal, than whom? If you sincerely hold the position, then you should be willing to adopt. Otherwise, you aren't willing to personally accept the consequences of such a policy.
It's estimated that between 1 and 2 million aspiring parents are waiting to adopt. I can't find good data though - apparently this isn't a stat anyone is interested in. If you have a better number, feel free to share it.

There's some other numbers that are probably going to be hard to get at, too. Like the number of abortions of convenience, versus abortions of medical necessity and abortions arising from rape and incest.

And the number of parents who could afford to raise their child, and would simply do so if abortion was no longer the most convenient option, versus parents who would not be able to afford a child.

And that's before we even get to things like welfare. Your scenario demands that I take personal responsibility for someone else's child, because they can't afford it. But I already live in a society that takes collective responsibility for such children. The mother on my doorstep is already receiving funding from me and all my fellow taxpayers, specifically for the raising of her child. Is there a shortfall? I'd be happy to help her connect with a private charity to make up the difference. Is there still a shortfall after that? Let's sit down and go over the figures. I can probably just write a check for the remainder every month. Is that enough personal responsibility for you?

I mean, we don't want to separate the child from its mother. If she wants to raise it, and the only obstacle is money, then she's got the money.

No, your mother sounds like one of those choosing beggars who says they want money for food, but if you give them food they throw it in the trash and berate you for not giving them money.

Someone has to raise the child. That someone should be the parents. If it's a question of funds, we can find the funds.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:19 PM   #91
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,668
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I mean, we don't want to separate the child from its mother. If she wants to raise it, and the only obstacle is money, then she's got the money.
In my question, I specifically said that she did not want to raise it.

Quote:
Someone has to raise the child. That someone should be the parents. If it's a question of funds, we can find the funds.
The parents plural ideally, but a lot of women who choose to have abortions do so because they aren't in a stable relationship with the father who would be a good, supporting parent. Maybe she was raped. Who knows? Do you make an exception in cases of rape? If so, does she have to prove that she was raped, or is it enough to simply claim that the fetus was conceived through rape?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:23 PM   #92
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,668
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's estimated that between 1 and 2 million aspiring parents are waiting to adopt. I can't find good data though - apparently this isn't a stat anyone is interested in. If you have a better number, feel free to share it.
If it is between 1 and 2 million, that might be enough for the first few years. If each of those couples is willing to adopt 3 children, say, then it could be enough for 3 to 6 years? Hard to sure exactly how it would play out in reality, I concede. But the current numbers are that there's a lot more abortions than adoptions, so I think it's questionable whether there would be enough willing adoptive parents available in the long run.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:30 PM   #93
pharphis
Master Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,015
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I think it's a reasonable question myself, at least for the purposes of making the person truly grapple with the issue. It's about asking them to take responsibility for the consequences of a policy which they support. I realize that it's not a minor commitment, which is exactly the point.

As I pointed out in my previous post, there would be about 900,000 more unwanted babies every year needing homes. Do we bring back orphanages? How do we as a society handle that? These are questions which the pro-life person should be willing to answer, if their position is sincere.
ah, I see. That's fair.

To not respond too directly to the question (it isn't aimed at me as I'm pro-choice) I would add that all these figures about abortion and adoption could change quite dramatically with only a couple changes in law. For example, if men are allowed legal parental surrender given some paperwork sometime before the child is born, I'm betting a lot more abortions would happen (as women find out the father is uninterested in the child and obligations) OR a lot less pregnancies would happen (as the man cannot be "trapped" into providing for a child, even if he is tricked into conception via rape, lies about birth control, etc.). That's potentially a lot more or a lot less single mothers, and either a lot more or a lot less abortions. Not that I expect this particular legal change to happen any time soon if ever.

I feel these things are fairly unpredictable, and that figures on the topic might not even be that predictive 5-20 years after such a legal change.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 08:12 PM   #94
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,668
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
ah, I see. That's fair.

To not respond too directly to the question (it isn't aimed at me as I'm pro-choice) I would add that all these figures about abortion and adoption could change quite dramatically with only a couple changes in law. For example, if men are allowed legal parental surrender given some paperwork sometime before the child is born, I'm betting a lot more abortions would happen (as women find out the father is uninterested in the child and obligations) OR a lot less pregnancies would happen (as the man cannot be "trapped" into providing for a child, even if he is tricked into conception via rape, lies about birth control, etc.). That's potentially a lot more or a lot less single mothers, and either a lot more or a lot less abortions. Not that I expect this particular legal change to happen any time soon if ever.

I feel these things are fairly unpredictable, and that figures on the topic might not even be that predictive 5-20 years after such a legal change.
OK, fine, I agree that it's hard to predict exactly how a hypothetical policy change might play out in practice.

So let's treat it as a philosophical thought experiment, like The Trolley Problem. Philosophers and ethicists spend a lot of time thinking about the trolley problem even though it will probably never occur exactly like that in real life.

So, as a thought experiment, let's just assume for the sake of argument that the following is true:

We live in a society where, if you oppose abortion, then you are required to be willing to adopt and raise a child upon demand. Would you still oppose abortion if that was the price you had to pay?

If the argument is based on the right to life of the fetus, then arguably, the woman has to carry that child to term because otherwise the fetus would die. But, once the fetus is born, then anyone could take over the role of feeding and caring for that child if the biological mother doesn't want to perform that role. Obviously the child's right to life doesn't end when it is born, so someone has to provide for it. Shouldn't anyone who believes that also be willing to be the person who performs that role? Is this not a reasonable philosophical position?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 08:34 PM   #95
pharphis
Master Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,015
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
OK, fine, I agree that it's hard to predict exactly how a hypothetical policy change might play out in practice.

So let's treat it as a philosophical thought experiment, like The Trolley Problem. Philosophers and ethicists spend a lot of time thinking about the trolley problem even though it will probably never occur exactly like that in real life.

So, as a thought experiment, let's just assume for the sake of argument that the following is true:

We live in a society where, if you oppose abortion, then you are required to be willing to adopt and raise a child upon demand. Would you still oppose abortion if that was the price you had to pay?

If the argument is based on the right to life of the fetus, then arguably, the woman has to carry that child to term because otherwise the fetus would die. But, once the fetus is born, then anyone could take over the role of feeding and caring for that child if the biological mother doesn't want to perform that role. Obviously the child's right to life doesn't end when it is born, so someone has to provide for it. Shouldn't anyone who believes that also be willing to be the person who performs that role? Is this not a reasonable philosophical position?
I'm not sure. Ignoring rape, the mother ultimately holds some responsibility for being the one who had sex. I'm not sure being opposed to abortion means you should then hold the responsibility for the child. Are you thinking some kind of lottery system as a hypothetical?

I mean it's an interesting thought experiment.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 08:49 PM   #96
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,668
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
I'm not sure. Ignoring rape, the mother ultimately holds some responsibility for being the one who had sex.
Sure, but it might be rape too. Since it's a thought experiment we could say that she was raped for the sake of argument.
Quote:
I'm not sure being opposed to abortion means you should then hold the responsibility for the child.
If we assume that the issue is decided democratically, then those who vote to ban abortion arguably hold more responsibility for the result of that policy.
Quote:
Are you thinking some kind of lottery system as a hypothetical?

I mean it's an interesting thought experiment.
It could be a lottery.

Maybe the rule is as follows (since it's my thought experiment): If a woman wants to have an abortion, she can apply to have an abortion (it could be anonymous). There is then a 72-hour period for anyone who objects to her having an abortion to volunteer to pay for all of her medical expenses and agree to take full guardianship responsibility for the child after it's born. If nobody volunteers, then after the 72-hour period is up, she gets to have her abortion. If there is a volunteer, then that person becomes contractually responsible to take on all those obligations.

Would there still be abortions under that scenario or would there be more than enough volunteers?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 08:52 PM   #97
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,794
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Discrimination on the basis of sex/race/religion/age/disability/etc is usually frowned upon.
Not really. Most dramatically, the distinction between adults and minors is age discrimination. It's only in certain contexts and within certain age ranges that age discrimination is considered bad.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 09:13 PM   #98
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Not really. Most dramatically, the distinction between adults and minors is age discrimination. It's only in certain contexts and within certain age ranges that age discrimination is considered bad.
It seems you might be getting confused between age discrimination and simple age distinction, to use your own word (just checking - there's a fundamental difference, of course )?
__________________
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
"For successful technology reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman - Challenger Accident Presidential Commission Report)
"Life is but a gamble ... let flipism guide your ramble." (Donald Duck)
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 10:14 PM   #99
pharphis
Master Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,015
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
It seems you might be getting confused between age discrimination and simple age distinction, to use your own word (just checking - there's a fundamental difference, of course )?
the labels are the distinction, the discrimination is in the rights, privileges and responsibilities afforded to each group
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 10:39 PM   #100
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,691
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
You went with the popular Ebil Feminazis meme. I countered with the "MRAs are misogynists and wife-beaters"
Actually I did. You didn't mention misogynists at all. You went straight to "wife beater" (sounds worse). It's like saying that anybody who is not anti-racist goes around n_____ bashing.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 10:41 PM   #101
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,318
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Sure, but it might be rape too. Since it's a thought experiment we could say that she was raped for the sake of argument.

If we assume that the issue is decided democratically, then those who vote to ban abortion arguably hold more responsibility for the result of that policy.

It could be a lottery.

Maybe the rule is as follows (since it's my thought experiment): If a woman wants to have an abortion, she can apply to have an abortion (it could be anonymous). There is then a 72-hour period for anyone who objects to her having an abortion to volunteer to pay for all of her medical expenses and agree to take full guardianship responsibility for the child after it's born. If nobody volunteers, then after the 72-hour period is up, she gets to have her abortion. If there is a volunteer, then that person becomes contractually responsible to take on all those obligations.

Would there still be abortions under that scenario or would there be more than enough volunteers?
My guess is that there would be fewer, but not none, because the number of volunteers is not the only issue. Pregnancy is, after all, a matter of its own. Matters both serious and frivolous might intervene. Health, career, education, relationships, travel, and just plain vanity all could be factors. In addition, not all abortions are by single women, and not all choices are made alone. And finally, there could be at least a bit of stickiness to the degree to which a person taking responsibility for a baby is entitled to oversee the life and habits of the expectant mother.

e.t.a.don't forget too, that although things have changed a lot, a pregnancy still can affect a person's future pretty drastically. A woman who finds herself pregnant may have numerous reasons for covering it up, ranging from social inconvenience or exclusion to the threat of violent parents. Volunteering to adopt doesn't answer all the needs.

And while we think of it, how binding would a volunteer parent's obligation be? Much can change in nine months - divorces, deaths, bankruptcies, relocations, and just changes of mind, not to mention issues of whether a child is what is expected. It's nice to think that a pro-life volunteer would not balk at finding out his chosen child is the wrong color or handicapped, or afflicted with a medical condition that will end up costing a fortune, but I would not count on it. How would the contract be enforced?

I still think it's a nice idea that would work for many, but I don't think it will do the whole job.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

Last edited by bruto; 6th August 2019 at 10:54 PM.
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 10:51 PM   #102
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,691
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Here's a question that I have posed to anti-choice people in the past, although I never got an answer (and the question works regardless of the person's gender):

If a woman came to your house and knocked on your door and she had a baby with her and she said the following, would you agree to take legal guardianship of that child? (Assume that abortion is illegal)
"I had this child against my will because it is illegal to have an abortion, but I cannot afford to raise this child. I want you to take full responsibility for raising this child from this day forward."
Would you agree to her demand? If not, why are you anti-choice again? It's not only about 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth, it's about someone now has to raise that child too. Once out of the womb, that person need not be the mother. Maybe that person should be you?
If you are trying to demonstrate that pro-life is an untenable position to take then I would suggest that you find another question. This is just not realistic.

For one thing, it may not necessarily be in the child's interest to hand them over to people who's parenting skills are not necessarily up to the task. Another thing is that the trauma of child birth and then giving the child away generally makes adoption not an option for many women. If they don't or are unable to procure an abortion then they are more likely to raise the child themselves.

ETA I would consider raising that child if the legal framework was in place and I had the concurrence of my family.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 6th August 2019 at 10:52 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 10:52 PM   #103
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
the labels are the distinction, the discrimination is in the rights, privileges and responsibilities afforded to each group
Exactly. Simple distinction doesn't constitute discrimination.
__________________
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
"For successful technology reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman - Challenger Accident Presidential Commission Report)
"Life is but a gamble ... let flipism guide your ramble." (Donald Duck)
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 10:59 PM   #104
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,691
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Not really. Most dramatically, the distinction between adults and minors is age discrimination. It's only in certain contexts and within certain age ranges that age discrimination is considered bad.
It depends on how you want to spin it. You could also argue that one of the fundamental human rights is the right to guardianship for those who can't look after themselves.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 11:13 PM   #105
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,984
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
OK, fine, I agree that it's hard to predict exactly how a hypothetical policy change might play out in practice.

So let's treat it as a philosophical thought experiment, like The Trolley Problem. Philosophers and ethicists spend a lot of time thinking about the trolley problem even though it will probably never occur exactly like that in real life.

So, as a thought experiment, let's just assume for the sake of argument that the following is true:

We live in a society where, if you oppose abortion, then you are required to be willing to adopt and raise a child upon demand. Would you still oppose abortion if that was the price you had to pay?

If the argument is based on the right to life of the fetus, then arguably, the woman has to carry that child to term because otherwise the fetus would die. But, once the fetus is born, then anyone could take over the role of feeding and caring for that child if the biological mother doesn't want to perform that role. Obviously the child's right to life doesn't end when it is born, so someone has to provide for it. Shouldn't anyone who believes that also be willing to be the person who performs that role? Is this not a reasonable philosophical position?
Bit of a silly question imo.

What would happen if they made abortions suddenly illegal, you would still have them. They will just be driven under ground and you would get all the ugly issues with this that their used to be in darkened back rooms of peoples houses with some weirdo handing them out for cash.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 11:37 PM   #106
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,668
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
My guess is that there would be fewer, but not none, because the number of volunteers is not the only issue. Pregnancy is, after all, a matter of its own. Matters both serious and frivolous might intervene. Health, career, education, relationships, travel, and just plain vanity all could be factors. In addition, not all abortions are by single women, and not all choices are made alone. And finally, there could be at least a bit of stickiness to the degree to which a person taking responsibility for a baby is entitled to oversee the life and habits of the expectant mother.

e.t.a.don't forget too, that although things have changed a lot, a pregnancy still can affect a person's future pretty drastically. A woman who finds herself pregnant may have numerous reasons for covering it up, ranging from social inconvenience or exclusion to the threat of violent parents. Volunteering to adopt doesn't answer all the needs.

And while we think of it, how binding would a volunteer parent's obligation be? Much can change in nine months - divorces, deaths, bankruptcies, relocations, and just changes of mind, not to mention issues of whether a child is what is expected. It's nice to think that a pro-life volunteer would not balk at finding out his chosen child is the wrong color or handicapped, or afflicted with a medical condition that will end up costing a fortune, but I would not count on it. How would the contract be enforced?

I still think it's a nice idea that would work for many, but I don't think it will do the whole job.
Thanks for taking the thought experiment seriously. Like I said, it isn't really a realistic life situation, like the trolley problem, more just a frame for thinking about the issue.

If the person who volunteered dies, well, that's just an unavoidable
force majeure event I suppose. Otherwise, I see it as a binding contract. There's no changing your mind because suddenly circumstances became inconvenient or you want to make other life choices. You could, however, transfer the obligations to a third person if that person is willing to take over the obligations. But there is no guarantee that the volunteer would find someone willing to do that. That person is effectively the legal guardian and carries all the same responsibilities as a parent. All those potentially complicating issues are the same issues that parents face when they choose to bring a child into the world. They may go bankrupt, they may get divorced, who knows? The state is sort of the guardian of last resort. There will be some kind of equivalent to Child Protective Services, which can safekeep the child until a proper home or foster care situation can be arranged.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 11:57 PM   #107
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,984
I'd never heard of that Trolley problem thing.

Just read your link.

I am a kill the one person even if it's a relative kind of guy

The implications with autonomous vehicles I have always found interesting.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 01:13 AM   #108
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,144
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Actually I did. You didn't mention misogynists at all. You went straight to "wife beater" (sounds worse). It's like saying that anybody who is not anti-racist goes around n_____ bashing.
How much effort are you actually going to put into defending a dumb off-the-cuff comment? You're not really standing on your original contention, are you? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was hyperbole. I responded with hyperbole.

It'd probably be wise to just leave it at that. There are some actual interesting discussions going on in this thread. This exchange is not one of them.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

Last edited by Foolmewunz; 7th August 2019 at 01:14 AM.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 01:23 AM   #109
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,691
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
How much effort are you actually going to put into defending a dumb off-the-cuff comment?
You are clearly not reading what you are responding to. I didn't defend my comment, I criticized your response.

You make a strawman response then "magnanimously" offer to drop the matter if I don't respond. Pathetic.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 01:33 AM   #110
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,144
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are clearly not reading what you are responding to. I didn't defend my comment, I criticized your response.

You make a strawman response then "magnanimously" offer to drop the matter if I don't respond. Pathetic.
You made a straw man statement to start with. My straw man was mocking yours. I'm at least aware of what I was doing; you're still doubling down and claiming that your statement was sensible. It wasn't.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 02:32 AM   #111
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Thanks buddy! Yes we did have a few spats in the past - that's true - all in good humour though! Maybe we'll find some common ground going forward! I'll check out the threads you're involved in - see if any topics pique my interest
Aw, shucks. Now I regret talking to you!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 02:33 AM   #112
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Discrimination on the basis of sex/race/religion/age/disability/etc is usually frowned upon. Maybe we should add "birth status" to the list?
I was mostly refering to criminals, for whom we remove some rights temporarily or permanently. Including in some cases the right to live.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 03:12 AM   #113
GrandMasterFox
Master Poster
 
GrandMasterFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
If it is between 1 and 2 million, that might be enough for the first few years. If each of those couples is willing to adopt 3 children, say, then it could be enough for 3 to 6 years? Hard to sure exactly how it would play out in reality, I concede. But the current numbers are that there's a lot more abortions than adoptions, so I think it's questionable whether there would be enough willing adoptive parents available in the long run.
Since we are talking about a thought experiment here, I would say that one would also need to look at the number of children being created artificially - whether it's single mothers going to sperm banks or gay couples looking for female surrogates.

Anyone have the numbers for those? Because I think that might actually tip the scales a bit.

It might also result in more people realizing that you are better off helping an existing child than insisting of breeding one on your own for some silly reason.



Of course, there's also the other side of the equation. A lot more available children needing to be adopted means a lot more work to process them - which will most likely result in a far weaker adoption criteria.

This means the likelihood of children being adopted by pedophiles, abusive parents, cult leaders etc
GrandMasterFox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 03:28 AM   #114
applecorped
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,621
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are clearly not reading what you are responding to. I didn't defend my comment, I criticized your response.

You make a strawman response then "magnanimously" offer to drop the matter if I don't respond. Pathetic.
this


for many years here
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 05:13 AM   #115
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,296
It's 2019, do people really still not understand where babies come from? There are multiple products and methods to prevent conception. I don't want to generalize or offend but damn, straight people are dumb. Every other problem is solved by tracing it to the source and stopping it there, why is this one issue where that's not done? "OMG all these babies, so many babies, out of nowhere and what can be done? It's unsolvable! Help us, law!" Perhaps it's best after all to be inundated with unwanted babies, one of them might grow up and figure out where they're all coming from.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 05:46 AM   #116
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,798
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It's 2019, do people really still not understand where babies come from? There are multiple products and methods to prevent conception. I don't want to generalize or offend but damn, straight people are dumb. Every other problem is solved by tracing it to the source and stopping it there, why is this one issue where that's not done? "OMG all these babies, so many babies, out of nowhere and what can be done? It's unsolvable! Help us, law!" Perhaps it's best after all to be inundated with unwanted babies, one of them might grow up and figure out where they're all coming from.
Ah but what if the woman or man lied, if a condom burst, if the IUD fails.....?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 05:53 AM   #117
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,296
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Ah but what if the woman or man lied, if a condom burst, if the IUD fails.....?
What if someone has a previously unknown evil twin who injects them with a drug that makes them horny? Deal with the largest cause of a problem first before dealing with outlying minor causes. One can get lung cancer from sources other than smoking but that doesn't mean people should smoke until a cure is found.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 05:56 AM   #118
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It's 2019, do people really still not understand where babies come from? There are multiple products and methods to prevent conception. I don't want to generalize or offend but damn, straight people are dumb.
That's any of this have to do with sexual orientation?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 05:59 AM   #119
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,296
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That's any of this have to do with sexual orientation?
...Do you not know where babies come from?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 06:02 AM   #120
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
...Do you not know where babies come from?
How about you answer my question?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.