View Single Post
  #21    
Old August 22nd, 2013, 06:30 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ 82.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Maternity mortality rates, at least in the Western world, is mostly at around the lower double and single digits per 100,000. The fact that pregnancy is the number one killer of women, as you say, speaks volumes to the advancement of humanity as a civilization. If pregnancy is dangerous it is only because we have made other mortal threats less dangerous, what with disease and policing.

For reference's sake, here is a passage from the CDC's website for reproductive health:
Quote:
Sadly, about 650 women die each year in the United States as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealt...dMortality.htm

Your argument is very post-human - how far does that go? Pregnancy and its risks are natural and they've always been around. You describe it as damage and a killer - but the reality as it has been for hundreds of millions of years is offspring emerging from a female's orifice. Sure it is painful and there is a risk, but should we desire such a separation from nature? and is it realistic? Personally, I don't think it's desirable to race towards a separation of humanity from its physical limits and sensations, I'm of the opinion that it is part of what makes us human.

Should the man involved be compelled to provide for a child's rearing? My inner justice says yes. But in the land of freedom and liberties probably only the most conservative of folks would advocate such a policy. How would one enforce such a policy? Should a man be compelled to provide DNA (I'd imagine some form of evidence would be required)? Should he have the right to refuse? I'm not too confident on the aspect of compelling a person to give up evidence on suspicion alone.

Quote:
Not to mention, all of the babies that will be flooding into the foster care system. Our foster care is already bursting at the seams. It'll only get worse. Who is going to take care of these children? Who is going to feed them? Give them an education? Most importantly: raise them to be functioning members of society? No one.
I'd imagine before saying "no one", we would imagine that the parents responsible for the baby will step up to the responsibility of taking care of it. Again, the assumption here seems to be that because the baby is unwanted to the parents, they're already out of the whole equation. Any discussion that follows is bound to be fruitless if proposing that the biological parents take responsibility is a non-starter.

I advocate for abortions, but out of safety - if a woman wants to have abortion and she sees to it, nobody is going to stop her, so it is imperative she has a safe way out. Abortion isn't the most virtuous of decisions most of the time for me though. I don't support it out of principle, but as a pragmatic solution to reduce suffering.
__________________
Minerva.
Reply With Quote