3 ms·
This is tantamount to the anti-abortion argument that "if you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex." Birth control is not 100% reliable, and
by araneae 16y ago
This is tantamount to the anti-abortion argument that "if you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex."
Birth control is not 100% reliable, and abstinence is an undue burden to place on anyone. Your values are from a time when women didn't work and there was no social welfare; a fatherless child would often die or be destitute. Abortion was illegal, and children would languish in orphanages.
Now, poor women often abort, and white babies are in high demand by potential adopters. This women works on Wall Street, so she can undoubtedly afford to raise the child on her own. It's hardly a similar situation.
- usaar333 16y agoSeveral points: 1) Yes, these values were created long ago The question is if they still apply. 2) While being a single-mother isn't nearly as destructive these days, there do seem to be significant benefits to the child from having two parents. (how strongly is up for debate -- admittedly there are conflating variables here). 3) The father not taking care of the kid also has deleterious effects on the mother's career. 4) Even from a selfish perspective, following such advise reduces economic burden from child support. And social burden since society generally has such a value (rightly or wrongly). 5) Birth control is reliable enough compared to other risks in life. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_met.... Pick 2 independent methods and use correctly. 10 year failure rate is on the order of 1 in 300 (only triple that of dying in a car accident). Add a third and odds drop to 1 in 10000 (car accident death order of magnitude higher).