7 ms·
Access to contraceptives allows people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, to remain childless. No access to contraceptives means that peopl
by zeidrich 13y ago
Access to contraceptives allows people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, to remain childless.
No access to contraceptives means that people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, will have children. These children will be unintended or unwanted and may not be cared for either through disinterest or lack of ability to provide for them.
A child who grows up in that sort of circumstance is not kept safe, may succumb to disease, may spread disease, will not be educated, and will have difficulty providing for themselves.
A common rebuttal is that people should just not engage in sex if they are not intending to have children. This is maybe ideal in some moral frameworks, but whether it's ideal or not, it's not the reality. The reality is that some people will engage in sex anyways, and some people will be forced to engage in sex against their will. While it might be a goal to prevent these things from occurring, the reality is that they occur, and methods to mitigate the negative impacts of their occurrences are better than just finger-wagging.
That said, if your argument is more along the lines of "The Pope says that it is wrong, and the Pope espouses God's will." then I can't really refute it. I can just disagree.
In any case, if people can choose whether they want to have a child or not, then contraception just helps them make that choice. If they shouldn't engage in sex for non-childbearing reasons, then they can struggle with that decision as well. However, when succumbing to that results in an unwanted childbirth, it does more than just punish the parent, it now involves the child and the whole community.
- sdegutis 13y agoMy line of reasoning behind my position is complex and can't be simplified into a bite-sized form that can be defended in a HN thread. Especially considering my original point: I'm one of the 0%; there's no chance for a fair debate.
- checker 13y agoAs I read it, your original point was that you oppose the idea that global availability of contraception is necessary to increase sustainability. I think that's why people want you to expand on it.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoThere certainly isn't if you make a statement and then refuse to say why you made it. People discuss complex stuff on HN regularly, surely the complexity of the argument cannot be higher than exists in some of the maths threads.
- philwelch 13y agoThen why did you even bring it up? Are you trolling?
- mhurron 13y agoWell there definitely isn't when you don't even attempt to explain your position.
- bnegreve 13y agoCome on, try to explain. HN is biased in many respects, if you never say what you think, you're just making it worst.
- ubercore 13y agoI think it's fair to expect at least an attempt, given that you felt strongly enough to post your first comment. Without context, it boils down to "I have an opinion." Not surprising people would ask you to expand on that.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- sdegutis 13y ago"A child who grows up in that sort of circumstance is not kept safe, may succumb to disease, may spread disease, will not be educated, and will have difficulty providing for themselves." A person's life is far more than just how they start out. Many people have started in situations like this and have gone on to have wonderful lives. Many have even changed the world. This alone isn't enough to convince me that we should give in to short-sightedness by allowing people to prevent or destroy future human lives. "In any case, if people can choose whether they want to have a child or not, then contraception just helps them make that choice." In the same way that it's smart to invest money long-term, I think it's smart to invest in long-term human potential. I think that's really our greatest resource. EDIT: added a little tact
- socialist_coder 13y ago>> This alone isn't enough to convince me that we should give in to short-sightedness by allowing people to prevent or destroy future human lives. Is it not destroying the life of the parent(s) by giving them a child they do not want and cannot reasonably care for?
- sdegutis 13y agoI have confidence in the malleability of human nature. We can adapt to new situations and still thrive. Change isn't always bad nor does it "destroy" life, even if it seems painful at first.
- rfnslyr 13y agoYou have clearly never lived a remotely shit life to make such claims. Do you understand what absolute poverty is?
- sdegutis 13y agoI don't. My life is pretty great by probably all standards. You're right. But we're all entitled to form our own views of how the world works best, and to discuss it peaceably with others. I think that's kind of the spirit of HN (except usually it's applied towards more technological things).