Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (42702)	6/29/1999 11:33:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I'm not asking you to convince me, I'm asking you to lay out your assumptions, your conclusions, and a train of logical thought leading from one to the other. That would be a convincing argument; it may not convince people that you are right, but it would at least convince them that you had thought your premises through. For an example, see: Message 10310255 In contrast, your posting: ...The assumption is that all of those who are born are unequivocally "wanted". In fact, many of them would not be, but would have been brought to term by ambivalent mothers, or mothers who had made erroneous assumptions (e.g., if we have a child, he will stay with me), or who underestimated the difficulty of parenthood, especially in the first year or two. True, of course, but this would be in no way different if abortion were harder to obtain. By making their children a regrettable choice, instead of a sacred obligation, one psychologically prepares them to be more abusive. Unsupported conjecture. A mother who wanted an abortion but couldn't get it is unlikely to suddenly view parenthood as a sacred obligation simply because there is no legal avenue for escape. Your counter argument would be that having a bunch of unwanted babies would more than counter- balance any such effect. I answer that many people regret their abortions, or thought about it and are glad they didn't go through with it, so it is not at all clear what the net number of "unwanted" would be. If it is unclear it can hardly be a convincing argument in either direction, can it? I think a more convincing logical case can be made in the opposite direction: while there will be some who regret their abortions (which does not in any way mean that they would have enjoyed or been capable of managing parenthood), on balance the availability of abortion will result in a lower number of unwanted babies. Individual exceptions, of course. But what, logically, will be the overall impact? Further, as has been mentioned, there are many people who have to go overseas in order to adopt, so it is quite possible that most "unwanted" babies would find homes. This does happen, but the overwhelming trend in adoption demand is for healthy Caucasian infants. American orphanages overflow with unwanted babies with dark skin and health problems. One could, however, build a convincing case for the notion that if the stigma surrounding unwed pregnancy was reduced or eliminated, fewer women would be driven to abortion by shame and a desire to conceal their "sin", and more might be convinced to carry their pregnancies to term and offer the babies for adoption. if there has been increased laxity in birth- control due to the ease of obtaining an abortion, it may be that the number of unintended pregnancies would decline if abortions were harder to obtain and more stigmatized, thus reducing the pool of "unwanted" children. Reaching. This assumes that before conception the parents conduct a logical evaluation of the risks, and conclude that since abortion is legal, there is no need for birth control. How often do you really think this happens?