![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chimericallyI've realized that I could never effectively argue with most anti-choice activists about birth control and abortion because we would be making completely different assumptions about the world -- different and fundamentally incompatible paradigms, in Kuhn's terms (since I've been reading lots of and about him in my philosophy of science class). Their arguments about what the Bible says about sex and other topics hold no weight for me. My arguments about problems of abused and neglected children, overpopulation, and a woman's right to control the course of her life hold little or no weight for them.
The point where we might be able to actually speak to one another, rather than past one another, is the issue of viability and when "life" starts, but even there they take what I see as ridiculously extreme views such as "life starts at conception" or sometimes with the possibility of conception (thus, the fight against birth control as a preventative measure) that I can't possibly agree with, given the messy realities of life: so many fertilized eggs don't implant, so many proto-fetuses don't last even a week, etc.
Furthermore, if they take this stance, why aren't they attacking in-vitro fertilization as vehemently as they are abortion and birth control? Multiple fetuses are grown and then one (or sometimes a few, but certainly not all) is implanted, and the rest are discarded. Isn't that murder in their eyes? Shouldn't all viable fetuses be given the chance to live in that case too? Funny how the intention of the couple seems to change the morality of the fetuses: people who are going through in-vitro fertilization want to be parents while people practicing birth control don't.
Along those same lines, it's also very strange that some anti-choice people take childlessness to be irresponsible, while from an environmental perspective, I think that having children is the more irresponsible choice (which, of course, some eco-minded parents mitigate in various ways, as I hope I would too if/when I have children -- but all things considered, that's still another person using a lifetime's-worth of resources, which is not small even when minimized). And moreover, making sure that one has children at a point in one's life when they can be best provided for seems to be, to me, a lot more responsible than risking having kids as soon as one starts having sex, which for a very large part of the population is very young (even with abstinence-only education like I grew up with, as a recent study shows). Of course, the anti-choice people would say one shouldn't be having sex until one is prepared to have children (which is the often-unsaid corollary to most of their points), but that's a whole 'nother can of worms with its own set of worldview incompatibilities, and I'll save that for another post (though you're welcome to rail in the comments if you want to).
No wonder this is such a hotly-contested debate. Except that it's not really a debate at all.
(NOTE: I don't mean to imply that one side is more "rational" than the other, even though I have made it clear which "side" I am on. These sorts of disagreements happen all the time, in many areas. My main argument is that the incommensurability of worldviews prevent the two sides from even seeing eye-to-eye.)
The point where we might be able to actually speak to one another, rather than past one another, is the issue of viability and when "life" starts, but even there they take what I see as ridiculously extreme views such as "life starts at conception" or sometimes with the possibility of conception (thus, the fight against birth control as a preventative measure) that I can't possibly agree with, given the messy realities of life: so many fertilized eggs don't implant, so many proto-fetuses don't last even a week, etc.
Furthermore, if they take this stance, why aren't they attacking in-vitro fertilization as vehemently as they are abortion and birth control? Multiple fetuses are grown and then one (or sometimes a few, but certainly not all) is implanted, and the rest are discarded. Isn't that murder in their eyes? Shouldn't all viable fetuses be given the chance to live in that case too? Funny how the intention of the couple seems to change the morality of the fetuses: people who are going through in-vitro fertilization want to be parents while people practicing birth control don't.
Along those same lines, it's also very strange that some anti-choice people take childlessness to be irresponsible, while from an environmental perspective, I think that having children is the more irresponsible choice (which, of course, some eco-minded parents mitigate in various ways, as I hope I would too if/when I have children -- but all things considered, that's still another person using a lifetime's-worth of resources, which is not small even when minimized). And moreover, making sure that one has children at a point in one's life when they can be best provided for seems to be, to me, a lot more responsible than risking having kids as soon as one starts having sex, which for a very large part of the population is very young (even with abstinence-only education like I grew up with, as a recent study shows). Of course, the anti-choice people would say one shouldn't be having sex until one is prepared to have children (which is the often-unsaid corollary to most of their points), but that's a whole 'nother can of worms with its own set of worldview incompatibilities, and I'll save that for another post (though you're welcome to rail in the comments if you want to).
No wonder this is such a hotly-contested debate. Except that it's not really a debate at all.
(NOTE: I don't mean to imply that one side is more "rational" than the other, even though I have made it clear which "side" I am on. These sorts of disagreements happen all the time, in many areas. My main argument is that the incommensurability of worldviews prevent the two sides from even seeing eye-to-eye.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 11:10 pm (UTC)In short, despite a few tricky cases, planned vs. unplanned is not a subjective question.
You've got to be joking, yes? I think it's incredibly naive to not think that this is subjective.
one from the state of Minnesota:
"family planning is the voluntary pre-pregnancy planning and action of people to prevent, delay, or achieve a pregnancy. It is also a fundamental step to improving health outcomes for women and children. Family planning services include counseling and education, pre-conception care, screening and laboratory tests, and family planning methods..."
Even the word "pre-pregnancy planning" isn't objective either - March of Dimes:
[had to cut lists for length]
1. Diabetes, high blood pressure, infections or other health problems?
2. Medicines or home remedies?
3. Taking a multivitamin pill with folic acid in it each day?
4. Getting to a healthy weight before pregnancy?
5. Smoking, drinking alcohol and taking illegal drugs?
6. Unsafe chemicals
7. Taking care of myself and lowering stress?
8. How long to wait between pregnancies?
9. Family history, including premature birth?
Emotionally?
* Why do you want to have a baby?
* How will a child affect your relationship with your partner? Are you both ready to become parents?
* Are you prepared to raise a child alone?
* How will a baby affect your future plans?
* Religious or ethnic differences?
* Child care?
* Are you prepared for a sick/special needs child?
* Can you see yourself as a parent?
* What did you like/not like about your childhood?
Physically?
* Multivitamin with 400mcg of folic acid every day
* Pre-pregnancy checkup
* Eat healthy, maintain healthy weight
* Stop smoking, alcohol, drugs
* Avoid infections
* Avoid hazardous substances
* Talk to you health care provider about your family history, genetics and birth defects.
Financially?
* Take a look at your budget.
* Check the leave policy where you work.
* Check your health insurance
* Make saving a habit.
* Review or purchase long-term disability and life insurance coverage.
* Check out special benefits that you may qualify for such as Medicaid and WIC.
By your logic, none of the above is subjective and 40% of Americans view this as "planning"?
If you think that most people define planning as just having sex intentionally, then I don't agree that that's "planning" - in any sense of the word - so then I'd argue that your definitely is incredibly subjective.
I doubt that all those interviewed and asked whether their pregnancy is planned that they have the above thoughts in their head. I think it's way higher for unplanned in any real meaning of the word. I think the confusion of those definitions do change the numbers.
It's interesting that they put wanted and intended in the same definition block; I wouldn't have done that. They should be separate since it's quite possible to intend to have a child and then not want it.
It's interesting to me that you'd only be suspicious here - is it b/c there isn't a number to cite by an "expert". I just don't get how you're ok with the 40% number w/o questioning that when it seems very subjective to me.
Please point me to the experts who dispute that about half of all pregnancies are unplanned.
Point me to 100 studies that show what they've used as criteria for their definition of "planned" vs. "unplanned" and tell me they all match exactly. And over time despite cultural/societal changes. Prove to me that's objective. And that that number will match the 40%.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 01:47 am (UTC)No. Most people know when they have sex whether they are hoping for it to result in a baby or not. If they are hoping for a baby, the resulting hoping there won't be for a baby, it is unplanned.
It's interesting to me that you'd only be suspicious here - is it b/c there isn't a number to cite by an "expert".
No, it's because the definition you want to use for "wanted" is too subjective and complicated to evaluate in a way that can produce a meaningful statistics.
Point me to 100 studies that show what they've used as criteria for their definition of "planned" vs. "unplanned" and tell me they all match exactly. And over time despite cultural/societal changes. Prove to me that's objective. And that that number will match the 40%.
You said experts disagree with the about half statistic, I ask for one such expert (because if I'm incorrect, I like to know) who disagrees. Why is it then my turn to come up with 100 studies? As far as matching exactly, I never claimed they did all match exactly--and I'm sure they don't. I've been saying "about half" throughout for that very reason. I take that to mean somewhere between 40% and 60%.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 03:01 am (UTC)That is not my definition of planned v. unplanned. That is my definition of intention vs. unintentional. They are VERY different words, in case if anyone hasn't noticed. It's obviously not "objective" as you assume.
No, it's because the definition you want to use for "wanted" is too subjective and complicated to evaluate in a way that can produce a meaningful statistics.
Again, I didn't use "wanted" in anything I've written just now. I don't think you are actually following/reading/thinking about anything I'm saying but simply toggling words without realizing the value of the meaning of those words.
You said experts disagree with the about half statistic, I ask for one such expert (because if I'm incorrect, I like to know) who disagrees. Why is it then my turn to come up with 100 studies? As far as matching exactly, I never claimed they did all match exactly--and I'm sure they don't. I've been saying "about half" throughout for that very reason. I take that to mean somewhere between 40% and 60%.
As I said earlier, we are never going to agree and this is utterly pointless to keep on going with this discussion. I think you are not making sense.
1. I think if people mean intention or not when they are creating studies, they should say that. That is not the same as planned v. unplanned.
2. A plan isn't just the act of having sex intentionally. That's ludicrous. To say that what is the definition of planning is objective is utterly naive - for crying out loud, we don't even have a defintion of minimum parenting standards.
3. To cite a statistic like 40% planned and say that's fact is citing research from which there's some methodolgy which you obviously don't seem to care about but yet all you care about is arguing w/ me b/c I don't give you some equally stupid number pulled out of the air. What bothers me is that you don't even question the methodology - somehow just b/c there's a number and a % sign then it's fact to you and anything outside of that is not ...unless there's a counter number regardless of how subjective the data is? That's a scary reliance on numbers.
You said experts disagree with the about half statistic, I ask for one such expert (because if I'm incorrect, I like to know) who disagrees.
If you read previous posts of mine, I did make one link to that. I didn't keep track of every single link. Many just cite and repeat the 40-50% number without questioning how they arrive at that (or whether they even agree with those assumptions). Actually, that would discount the quality of the research to me.
"I never claimed they did all match exactly--and I'm sure they don't. I've been saying "about half" throughout for that very reason. I take that to mean somewhere between 40% and 60%."
I just don't understand your logic. It seems very lacking to me.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 03:38 am (UTC)I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were using a different definition of unplanned. I should have said about half of all pregnancies are unintented (most things I've read use "unplanned" to mean that). Sorry to have led down such a long path over such a simple misunderstanding of terminology.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 03:53 am (UTC)1. Intention. This, to me, is the act of having sex with the idea of having a baby. I could believe that maybe it's in the 40% range. This is now how that number is typically written. It is written as "40% planned" - my original thought is that that number has got to be way higher.
Why?
2. Planned v. Unplanned. The whole idea of what is a "plan" is very subjective just as much as something like minimum parenting standards. I would even venture to say that the criteria that is used to justify taking way kids (like lacking a safety plan which does include basic food/shelter and being financially response enough to care for a basic minimum)..is more than a fairly large % of people would give give in their pre-pregnancy planning. I doubt that enough people to go to pre-pregnancy planning...certainly not in the 40% range. I think here is where we started to go awry. I think this number of pregnancies that actually have a plan that would be realistic for raising a child - that's very likely much lower than 40%.
3. Wanted/Unwanted. I also feel that this deserves more consideration too as a separate category. I think earlier when I'm saying "wanted" I am more making a distinction b/w "wanted" and "intended" vs. "planned".
I think if you were to ask many if they planned their pregnancy, many (most?) would assume that means did they intend to have this child meaning not use protection and/or intentionally having sex with the goal of conception. That is very different from asking them if they have a pregnancy that is planned which should be more than just intentional sex.
My main thought is that I believe that the number is way higher for unplanned pregnancies than 40% so I don't like and won't cite "40% unplanned" b/c I believe that is untrue...it's a significant enough difference between meanings of words to me imho poor research and therefore, I would question the conclusions. It is probably close to "40% unintended" - maybe. I could buy that's true.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 04:02 am (UTC)If I had to venture a guess, I would say that the numbers that would have a realistic plan for a child is likely closer to 15-20% but it's hard to say that for certain since my idea of a plan is likely going to more detailed and thought out than someone else's. It should cover basic components like health of self before, during and after pregnancy; health of relationship (regardless of marital status) for a long-term 18-year commitment of raising a child preferably; awareness of basic parenting; financial planning that is not paycheck to paycheck or month to month but something more stable, etc.; common views on key issues like religion, parenting, discpline, etc. for relationships. There's no way I would have a child w/ a partner who could not answer these questions for me and yet there are plenty of couples who have children with far less knowledge. It doesn't mean that they're going to fail, but I would put them more in the unplanned category regardless of their intention or desire to have children. There's a reality to raising kids and being there for them and giving them a healthy environment that goes well beyond having them in the first place.
What I think would be interesting is if they took a group of people and surveyed them (as best as they could get data) for how many of these points they have a plan for and then compare that with the reasons why people wind up losing their children to see how closely they parallel.
We know the major reasons for divorce are communication, finances, and trust. If you surveyed couples before they got married, there is a fair number that would already have these issues in their relationship on the wedding day or some wouldn't have done something basic like talk about financial patterns, decide who control finances, see if that's realistic during the dating relationship and then wind up divorcing later over finances after it's a much larger issue.