Pro-choice and veg*n?
Hello VegWeb, it's been a while. I was reminded to log in the other day when I got into a debate with a friend about abortion. She challenged that as a veg*n I should also be pro-life by default, which led me into a pretty interesting examination of why I agree with these two philosophies.
I personally maintain that legalising abortion allows women to make important decisions regarding their bodies and futures, and brings the numbers of those seeking dangerous backstreet abortions down. In those countries which legalise abortion, such as my native England, I consider it a right of women in need, although never a method of birth control. Legal limits for abortion exist for a reason; if it isn't a viable foetus, I don't consider it murder.
As a veg*n, I neither support nor participate in the slaughter or torture of animals because I believe that compassion and right should not be extended only to those who have the ability to ask for them. I couldn't kill an animal (except in absolute, last-chance-to-survive emergency), and if I eat meat that's being done on my behalf.
Looking at the reasoning behind my support for legal abortion and veg*nism, I don't feel hypocritical for my decisions.
What about you, dear VegWebbers? Are you inherently conflicted? Which way does your allegiance lie on this tricky moral question?
I'm half and half on this. I think if you have the financial and physical means to support any children you might have, then fine. But on the other hand, over-population is a problem and there are so many orphaned children who need homes that the idea of having so many just because you can and you feel that you are entitled to do so feels a little like the self-centred, wasteful society which seems to be all the rage now.
I remember a program on British TV a year or so ago which showed families with more than ten children. Many of them were almost exclusively supported by the state and one woman, when asked why she decided to expand her family so much, said, "Because I love being pregnant."
I understand not wanting an only child, but there are rational limits to these things.
Yeah, as a woman that is praying for just one child of her own, I am pretty f'ing offended by that. If i want to have 5 children, then I'm gonna have 5 children. I don't see why that would make me an asshole.
Exactly. And who's to put an arbitrary limit on what is an OK number of kids and what isn't. It's a little more complicated than slapping a quota on it. Heck, maybe I'll have five kids!
What you just wrote made me think about the title of this thread again. I think there is a bit of a parallel to veganism here. As vegans, we don't believe it is right for us to force the reproduction (or sterility, or what have you) of other species--cows, chickens, what have you. So that can logically extend to other humans as well. We can't say, "So and so should have fewer than five babies,or so and so should not have any, and maybe I'll have one" for whatever reason. We just can't. It gets into a whole mess of personal freedom issues, like bp says. China's one child policy, anybody?
China's one child policy is most likely the main reason China is become a "profitable" country (monetarily, I'm leaving HRs out of this), especially compared to India. I don't think reproductive restrictions are right, but in this world, it is also not right or responsible to have 5 children. I don't think that it should be legislated, but there are lots of things that are not legislated that are still irresponsible and wrong to do. Regardless if you can pay for children, they take resources. It is irresponsible and wrong to be taking more than your share of resources, even if you can do it. Freakin' Dugger family/clan/start to world domination or recolonization is a good example of this. It makes me sad and blatantly points out the American mindset that if you can pay for it, you should have it and deserve to have it and it is the right thing to do. As well, I think it would be difficult to be able to raise many children, splitting your time and money and still have them be competitive, successful individuals in this world.
I totally agree BP, I realize that mine is a modern and probably not common and agreed with view. I also realize just because I think something is right or wrong does not mean it is. We all have different values and a line as to how far we are willing to go for what is important to us. Veganism is a great example of this. If it isn't important to someone, they are not absolutely "wrong" for not leading their lives the way I do and I am for not leading mine like they do mine. (My way is just more sustainable :) )I read an old and interesting article yesterday, although written by an omni, I really had to agree with it a lot.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=408990
Anyway, I totally agree with you about adopting, but while my husband and I were discussing it, he mentioned that when we adopt (from other countries specifically) it is, in a way, facilitating the birth of more children and uping the total population. I'm not sure if I agree with that, but it was an interesting idea. He was saying that if the parentless children are adopted, there is more room for the birth of more children in poorer countries. If they are not adopted, the "space" for children is full and the country would do more themselves to decrease the number of babies people had so the ones they do have are taken care of. I think this makes sense, the idea of enacting this is just sad because the children would be the real losers. I know he was just talking theory, though, especially as he's an adopted Indonesian himself (and very compassionate about the world's problems).
i don't see a difference between this line of thinking and the advocation of forced sterilization/birth control. you start getting on slippery ground when you tell other women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. how is that different than saying women can't have abortion when they want them? so what should be done? cut tubes once a woman has "maxed out" the number of kids she has? when you start a discourse that encourages limits on personal freedoms (such as the right to reproduce -- basic human right IMHO) it just breeds trouble. it wasn't that long ago that in the US (and i'm sure other places too) were poor women, women of color, and other humans who were seen as "inappropriate" for parenthood would be force sterilize, most often without their consent or though coercion.
pun unintended.
I see a difference. I would never require that there be a legal limit to the number of children a woman can have. On the other hand, there's a chronic lack of common sense in deciding that because you enjoy being pregnant, you'll have a whole football team of children and then demand that the state pay for them because you can't do so. I wouldn't go out on the street and personally insult people for doing it, or march on government and demand a sterilisation program but I cannot support the idea of everybody having as many kids as they fancy and damn the consequences.
I'm with Ranu on this one; it's a matter of responsibility and ensuring that you have enough time, money and resources available to give any children you might have a good start in life. If someone's getting pregnant because it's enjoyable for her, without thinking about the potential problems her ten- or twelve-child family is going to encounter, that's not so ethical in my book. To finally bring this back to the original title, this is very much where my allegiance lies on the abortion issue; in a lot of cases it seems to me to be more ethical to know when you can't or shouldn't be reproducing, than to bring a child into an unsafe or poorly-suited environment.
It's an extension of the concept of being accountable for your actions, and in the UK we have a massive problem at the moment with people demanding everything "because it's my right" and yet refusing to acknowledge that with rights come responsibility. The circumstances become somewhat different if education threshold and means do not allow for the people in question to apply the above structure to their lives, but at least in England you can actually pick up free condoms so we're halfway there in that sense.
You can't legislate responsibility and shouldn't legislate morality.
I guess I'm saying more that, even if someone can pay for and take care of 16 (17... 18... I've lost track) kids, like the Duggers, it doesn't mean that it is a responsible thing to to for the world. Even if they are God's precious gift bestowed upon them. Ha. My ass.
Anyway, I totally agree with you about adopting, but while my husband and I were discussing it, he mentioned that when we adopt (from other countries specifically) it is, in a way, facilitating the birth of more children and uping the total population. I'm not sure if I agree with that, but it was an interesting idea. He was saying that if the parentless children are adopted, there is more room for the birth of more children in poorer countries. If they are not adopted, the "space" for children is full and the country would do more themselves to decrease the number of babies people had so the ones they do have are taken care of. I think this makes sense, the idea of enacting this is just sad because the children would be the real losers. I know he was just talking theory, though, especially as he's an adopted Indonesian himself (and very compassionate about the world's problems).
Specifically, in regards to China, if you don't adopt the gov't won't/can't do anything about the families having more children. The children are given up because of financial burdens (crop failure, family member dying) or because they want a boy, already have a boy and weren't trying to have another or because the child has a special need that the family doesn't have the means to take care of or to pay to correct. China tries to do a very good job at keeping the popluation down, but then when it does they are in the news for Human Rights violations. ( Which I agree they should be, but it is like a double edge sword.) You can't tell the gov't to control the numbers of babies being born and then say they are bad when they force abortions.
Currently, the wait time for a Chinese adoption is going on 3+ yrs and many people in the adoption community feel it is because of the Olympics. The gov't doesn't want the news media to focus on the adoptions and spin it into something bad and make the gov't look bad. Saving face is still a major aspect of Chinese culture and in a way allowing families from other countries to adopt their children is losing face. They are saying "yes please help us, we can't take care of our own" and that is HUGE for the gov't to do.
Getting back on track alittle, as countries develop their populations decrease. It is just a fact of developing into a industrial society.
My view on abortion is Pro Choice and my feeling is it should be legal until every child has a home and foster homes do not count.
it seems that you're arguing that women/couples who are poor shouldn't have children then. so the right to have children is a right for those who have the means to do so?
Oh boy, here we go...
Not really my argument, but I'll pipe up.
I don't think they should have children. But it is still their right, and they should still have the right to do so. Doesn't mean I think it is right.
A silly, very flawed analogy... Anyone has the right to have a kitten, people that can't feed/take care of kittens shouldn't get kittens.
i don't think most people can really "afford" their children -- kids are expensive and it becomes relevant to wonder what one needs to be a "good parent".
True that, and that is exactly what I'm talking about, not just those on welfare, which I have no problem with. We should be taking care of the children who cannot be taken care of, but people that cannot afford children shouldn't be having them. Of course that is an oversimplification and unexpected things happen. I didn't mean to single out the poor either, there are a lot of other stipulations to parenthood. Stability, resources, time and good role models just to begin. And like I started out saying, just because one has all of the above to give also doesn't mean they should be having children.
we need to be careful we don't work ourselves into a discourse that privalages the privalaged into being allowed access to the right to reproduce.
Like this?
people that cannot afford children shouldn't be having them.
I'm totally with bp on this one. What are mothers to do, sit down with their bank statements and their financial advisers and say, "OK, taking a look at my assets, I can't afford a child right now." Again, you can't assume that women are in stable environments where they receive the resources and education required to make that judgment and then act on it. And what are we to do, have an arbitrary cutoff point which says, "Single women in this income bracket may now reproduce." I don't think it's ok to say something like "Poor people shouldn't have children." This subtly implies some sort of moral transgression on the part of these families. It is more useful and accurate to talk about why people encounter these situations and think about what we can do to prevent them, instead of shouldering the ethical responsibility on the parents. Like bp said, it's more complicated than that.
(btw i just love saying discourse)
And "lube"? ::)
What are mothers to do, sit down with their bank statements and their financial advisers and say, "OK, taking a look at my assets, I can't afford a child right now." Again, you can't assume that women are in stable environments where they receive the resources and education required to make that judgment and then act on it. And what are we to do, have an arbitrary cutoff point which says, "Single women in this income bracket may now reproduce." I don't think it's ok to say something like "Poor people shouldn't have children."
Whats interesting about this is that when you adopt you do have to open your bank statement and prove that you can afford to have a child. Plus, we had to meet with a social worker three times, submit finanical records, have a dr state that we are healthy enough to care for a child, the state had to come out and see where our daughter was going to sleep (confirm there was a closet and a window above ground), obtain child abuse clearances, be fingerprinted by the state and federal govt ( since we were adopting internationally. Then after the our daughter came home we had another three visits with the social worker to confirm everything was ok, she was adjusting, we were adjusting and advise us of anything if needed. Plus alot more that is just too much to type.
So, JUST A THOUGHT, if we had to go through all of this to show we would be good parents then why can't we ask potential parents to complete at least some of this? What about a parenting class? I know there are countries that do regulate some parental decisions.
Yeah, I definitely think parenting classes of some kind would be good. I totally agree, GG.
we need to be careful we don't work ourselves into a discourse that privalages the privalaged into being allowed access to the right to reproduce.
Like this?
people that cannot afford children shouldn't be having them.
KMK, you beat me to it! I was totally going to comment on that!
I'm getting pretty frustrated with some of the things said in this thread. "People who cannot afford children shouldn't be having them"? I think enough comment has been made on this (thanks KMK and bp - you guys hit the nail on the head), so I don't think I'll add much.
What I will say is this:
I don't know the situation in other countries or areas as well as I know my own. But right now, the provincial government of Ontario is pushing poverty as a key issue - a cabinet committee on poverty reduction was formed this year (or last year, I don't remember) and they're traveling across Ontario, doing consultations, to come up with a poverty reduction strategy. Sound boring? Well it's not. It probably would be if I got into the nitty gritty details, but I want to emphasize my frustration with the stigma that surrounds people living in poverty. I've been actively involved with some of the stuff happening in Ontario and I see it first hand.
Single mothers, people with addictions, immigrants, and those with any kind of disability are seen to be at fault if they are experiencing poverty. The idea is to help the little kids - they deserve our help - they haven't done anything and are innocent. Yes, they are. But everyone deserves respect. Everyone deserves to live in dignity, out of poverty.
"People who cannot afford children shouldn't be having them." That statement takes away dignity. And it makes me angry.
Single mothers, people with addictions, immigrants, and those with any kind of disability are seen to be at fault if they are experiencing poverty. The idea is to help the little kids - they deserve our help - they haven't done anything and are innocent. Yes, they are. But everyone deserves respect. Everyone deserves to live in dignity, out of poverty.
"People who cannot afford children shouldn't be having them." That statement takes away dignity. And it makes me angry.
THANK YOU.
Dignity. That's exactly it. People only rise to the expectations that society sets for them. Every time we say "Low-income families CAN'T do this or SHOULDN'T do that," then we might as well be condemning them to the fate we have in mind for them. This language is dis-empowering, degrading, and disrespectful.
I am also uncomfortable with the phrase "poor people" or "the poor." As if there is some poor people's club, all of whom have the same traits, abilities, and characteristics. I don't think talking about "poor people" is appropriate. I wouldn't speak broadly of "white people," "elderly people," "the gays" or any other group of people. It's just divisive and reinforces stereotypes.
One of my summer school students is pregnant. The father is her boyfriend, another student in the class. I had the class write their goals for the class and their goals for their lives on little cards to hang up in the room. The boy wrote that his goal in life was to be there for his family and to be the best father he could be for his future son. These kids are absolute geniuses, like all of my kids. They care about doing the right thing for themselves. And they know that having children is not the best thing for them right now, believe me. When she has to come to school seven months pregnant and can't focus on class because she's tired and her feet hurt, she knows it's not supposed to be that way. But there is something wrong with our society--something that needs to be fixed--so that these young men and women have what they need to do what's best for themselves. It's not their fault that they got pregnant. It's not their fault they are in summer school. It's a reflection of our failure as a nation. I wouldn't say, "You shouldn't be having kids" just like I wouldn't say, "Ya know, you shouldn't be failing out of high school right now." Yeah, no shit.
It really enrages me to think of someone saying to my kids (or even about them), "They shouldn't be having kids." No. Back up. They shouldn't be without sex ed, without birth control, without people who expect them to do something productive with their free time, without support in life. A statement like "They shouldn't...." totally misses the point.
Ummm... I never said poor people shouldn't have kids. You said that and put words in my mouth. I was very specifically cautious and said people who cannot afford them should not have kids. Never once did I say anything about a specific group of people, low income, on welfare, etc. PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD THEM. True, this is most of America, I'd guess.
That statement takes away dignity. And it makes me angry.
How does this take away dignity? Kids are a big responsibility, and if you make the choice to do so, responsibly, or not do so, responsibly , there is only dignity in that.
"Low-income families CAN'T do this or SHOULDN'T do that," then we might as well be condemning them to the fate we have in mind for them. This language is dis-empowering, degrading, and disrespectful.
How is this language so horrible? People shouldn't have credit card debt. You shouldn't take on responsibility you can't handle. I have a house, a car, a cute little cat, my husband and I are smart responsible 27 year olds with some money saved and both have decent jobs. I want kids and am ready to do so. We shouldn't have kids because we can't afford them. How in god's name is that disrespectful? It's smart and responsible.
People only rise to the expectations that society sets for them.
Precisely.
I'm curious, if I had said people that can't afford children should have kids (like, I guess, you are arguing) what the response would be.
To end that note...
ummm... I never said poor people shouldn't have kids. I said people who cannot afford them should not have kids.
I didn't say you said that. But either way. People who can't afford kids can't afford kids. By definition. But saying they shouldn't have kids bring it a step beyond that into the realm of judging who should have the right to have kids. Even if that's not what you mean, the implication is there. And besides that, it's redundant. We should be saying, "Many people can't afford to have kids" and leave it at that. Talk about should/shouldn't is slippery.
I'm curious, if I had said people that can't afford children should have kids (like, I guess, you are arguing) what the response would be.
That's absurd. Of course that is not what I am arguing. "Shouldn't" is offensive, but "should" is just nonsensical.
Should or shouldn't is irrelevant when it's happening no matter what. Suppose I had a drug addiction, and someone said to me, "You shouldn't be doing that. Stop it." Like I said, I'd be like, "NO SHIT. Thanks so much for your help!" ;)b
"Low-income families CAN'T do this or SHOULDN'T do that," then we might as well be condemning them to the fate we have in mind for them. This language is dis-empowering, degrading, and disrespectful.
How is this language so horrible? People shouldn't have credit card debt. You shouldn't take on responsibility you can't handle. I have a house, a car, a cute little cat, my husband and I are smart responsible 27 year olds with some money saved and both have decent jobs. I want kids and am ready to do so. We shouldn't have kids because we can't afford them. How in god's name is that disrespectful? It's smart and responsible.
Right. Yes. And see, you have the tools and the education to make that judgment for yourself as you've just shown. Many people do not, which is why they don't fare as well in making responsible decisions. They live life the best way they know how, but stuff happens. The statement is disrespectful of the realities of different life situations. Again, if I have credit card debt, and you say, "Well, you shouldn't!" how is that a productive statement? It would just make me feel bad. And it's like saying, "You shouldn't have AIDS" or "You should be getting a college education right now." Ideally, yes. DUH. Don't you think I'd be doing that if I could? And that's where the degrading part comes in.
Pages