And I firmly believe that the fate of the child should be decided by the legal guardian of the mother, with the mother having no say in the matter.
I understand your position. On the other hand, should a minor be forced to carry a baby if the legal guardian doesn't agree with an abortion, e. g. because of religious reasons?
17th June 2002
Mephistopheles;4643370I understand your position. On the other hand, should a minor be forced to carry a baby if the legal guardian doesn't agree with an abortion, e. g. because of religious reasons?
I'm pretty sure I said "with the mother having no say in the matter." I stand by that. If the legal guardian feels that the young mother is somehow capable of looking after the child with their support, or if the legal guardian is willing to look after the child themselves, I see no reason for it to be killed off and hope it has a happy life. And if neither is true and they have it anyway, social services will have to get involved.
Mr. Matt;4643423I'm pretty sure I said "with the mother having no say in the matter." I stand by that. If the legal guardian feels that the young mother is somehow capable of looking after the child with their support, or if the legal guardian is willing to look after the child themselves, I see no reason for it to be killed off and hope it has a happy life. And if neither is true and they have it anyway, social services will have to get involved.
I don't agree with forcing a child onto a minor (for whatever reason). I think both the legal guardian and the minor should have to agree with the child, otherwise it should be aborted.
17th June 2002
Mephistopheles;4643449I don't agree with forcing a child onto a minor (for whatever reason). I think both the legal guardian and the minor should have to agree with the child, otherwise it should be aborted.
And when the two don't agree, the guardian gets the last say. I'm all for guardians and children agreeing on decisions which effect both of them, but I'd much sooner trust the decision of the legal guardian than the emotional, hormonal, inexperienced and ignorant view of a child.
Perhaps I'm tainted by my own family's experiences, and I try not to use first-person examples in any argument because frankly, it holds no water. But so far as I can see, a pregnant teenage girl will make a decision of this nature based on one of two things - fear, or hormones and other emotions. It needs to be tempered by a realistic knowledge of present circumstances, a knowledge of one's own ability to care for the child, and experience will help with both.
I'm not claiming that even adults won't make an irrational decision about such a thing; most parents-to-be are scared shitless when they first find out they're going to have a baby, and nobody can claim to be experienced in parenting until they've had a child of their own. But a person who has never had to deal with the real world outside of school, nor responsibility of any serious kind, doesn't and can't understand the magnitude of the undertaking they are about to embark upon.
And that brings us back to what I mentioned - should a person who is not legally considered to be old enough to give consent, be legally allowed to decide the fate of another human being? I don't think they should.
Nemmerle;4643097No doubt but I was referring to the fact that the social sciences, at least those of us who are any good at them, don't really help people understand the differences between love and lust. Mainly because they're not well defined terms you can invest a solid bit of research into. [/quote] No doubt but I was referring is Psychology not Sociology.
Nemmerle;4643097 We can say that physical attractiveness has an influence on the chances of someone forming a relationship, heck look at the matching hypothesis and so on - 'people of like attractiveness' - that's easy to invest research into. But is that lust in the sense that you mean it and is it lust in the sense that I’d mean it when I used the term in my research? Lust covers a wide range of things.Spoiler: Show
1. Pleasure. [Obs.]
`` Lust and jollity.'' --Chaucer.
2. Inclination; desire. [Obs.]
For little lust had she to talk of aught. --Spenser.
My lust to devotion is little. --Bp. Hall.
3. Longing desire; eagerness to possess or enjoy; -- in a had sense; as, the lust of gain.
The lust of reigning. --Milton.
4. Licentious craving; sexual appetite. --Milton.
5. Hence: Virility; vigor; active power. [Obs.]
The term isn’t really exact. And then what’s love? That’s not an exact term either. You can’t measure those things correlatively if you’re not going to define them but if I define them then someone’s just going to come along and see the words in my research and turn it into something it’s not when I’ve used a much more specific concept than they have. And bear in mind the research itself in things like this is also highly subject to social norms and confounding variables which makes it a bit iffy anyway. [/quote] Planing out and drawing a line and a definition of love and lust is not possible and I don't intend to. The reason being of mentioning it is to stir the minds of that youth. They may not understand it but yet it is something. Also the norms as you mention make it even more "iffy".
Nemmerle;4643097 If people then take the research and use it to support their view of lust versus love that's putting a political view on things without the underlying connection to do so existing, at which point it's no more valid than just preaching politics would be anyway. [/quote] Well, there's alway been that issues in sociological research and how it is used. It cannot be avoided.
Nemmerle;4643097 That's one way of look at it. In a sense it's a dreadful shame sociology and psychology were ever divided. Social psychology leads directly into micro sociology. I certainly believe in cross training the fields at least up to the third year of a person's Masters. You can't really hope to understand a person's psychology without reference to the society in which it was formed, nor the society without reference to the psychology of the individuals within it. It's a sad truism that most of psychology would more accurately be termed Western Middle Class Psychology. [/quote] True, but also Auguste Comte thrived on making sociology a science field and separate it from the rest. There is also Macro sociology, and psychology at times can't be applied to it. ethnographic research is that what you do or want, to be more specific?
Nemmerle;4643097 Whatever tickles my fancy. I’m still playing around at Masters level at the moment which means I can take sociology psychology and philosophy alongside each other for another year or so, I’m not fussy, there’s not huge amounts of background you need in order to argue with someone’s work successfully and since I don’t have to answer to an employer at this point in my studies (the dark day in a year’s time fast approaches when I finally have to decide what sort of degree I’m going to come out of this with dun dun dun.) I’m free to be a generalist.
That said Emotional Intelligence with specific reference to alternate success subcultures and criminal deviance is of interest to me. That sort of fits somewhere between both psychology and sociology though. It’d probably fall under the school of sociology’s purview since they’re more open to accepting psychological ideas than psychology is to accepting sociological ones.
Who knows I might end up with a philosophy degree, that'd be weird considering.
Hmm I guess is here withing the schools that we begin to have arguments on ideas and theories.
[quote=Nemmerle;4643097] You don’t say.
But I do say, good sir. This with the fact that I was not referring to sociology.
[quote=Nemmerle;4643097] Knowledge alters instinct and instinct alters knowledge, it's not a case of one just suppressing the other. In many cases knowledge actually supplements instinct rather than suppressing it, many martial artists train with the idea of enhancing their instincts and honing them to a sharper edge, likewise instinctual understanding provides rich sources of information for people. You can’t just draw a line between them and say, ‘this is instinct and this is knowledge,’ it doesn’t work like that, some knowledge is instinct, some instinctual reactions are forged with knowledge; they produce each other and change each other, there's no sharp line where a behavior or attitude suddenly stops being knowledge based and becomes instinct, and considering people's behavior is all the empirical evidence you have of their psychology it's just not a line you can draw.
Martial artist and Buddhist monks are a different but particular group. "Knowledge alters instinct and instinct alters knowledge" When you get on a larger group it beings to take shape, since with interaction it becomes more noticeable. It not to draw a line but to start seeing the patterns of the behavior of the group. In my example, survival kicks in and it is made up of many other instincts. It is the only example that I could come up with were humans primal instincts in behavior becomes really noticeable.
[quote=Nemmerle;4643097] Some people just have no sex drive whatsoever, they don't lust. Then you've the problem of explaining why some women are attractive and others not, after all it’s entirely possible to imagine a situation in which the individual didn’t find anyone around him or herself attractive enough to lust after, and why that varies across societies. To mention but a few of the problems, there seem to be some rather large hurdles for your statement to overcome.
People still masturbate and have fantasies. Also attraction can be chemical. Cultural boundaries become another issues since other societies would value belief over body, so you are right on the hurdles.
[quote=Nemmerle;4643097] Not for everyone, not under all cultures, and even where it does it does so by different factors for different people. If you were in another society you would have a different standard of beauty and different people you lusted after. I would tend to support the theory that lust is something learned.
Well if you were to put on a Western society and compare it to others it wouldn't. It is learned through what your society considers "beauty", and when you have to look at other societies do not say "they a different". You have to look to them as "Us" and "Them" term, they may have the same values as yours but on their own terms and ways. Societies of have similarities that represent each other, the reason being of not been seen on their own terms is because we take ours for granted.
In the matter I guess to restate my argument, teens are not psychologically ready for a child.
SeinfeldRules;4639330Then consensual sex between a minor and an adult is cool, right?
Not sure where your going with this. Consensual sex between a minor and an adult is against the law, regardless of how anyone feels. I thought we were talking about abortion cases happening to girls that are having sex with guys their own age. At any rate, the baby does belong to the minor and it is her baby, not the parents'. If anything, the male and female should have to agree upon the abortion, not just the female. "It takes two to tango". I do believe, however, that the parent should be aware that the teen has a baby. In some states, parental awareness is not needed and the teen doesn't even have to tell her parents. (Although unlikely because of the cost of the procedure) This should go the same for girls having sex with men older than them, although illegal. If I go a store and buy something, then it is legally mine. If I want to do something with my item that I bought, then I should be able to do what I want with it; now I'm not saying life should be regarded as "it", just trying to prove a point here. If it's ones own baby, getting permission to do something with that baby from someone else, even legal guardian, is not their right to. According to John Locke, the philosopher from which the constitution was built from, he says, "Life, Liberty, and the ownership of Land" (Or something similar). These words could also mean or point to ownership-- the baby is "owned" by the mother and father in the womb. No person can be owned or it's called slavery. So, is the baby a person? Does that baby have the same rights as other humans? If so, then killing it would be murder. If not, the baby is either a "slave", which is against the constitution, or just an object. :uhm: This is some complicated stuff. Personally, I am against abortion unless in cases of rape or incest. It's a very touchy subject.