# 48% of you were a mistake



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

If you were born in 1994.

Unintended Pregnancy in the United States

Now it's a statistic, they change, they are only as valid as the sample size and they are not the absolute truth.

The point I'm getting at, with this it can be said perhaps that a large portion births were never intended nor planned. A friend once said that children are baggage. What does this say about planned parenting from sexual reproduction for humans and how we really view kids?


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> If you were born in 1994.
> 
> Unintended Pregnancy in the United States
> 
> ...


Being a mistake doesn't mean that you're not wanted. And if you're wanted, it matters not that you were a mistake.

Your friend's opinion is your friend's opinion. As long as he doesn't have children, it doesn't really matter to anyone.
I'm sure more people have a more favourable opinion of children.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

It's called a "surprise", thank you very much.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

Well not to reinforce my friends opinion but yes he does have children.


----------



## Popinjay (Sep 19, 2011)

That's fucking messed up dude...fucking...messed...up...your semantics, I mean.

What you should have said is "48% of you were an accident". The connotation of 'mistake' implies the parents (mother) intended to get pregnant but in retrospect realize they should not have done so. The connotation of 'accident' implies the parents (mother) did not intend to get pregnant or have a child at all.

Sorry to be so harsh on you, man, but I don't apologize for feeling the way I do. You *REALLY* had it coming.

:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: :wink::wink::wink::wink::wink:


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

Popinjay said:


> What you should have said is "48% of you were an accident". The connotation of 'mistake' implies the parents (mother) intended to get pregnant but in retrospect realize they should not have done so. The connotation of 'accident' implies the parents (mother) did not intend to get pregnant or have a child at all.


 How do you think the kid feels?
In this case, you have sex, you know what sex leads to. If it truly wasn't a planned pregnancy no sex would of taken place; it is inherently a mistake. Accident would be if it was an unplanned pregnancy by having sex with protective measures and suddenly becoming pregnant however, there are always risks to be assumed here as well. One could also argue for if the person was inebriated from alcohol or drugs but that feels more like a cop-out. 

It was really meant to look at it from how we really view our children.

I'll admit I was thinking of a title that would shock and cause someone to come right in to chime a thought or two on the subject, I do realize the inherent differences in the two but this leads to better marketing potential for the thread...


----------



## Popinjay (Sep 19, 2011)

Sorry man...it was supposed to be a parody on the kind of response I figured you'd eventually get...the joke being I'm deeply upset and angry about your grammar or sentence structure as opposed to the actual content.

*Epic* fail on my part.

On a serious note, I figured the percentage would be much lower...like 15-20%, so 48% is a surprise.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

A mistake is something you regret. An unplanned pregnancy isn't necessarily one that's regretted.

You could plan a pregnancy and regret it, and that would be considered to be a mistake.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Considering we are not a collective "whole" when it comes to viewing kids it's meaningless to say "we" view anything a certain way.


----------



## kiskadee (Jan 9, 2009)

I was a surprise, not a mistake. :V


----------



## Aethera (Oct 3, 2011)

Answer to first clause in compound sentence posing questions at hand:
It doesn't say much about planned parenting, aside from the inference that the parents of babies born in 1994 were not partaking actively in it, as far as the statistic goes. Your friend's definitions are blunt. 'Kid' does not equal 'child' if we get into the nuances of the words, by my understandings. I'd suggest that 'kids' are baggage, and 'children' are absolutely stunning and never in the same class as the former.

Answer to second clause in compound sentence posing questions at hand:
We view 'kids' as functionally taking up resources. I could even go completely emotional and tell you flat out that they are merely long-term investments with no purpose other than vicarious living for past generations and avenues for the survival of the parents past their able years. You must also consider that modern society is utter bullshit when it comes to accepting people as valuable for anything other than the number of Joules they pump out over their lifetimes in menial tasks with no creative results outside of themselves, so such sequiturs make perfect sense if we want to follow the working definition of human machines which we've all come to know and love. I would do the calculus, but I'm reading Of Grammatology instead.


----------



## kudi (Sep 27, 2011)

A mistake resulted in penicillin, one of the greatest medical discoveries known to man. The scientist could have reacted by scrapping it and labeling a failed experiment, but he did not. A mistake doesn't equivocate to a bad thing or result, it all depends on a persons reactions and how they handle it. Sometimes it takes a 'mistake' child to turn someone's life around for the better.


----------



## Super Awesome (Jul 11, 2011)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> I
> A friend once said that children are baggage. What does this say about planned parenting from sexual reproduction for humans and how we really view kids?


What it says is that your friend is kind of a dick.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

kudi said:


> A mistake resulted in penicillin, one of the greatest medical discoveries known to man. The scientist could have reacted by scrapping it and labeling a failed experiment, but he did not. A mistake doesn't equivocate to a bad thing or result, it all depends on a persons reactions and how they handle it. Sometimes it takes a 'mistake' child to turn someone's life around for the better.


It was an accident! or maybe it was an anomaly... a mystery? um... hmm... /scratches head.

This is such a terrible argument of semantics its causing my head to explode. Let's call it a fuck up and be done with it then. Moving on.


----------



## kudi (Sep 27, 2011)

Thank you semantics police... just send me a private message next time with my violation & fine..


----------



## Hosker (Jan 19, 2011)

Why does it matter whether you were or not?


----------



## Obsidean (Mar 24, 2010)

Of course I was an accident, most people are. The thing with children is they are investments. They are a burden at the start but hopefully after the parents long investment in them, they will start to make profit. If they do it was a solid investment and they pat themselves on the back, however, if they do not it's a wasted investment and the mother should have had an abortion.


----------



## Sali (Feb 9, 2011)

Yep, I've known I was an accident for a very long time (I was adopted as a baby for christ sake). I don't really see what difference that makes at all?


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

Let's call things differently so it sounds better, follow along now.

Shrinking, no it's negative growth!
lay-offs, no it's down-sizing!
A Mistake, no it's a surprise!
Dying? No it's passing through!


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Let's call things differently so it sounds better, follow along now.
> 
> Shrinking, no it's negative growth!
> lay-offs, no it's down-sizing!
> ...


Why not just call out your "main point" instead of hide it under drastic words in an attempt to automatically get people emotionally invested?

Main point?

1. Kids are a waste?
2. Kids are a burden?
3. You (reader) weren't suppose to be here.
4. You (reader) are/were a burden.
5. Parents really don't care about kids they just say they do.

etc....

please enlighten.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

I really feel like some people just don't get what @Kayness was talking about. I found her words to be very direct yet people are still nitpicking over semantics and word choice. That's an exact component of her post for goodness sake! The straw man needs to stay in the cornfield with his cousin the scarecrow shoo away crows, he doesn't need to be brought into this thread.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

How about this bottom line idea, be a good parent. 


I do feel the semantics in this particular philosophy of thought are very important as they dictate the directed anger. We can condemn "bad people" all we want, but as stated aren't we making a bad choice using electricity to power the internet just so we can entertain ourselves with these "social" debates? What's "wasteful"? 

We can go through the bottom lines all we want and condemn/judge anyone we wish. Point is, not everyone is the same as their neighbor, everyone is different, their purpose in this life is different, people make choices that are not effective, some make choices that are poor in the eyes of society and aren't efficient to humanity's progress. If you want to be mad at the select few, that's all gravy, but what is the madness accomplishing? Is it effective? Is it doing anything productive?

If the semantics isn't liked to be squabbled over, make a new thread that is more direct to the "anger". Semantics truly do dictate the opinions of some on this issue, they also dictate perspective.

I know it probably hasn't be brought up yet, but what about the religious theory on this subject, would it be washed away so easily because of "semantics"?

That's just my two cents on this whole argument/discussion.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Kayness said:


> To have a child is to take on a gargantuan task: you’re talking about at least eighteen years of being responsible for the care and wellbeing of another _human being_. Yes, I italicized that, because from the posts, all children seem to be to some of you is an extension to your entitlement to arbitrarily reproduce or some shit. It is an undertaking that requires a huge amount of financial, mental and emotional resources, and for the first few years of a child’s life, it will be completely dependent on you for _everything _round the clock. You will also have to divert a huge chunk of your time and energy that you could have spent pursuing your interests or simply just anything that _you_ want to nurture another human being. Your life is not up to just you anymore. Every major decision you make will need to work around the needs of your child. Therefore, a child should only be born to parents who fully realize the monumental task that they are about to undertake, who have enough financial security and enough emotional maturity and stability to able to provide them with a safe, secure and stable environment for them to grow. For people who have children by accident or who does not have a full understanding of what it really means to have a child, I can say with certainty that this is more likely to breed resentment in them. I know for certain that there’s one parent who lives on food stamps and yet spends her food stamps on multi-packs of cans of soft drink, instead of maximizing the limited resources that she has by spending it on nutritious food that will better nourish her child. This is absolutely unacceptable and leads to moral outrage.
> 
> Of course, that is not to say I advocate marginalizing existing children born out of accident, because I don’t, but rather than baying at those who use the ‘wrong’ terminology, the outrage should have been instead directed at those who have children without thinking and effort should be made to reform the public attitude towards having children. It also is not good enough for people to just have children by accident even if they’re already financially stable, because what if there are existing children who may have to forgo certain things in order to accommodate a new arrival because there’s no increase in household income to anticipate this? It is also irrelevant that you will love and ‘want’ the child and consider it a ‘blessing’ or whatever to your life, because the lack of forethought in the circumstance in which it was conceived shows that you don’t care enough to take it seriously.
> 
> ...


It's illogical to assume a common cause between accidental pregnancy and careless parenting. These two things can exist independently, and sometimes can exist at the same time, but there's no common causality here in that X will bring about Y. I know plenty of people who were unplanned and their parents did an excellent job, which is a prima facie case against your argument here. But even beyond that, people have a great capacity for rising up and dealing with responsibilities that they did not necessarily choose. Parenthood does require responsibility but the seriousness of that responsibility is of such a caliber that a misuse of birth control does not serve as an adequate counter-point.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

I actually see what everyone's trying to say here, and I agree with @_Kayness_ in the aspect that a lot of unplanned children are being brought into the world. Many of them aren't loved or cared for the way they deserve to be. It's one of the many reasons I have such a passion for children. I also agree with her on the definition of "mistake." As previously stated by others, though, the fact that a child was a mistake or unplanned does not necessarily mean that the child won't be loved and cared for. I'd also like to point out that planning for a child does not necessarily mean that the parents will be good parents. Perhaps more financially secure, but the amount of things one has doesn't matter when the child knows that he/she is loved by his/her parents. In essence, being financially secure does not ensure that all of the child's needs will be provided for. Allow me to explain. I was raised in very poor neighborhood, but I received so much love, and my mother worked so hard to take care of me and my sister. I know that she loved me and that she was trying her best to provide for me. It meant so much to me that she would work as hard as she did in order to provide for me. I can honestly say that I wouldn't swap my childhood for a more financially secure one. I learned a lot and I saw first hand what the destitute peoples in our country go through. I saw a side of life that gave me insight to reality. As poor as we were, my needs were still met. I was fed, I had clothes, I went to school, and I was given a lot of love and attention. I learned at an early age how to be grateful for what I had. I guess I kinda rabbit-trailed xD ...like a lot. The point is that a child may or may not be loved and cared for whether they are planned or unplanned. I can pretty much safely guarantee that there are real examples for each option.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Good people are good, and bad people are bad. I like good people and I hate bad ones.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

@_Kayness_ and @_Stephen_ , 

I understand your outrage both at the fundamental problem as well as what you perceive to be dismissive responses. I think you're missing some subtlety here, and also overstating what this means. 

I'm not sure how much family planning that you are envisioning has occurred in human history, but I would hazard a guess that less than 10% of all humans ever born were really planned the way we'd define that word today. It's not that I think planning is irrelevant or bad, just that it doesn't happen very often and it's not necessary. 

I also agree with another poster that there's likely little if any correllation between "planning" and good parenting. I'll use my girlfriend as an example. Her ex-husband came from a _very _traditional Greek-American family, and believed strongly in having kids, woman staying at home, etc. They planned to have kids and in fact had two of them. He's an abysmal father, very detached and frankly apathetic. 

I _do _however find significance in the "out of wedlock" stats. While single parents can raise kids well, and married couples can certainly screw it up, there is more likely to be stability from the shared resources (money, time, effort, emotional support) of a marriage than from an unmarried person. Those stats alarm me, especially in conjunction with how many out-of-wedlock births are to young mothers, and people nowadays are socially maturing more slowly than they used to. Still, I'm not sure how much more a 16-year old single mom who planned her pregnancy is going to be prepared to successfully raise a child than will a 16-year old who didn't; ditto for any other age.

What I think people are doing in focusing on the perjorativeness of the word "mistake" is not to paper over whatever problems these stories are conveying, but to point out that the "mistake" of having a child, insofar as it's not a predictor of succes, is overly perjorative and implies that it _is_ such a predictor. Words do in fact have impact upon comprehension, and sometimes labelling something as "semantics" is overly dismissive.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Stephen said:


> @Kayness and I have been discussing this at length and we have some ranty stuff we want to get out there, so I'm going to share the analysis we've come to on this subject. She'll be posting around the same time with her thoughts on it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Objectively, in the denotative dictionary definition of the word "mistake" you're correct. However, one must take into account that in many (but not all) cases, that the objective mistake is a subjective surprise, delight, joy, etc. It is not anyone's place but the parent's and the child's to determine what that subjective descriptor of the child's birth is, and that has to do with personal attitude towards the child. Furthermore, you mentioned personal development. Imagine how developmentally challenging it would be for a child if their parents referred to them as a "mistake". If indeed a parent with an unplanned child still raises them in a loving and nurturing environment, such a descriptor would be folly.



Kayness said:


> I have wanted to actively participate in this thread ever since it was published, but something’s kept me from fully expressing how I truly feel about the responses to this thread.
> 
> It was rage. Pure, unadulterated, unbridled rage. Rage so intense and primordial, it feels like it is tapped from a vast, ancient reservoir so far beyond my physical self, and if I could, I would use it to uproot and destroy everything that is wrong in this world so that it can be rebuilt and renewed.


First rule in debate: never allow emotions to come into play unless you can play to a sympathetic audience.



> I am disgusted and outraged by the utter lack of empathy, no, _humanity_, by so many posts in this thread. Many of you claim to be angered and shocked by Thomas D M Thompson’s use of the word ‘mistake’, instead demanding that the situation be dressed up with some less ‘offensive’ terminology, like as if that’s _all_ that matters. Like as if by calling a child born out of accident a name more palatable, everything is suddenly ‘OK’, and you get to be the one standing on the ‘moral high ground’, to be somebody who ‘loves’ and ‘cares’ about children, or even *sneers* ‘have a favourable view’ on children. It’s the most deplorable, self-serving, transparent façade you all project, because the deafening silence on the underlying condition speaks volumes to me about how you really view children and parenting.


You have two presuppositions here that are not founded in evidence. The first one is that all of the people in this thread who were accidentally conceived never could have been raised well or the parents in this thread who accidentally conceived a child could never raise their child well. The second one is that such "sugarcoated" terms to describe the nature of these people's births are somehow ingenuine. Do you have evidence to back up these claims?



> To have a child is to take on a gargantuan task: you’re talking about at least eighteen years of being responsible for the care and wellbeing of another _human being_. Yes, I italicized that, because from the posts, all children seem to be to some of you is an extension to your entitlement to arbitrarily reproduce or some shit.


Here is a fourth presupposition: People who are having sex are not doing so recreationally; rather they are doing so to simply have children. This presupposition also negates the idea that the children in question were conceived by accident.



> It is an undertaking that requires a huge amount of financial, mental and emotional resources, and for the first few years of a child’s life, it will be completely dependent on you for _everything _round the clock. You will also have to divert a huge chunk of your time and energy that you could have spent pursuing your interests or simply just anything that _you_ want to nurture another human being. Your life is not up to just you anymore. Every major decision you make will need to work around the needs of your child. Therefore, a child should only be born to parents who fully realize the monumental task that they are about to undertake, who have enough financial security and enough emotional maturity and stability to able to provide them with a safe, secure and stable environment for them to grow.


You have two more presuppositions here. The fifth is that anyone truly knows how involved taking care of a child is. The sixth is that anyone who does not truly know how involved taking care of a child is will not be able or willing to adapt to the reality of the situation. I am willing to make a reasonable assertion that nobody truly knows the difficulty and commitment necessary to raising a child until they actually do it, planned or not. I am also willing to assert that if someone is morally inclined, one can and will adapt to the real requirements to raise a child.



> For people who have children by accident or who does not have a full understanding of what it really means to have a child, I can say with certainty that this is more likely to breed resentment in them. I know for certain that there’s one parent who lives on food stamps and yet spends her food stamps on multi-packs of cans of soft drink, instead of maximizing the limited resources that she has by spending it on nutritious food that will better nourish her child. This is absolutely unacceptable and leads to moral outrage.


I have seen parents who go to school, work, and find enough time for their child in between that. What does that say about them?



> Of course, that is not to say I advocate marginalizing existing children born out of accident, because I don’t, but rather than baying at those who use the ‘wrong’ terminology, the outrage should have been instead directed at those who have children without thinking and effort should be made to reform the public attitude towards having children. It also is not good enough for people to just have children by accident even if they’re already financially stable, because what if there are existing children who may have to forgo certain things in order to accommodate a new arrival because there’s no increase in household income to anticipate this? It is also irrelevant that you will love and ‘want’ the child and consider it a ‘blessing’ or whatever to your life, because the lack of forethought in the circumstance in which it was conceived shows that you don’t care enough to take it seriously.


Three presuppositions here. Presupposition number seven: unplanned children should be aborted. Should your implied assertion override ones moral objection to abortion? Does ones moral objection to abortion indicate a loving and caring person who would raise the child correctly, thereby overriding your assertion? I am inclined to believe the latter in most cases.

The eighth presupposition: Parents who have unplanned children did not take the necessary precautions of using contraception prior to sex. As we all know, contraception is not 100%. In the hypothetical situation of a married couple that don't want children yet, should they refrain from having sex since abstinence is the only sure way to prevent a pregnancy? Keep in mind that sex is just as much an expression of love as it is a method of reproduction.

The ninth presupposition: Whether or not an unplanned child is welcome and loved or not is irrelevant due to an ad hoc lack of care and love for the child stemming from the nature of its conception. I am _really_ curious about your reasoning here because this strikes me as obvious absurdity.



> It just insults me to even read the posts here and see people treat the issue of having a child by accident so lightly and even to condone it, because that’s what you all are doing. Your silence on the real issue and diversion to a superficial distraction that is semantics is your tacit condonation of treating a gravely serious issue like as if it’s some fucking joke, and reflects the underlying mentality that a child is something that’s acceptable to have on a whim or just because ‘the condom broke’ or some other shitty excuse. Do you see human _life_ as something that trivial? That the life of another human being is worth so little that it doesn’t deserve a consideration of the consequences of bringing it into this world?


The presuppositions here are ones I have pointed out before. Basically you have this perception that hasn't been entirely fleshed out, and you are projecting it onto everyone here. Furthermore, I am sure you have insulted many people in here as well with this post.



> What a fucking farce. I cannot fathom how you all can think what you do and still be able to sleep at night.


To be frank, the feeling is mutual! I happen to feel as strongly as you do for what you're arguing against. :happy:



> It is only through @_Stephen_ ’s temperance that some of you are redeemed in my eyes. He offered an explanation that the reason this thread went in direction that it did is due to people posting without giving a deeper consideration to the issue, instead reflexively react on the word ‘mistake’ used on children. I can almost forgive negligence, but not deliberate disregard for the value of human life.


Wait, so people got offended that unplanned children were being referred to as mistakes because that's not how they view their child, and that is somehow not giving deeper consideration to the issue, nor is it valuing human life? In what way is human life valued, then?



> My rage has been suppressed for so long, and now it’s unleashed, I will seek to fight anybody who dares to treat human life like it’s worth nothing more than the ground one walks on and those who protect that view.


Hmmm...well I don't want to fight anyone. I am more of a debater. However, we have very different opinions on what constitutes treating human life like it's worth nothing.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> Just because one did not plan the child doesn't mean that it's not wanted.
> I know people who've conceived out of carelessness. They didn't plan it. But the child is loved!! He wasn't planned, but he is loved, and considered by many to be a blessing.


As Kay said earlier,



Kayness said:


> It is also irrelevant that you will love and ‘want’ the child and consider it a ‘blessing’ or whatever to your life, because the lack of forethought in the circumstance in which it was conceived shows that you don’t care enough to take it seriously.


The argument is that the fact that you did not respect the process enough to make an effort to control it shows a disregard for the value of that human life. I believe that this will have an impact on how that child is raised. No matter how hard one tries to raise the child well, there was still that ethical lapse that demonstrates the carelessness of the parent.



twoofthree said:


> You can plan a child and not want or love it.
> 
> You can not plan a child and still want and love it. Quite a lot of people fall into this category.


Sure, this happens all the time. Becoming a mother doesn't make one love a child. Planning a child shows respect for the process. I'm not saying a parent who has an unplanned child automatically doesn't love the child. I'm saying they don't respect the value of that's child's generation, and I will, by default, doubt their ability to care for that child.



> Which one's the mistake?


Both are mistakes.



> Some of the things I've done deliberately have had worse outcomes than some of the things that have just happened.
> 
> I know which ones I'd consider to be mistakes.


How many of these resulted in the production of an independent human being?


----------



## BunBurry (Jul 1, 2010)

Why does this statistic matter? 
What did people call unplanned pregnancy *before* birth control was invented and what was the statistics back then?
Interesting thread, nonesense in a way but still... interesting.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> Just because one did not plan the child doesn't mean that it's not wanted.
> I know people who've conceived out of carelessness. They didn't plan it. But the child is loved!! He wasn't planned, but he is loved, and considered by many to be a blessing.
> 
> I've said it before in this discussion.
> ...


the fact that you're still debating semantics demonstrates your continued deliberate refusal to delve deep into the real issue, which is people being irresponsible and taking lightly an issue which should be gravely serious and having children without any sort of forethought or consideration of how much work it requires. It tells me everything I need to know about how you much worth you give to the value of human life, which is _nothing_. 

As we both agree, planning to have children and loving them aren't necessarily correlational, though I never even said anything to the contrary.

To quote my earlier post:


> Your silence on the real issue and diversion to a superficial distraction that is semantics is your tacit condonation of treating a gravely serious like as if it’s some fucking joke, and reflects the underlying mentality that a child is something that’s acceptable to have on a whim or just because ‘the condom broke’ or some other shitty excuse. *Do you see human life as something that trivial? That the life of another human being is worth so little that it doesn’t deserve a consideration of the consequences of bringing it into this world?*


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Stephen said:


> The argument is that the fact that you did not respect the process enough to make an effort to control it shows a disregard for the value of that human life. I believe that this will have an impact on how that child is raised. No matter how hard one tries to raise the child well, there was still that ethical lapse that demonstrates the carelessness of the parent.


That belief doesn't seem to be founded in empirical evidence, though. There's nothing to suggest that the incidence rate of bad parenting is somehow heightened by an accidental pregnancy, and in fact, I know quite a few unplanned kids who had fine parents. This would directly contradict your assertion that an unplanned pregnancy "will" have an impact on how the child is raised.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> But if you read the conclusion of the article, it's exactly what it's about. The point was there is/was a decrease in unintended pregnancy from 1987 to 1994 because of education and increased effectiveness of preventative measures.
> 
> P.S. I don't think abstinence is an unrealistic suggestion.
> 
> I don't think twoofthree was simply saying "give up precautions" just more like acknowledging that not all precautions work.


An improvement in the situation does not change the fate of those it's still happening to, or the failure of those who are doing it. Talking about the rare exception, where birth control is used properly and fails, can easily be interpreted as dismissive of the plight of the majority. I think you're sidestepping the matter by saying there are exceptions, whether you realize you're doing it or not. I think you're trying to say it's not automatically bad to have a child by accident because the child might be raised well.

I'm saying that people who fail to properly use birth control and become pregnant _have made a mistake and it's a big deal_. I'm also saying that those people are now significantly less likely to be good parents.

And regarding abstinence, maybe you're willing to take that precaution, but I would hazard that most are not.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

If this is taken to the extreme, you could say that having a child in a marriage where you weren't 100% sure it would stay together could be considered recklessly disregarding the child's emotions. But things don't always go as planned, and people can still overcome mistakes in the past.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> Families were happening long before we had any concept of family planning. . . Or was that just a whole lot of 'mistakes'?


It's only relatively recently that birth control technology even existed at all, let alone in a reliable form. Saying those from earlier times who did not plan children are somehow comparable to those today who ignore abundant, simple, and inexpensive contraceptive resources is absurd.



> So to me the percentage of us who were unplanned is irrelevant? how many were unloved?


I think it's relevant, and I expect there is correlation between planning and quality of parenting. Tie that to love if you wish. I assume parents can love unwanted children, even if it's less probable.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

Stephen said:


> I assume parents can love unwanted children, even if it's less probable.


Do you have anything to back that up? Sounds like a pretty baseless assumption.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Hokahey said:


> Good people are good, and bad people are bad. I like good people and I hate bad ones.


What is this even in reference to? It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand because good and bad are _subjectiv_e.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> I'm saying that shit happens. . . even with the best of intentions. So it isn't fair to condemn people or their deeds.


I'm not condeming people for their deeds, I've explicitly stated that:


> that is not to say I advocate marginalizing existing children born out of accident, because I don’t


Condeming is useless. It does nothing but to make people feel bad about something that they can't change. This is why I suggest:


> effort should be made to reform the public attitude towards having children


 It is pointless to get stuck what’s happened before or what is happening now, but we have the power to change what will happen in the future.


> I'm also saying that what makes a mistake isn't what happens but how we deal with it.


 A parent can love a child who’s not planned, a parent can not love a child who is planned. Yes, I acknowledge that, but:


> the lack of forethought in the circumstance in which it was conceived shows that you don’t care enough to take [having children] seriously


 Why is this? Because:


> To have a child is to take on a gargantuan task: you’re talking about at least eighteen years of being responsible for the care and wellbeing of another _human being_… It is an undertaking that requires a huge amount of financial, mental and emotional resources, and for the first few years of a child’s life, it will be completely dependent on you for _everything _round the clock. You will also have to divert a huge chunk of your time and energy that you could have spent pursuing your interests or simply just anything that _you_ want to nurture another human being. Your life is not up to just you anymore. Every major decision you make will need to work around the needs of your child.


 Yes, I also realize that even with the best intentions accidental pregnancies can still happen, but you don’t seem to care to work to shift the attitude that is conducive to minimizing the frequency in which this happens. It simply tells me everything about how you feel, or _don’t_ feel about the issue. Your apathy disgusts me.



> And so my postings in this thread have been to make that point. I.e.that an unplanned child isn't necessarily an unloved/unwanted one.


I never disagreed with that.



> And not everything unplanned would be considered a mistake.


You’re still debating semantics?



> Families were happening long before we had any concept of family planning. . . Or was that just a whole lot of 'mistakes'?
> So to me the percentage of us who were unplanned is irrelevant? how many were unloved?


 *sigh* you’re still debating semantics? OK.
It’s irrelevant what use to happen then, because society is different then. Now we have the technology at our disposal that gives us better control the consequences, and the better education. 
Also, I never said unplanned/mistake=unloved or unwanted


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

I'm a half-mistake. My parents actually wanted me to be three years younger than my sister. I'm only 1.5 years younger... _Some_ two people couldn't keep it in their pants for 1.5 years more... :laughing:


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Um @Kayness, can you like repeat everything you already said but highlight all the best points because reading hurts my brain.

:tongue:

OK seriously people, stop with the semantics. This is what holds people up in debates, they focus on words to avoid actually making a constructive argument. I know there are some Ti users in here, we know what you're all about but c'mon, give it a break. There is a connotation that "mistake" always means something bad, it doesn't inherently imply something is ALL bad.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Note: 

After putzing around in a few different sources, there seems to be some correlation between a child being born of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies and a higher tendency for such a child to be neglected, abused, suffer socioeconomic hardship, etc., compared to children who don't fall into this ... "category". This doesn't mean that every child born from an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy will suffer neglect or abuse, just that there is a correlation. There will certainly be children from unplanned pregnancies who end up being tended to and un-abused, but they are more likely to be neglected and abused.

At any rate, before I comment anymore on the subject I'd like to look into my sources a bit more!


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Fizz said:


> What is this even in reference to? It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand because good and bad are _subjectiv_e.


Defining a good and bad parent is subjective.


And saying because a child was a "mistake" or whatever word used, doesn't equate to the parents being bad.

A+B doesn't always equal C.


And the truth of the matter is that's what's being said, if you have a "mistake" you are a "bad parent". 

If a child makes a mistake, are they a bad child?


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> Um @Kayness, can you like repeat everything you already said but highlight all the best points because reading hurts my brain.
> 
> :tongue:
> 
> OK seriously people, stop with the semantics. This is what holds people up in debates, they focus on words to avoid actually making a constructive argument. I know there are some Ti users in here, we know what you're all about but c'mon, give it a break. There is a connotation that "mistake" always means something bad, it doesn't inherently imply something is ALL bad.


Thanks Fizz! I just feel like anything I say at this point and in the future on this topic in this thread is just repeating myself.

Strawmen do indeed belong in corn fields.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Stephen said:


> I'm saying that people who fail to properly use birth control and become pregnant _have made a mistake and it's a big deal_. I'm also saying that those people are now significantly less likely to be good parents.


Based on what? People make bad decisions all the time that affect human life, does this condemn them to be bad the rest of their life, or is there a chance for "redemption".

Also, what constitutes a "good parent", it's pretty much undefinable. Don't think many things can be said to make an established "good parent".


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Hokahey said:


> Defining a good and bad parent is subjective.
> 
> 
> *And saying because a child was a "mistake" or whatever word used, doesn't equate to the parents being bad.
> ...


They never said having a child that would be regarded as a "mistake" automatically makes them a bad parent. Also the second bolded statement is just a red herring.

I'm surprised with all the time you spend in debates that your words often don't offer much towards the argument. I'm tired of the straw man and you're holding his hand right now. You can call this ad hominem, I don't give a shit. This reply you gave me answers nothing because you aren't addressing the issue. Everyone in this thread seems to be misinterpreting what @Kayness has said.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

timeless said:


> It's illogical to assume a *common cause between accidental pregnancy and careless parenting*. These two things can exist independently, and sometimes can exist at the same time, but there's no common causality here in that X will bring about Y. I know plenty of people who were unplanned and their parents did an excellent job, which is a prima facie case against your argument here.


Straw man in bold. The connection we're talking about is between _failure to properly make the effort to prevent a pregnancy that is not wanted and a lack of foresight and understanding that will make someone less likely to be a good parent_. That's not the same thing as an accidental pregnancy, and it's not the same thing as bad parenting.

Substituting our argument back in where it belongs, no, it's not illogical. Further, she also stated that people can be good parents after making an irresponsible decision. I think this is the exception, rather than the rule.

How is this a prima facie case?



> But even beyond that, people have a great capacity for rising up and dealing with responsibilities that they did not necessarily choose. Parenthood does require responsibility but the seriousness of that responsibility is of such a caliber that a misuse of birth control does not serve as an adequate counter-point.


I disagree. I think a misuse of birth control, or failure to use birth control at all, shows great irresponsibility and a disrespect for the value of a child. And yes, that parent had best "rise up and deal with responsibilities" as you put it. This is serious shit, and it seems clear to me that one's unwillingness to pay attention to the simple cause and effect involved in having sex without proper protection is a pretty grave failing.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Stephen said:


> I'm saying that people who fail to properly use birth control and become pregnant _have made a mistake and it's a big deal_. *I'm also saying that those people are now significantly less likely to be good parents.*





Fizz said:


> They never said having a child that would be regarded as a "mistake" automatically makes them a bad parent.


This?........"significantly" was added, however following the trail of all the other posts it seems clear it mean "all".

Also to bring up they said "significantly", who's arguign semantics now?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

We could really argue the semantics of the two quotes for a good while, but really it's just a detractor from the issue at hand. But, if you want to argue semantics ... to put it bluntly ... "significantly less likely to be good parents" is not the equivalent of "automatically [...] a bad parent."


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Stephen said:


> Straw man in bold. The connection we're talking about is between _failure to properly make the effort to prevent a pregnancy that is not wanted and a lack of foresight and understanding that will make someone less likely to be a good parent_. That's not the same thing as an accidental pregnancy, and it's not the same thing as bad parenting.


We're dealing with a pregnancy here, yes? We're dealing with a pregnancy that happened by accident, yes? Then we certainly are talking about an "accidental pregnancy." I shouldn't have to point out the hair-splitting required to accept your proposition that not being a "good parent" is somehow not the same thing as being a "bad parent."

To reiterate, my position is that you will find a certain level of carelessness in birth control and a certain level of bad parenting in any population. I don't see a reason to assume a commonality here. Certainly the cases of parents acting badly with planned children would offset parents acting badly with unplanned children.



> Substituting our argument back in where it belongs, no, it's not illogical. Further, she also stated that people can be good parents after making an irresponsible decision. I think this is the exception, rather than the rule.


This is why I find this belief irrational; you are claiming that it would be the "exception" for a parent of an unplanned child to be a "good parent." That's a pretty strong statement, and it's not founded in anything objective. I'm guessing that's why you didn't respond to my post earlier about empirical evidence, because there is none for this contention.



> How is this a prima facie case?


See above.



> I disagree. I think a misuse of birth control, or failure to use birth control at all, shows great irresponsibility and a disrespect for the value of a child. And yes, that parent had best "rise up and deal with responsibilities" as you put it. This is serious shit, and it seems clear to me that one's unwillingness to pay attention to the simple cause and effect involved in having sex without proper protection is a pretty grave failing.


You keep repeating this over and over but you've shown nothing for it but your own assertion.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

redmanXNTP said:


> I'm not sure how much family planning that you are envisioning has occurred in human history, but I would hazard a guess that less than 10% of all humans ever born were really planned the way we'd define that word today. It's not that I think planning is irrelevant or bad, just that it doesn't happen very often and it's not necessary.


A comparison between modern people willfully failing to use abundant and inexpensive contraception to prevent a pregnancy they do not want and couples throughout pre-existing human history is unreasonable. In today's world, we have the technology to prevent such things.



> I also agree with another poster that there's likely little if any correllation between "planning" and good parenting. I'll use my girlfriend as an example. Her ex-husband came from a _very _traditional Greek-American family, and believed strongly in having kids, woman staying at home, etc. They planned to have kids and in fact had two of them. He's an abysmal father, very detached and frankly apathetic.


I was planned as well, and my father was a philandering, abusive, vicious fuck. I got by through the incredible stoicism and defensive capabilities of my mother. I was happy when my father died. These exceptions don't define the issue at hand, which is that an unwillingness to properly attempt to prevent a pregnancy that is unwanted is irresponsible and shows a lack of respect for the eventual child.



> What I think people are doing in focusing on the perjorativeness of the word "mistake" is not to paper over whatever problems these stories are conveying, but to point out that the "mistake" of having a child, insofar as it's not a predictor of succes, is overly perjorative and implies that it _is_ such a predictor. Words do in fact have impact upon comprehension, and sometimes labelling something as "semantics" is overly dismissive.


While some are making that argument, many others are simply joking or getting butthurt over the use of the word. It's a long thread now, but have a look through. Many are obsessing over the word without thinking about the greater issue.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Hokahey said:


> This?........"significantly" was added, however following the trail of all the other posts it seems clear it mean "all".
> 
> Also to bring up they said "significantly", who's arguign semantics now?


As @koalaroo said, you're arguing semantics and further proving my point that you aren't arguing the issue. You're not on topic, you're obsessing over words and nitpicking over details. You completely avoided addressing most of my post, especially the straw man or red herring.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Stephen said:


> I was planned as well, and my father was a philandering, abusive, vicious fuck. I got by through the incredible stoicism and defensive capabilities of my mother. I was happy when my father died. These exceptions don't define the issue at hand, which is that an unwillingness to properly attempt to prevent a pregnancy that is unwanted is irresponsible and shows a lack of respect for the eventual child.


From a Freudian perspective, I think you're imputing your feelings toward your father's irresponsibility on other parents. You identify with the stoicism of your mother, so you divide parents into "fathers" (e.g. irresponsible parents) and "mothers" (e.g. parents who prepare cautiously.) Just a thought.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Fizz said:


> As @koalaroo said, you're arguing semantics and further proving my point that you aren't arguing the issue. You're not on topic, you're obsessing over words and nitpicking over details. You completely avoided addressing most of my post, especially the straw man or red herring.


Well if it's a strawman or red herring, I didn't feel it made sense to bring them back up. Do you agree?

I did answer your post, you said "they didn't say this" however I pointed out they did. I fail to see how that's not relevant?


The matter at hand is "people make mistakes" they are very costly and some are just plan bad because they failed to "prepare" for them, no one is actually arguing against that, however people are arguing against saying "because people make mistakes, the mistakes will grow and constantly be bad, or those making the mistakes are going to be bad parents."

You aren't going to come into a room say, "these people under these circumstances equal "bad parents"" without getting flack for it. A "bad parent" is a very very subjective thing.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

I think if the argument was separated into two different subjects:

1. Irresponsible people when it comes to reproduction.

- I'm sure many would agree in a thread about this.
--I would agree I dislike when people are irresponsible when it comes to reproduction and how it affects our world.


2. Bad parents

- I highly doubt "as many" would agree in this thread.

--some people still believe if you beat the shit out of their kids, it's "tough love".

I think it would be more effective.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> First rule in debate: never allow emotions to come into play unless you can play to a sympathetic audience.


 Too bad I don’t come from your school of debate. Emotions is what moves me, and anger is what motivates me to address and work to prevent or stop what I think shouldn’t be happening, or at least to get my voice out and be heard. Also, emotions inevitably come into play when talking about any issue pertaining to human beings and their relationships. I could take emotions out, but then I wouldn’t be here ‘debating’ in the first place. I would be like what I was a few years ago, a numb, unhealthy Nine, deep in my shell and not wanting to face anything in case it might upset me. I wouldn’t have given a shit enough to debate. Pathos is also a valid, commonly used communication technique. Perhaps it doesn’t work for you, but it works for me.


> You have two presuppositions here that are not founded in evidence. The first one is that all of the people in this thread who were accidentally conceived never could have been raised well or the parents in this thread who accidentally conceived a child could never raise their child well. The second one is that such "sugarcoated" terms to describe the nature of these people's births are somehow ingenuine. Do you have evidence to back up these claims?


 Oh hello there strawman. I NEVER said that “all of the people in this thread who were accidentally conceived never could have been raised well or the parents in this thread who accidentally conceived a child could never raise their child well.” Or anything like it, because that’s not my argument. I believe that a parent can have a child out of accident and raised it well and love it very much, and vice versa can be true. That’s never my point. My point is it shows a lack of forethought and carelessness, as quoted:


> the lack of forethought in the circumstance in which it was conceived shows that you don’t care enough to take it seriously


 This is something that bothers me because:


> To have a child is to take on a gargantuan task: you’re talking about at least eighteen years of being responsible for the care and wellbeing of another _human being_. Yes, I italicized that, because from the posts, all children seem to be to some of you is an extension to your entitlement to arbitrarily reproduce or some shit. It is an undertaking that requires a huge amount of financial, mental and emotional resources, and for the first few years of a child’s life, it will be completely dependent on you for _everything _round the clock. You will also have to divert a huge chunk of your time and energy that you could have spent pursuing your interests or simply just anything that _you_ want to nurture another human being. Your life is not up to just you anymore. Every major decision you make will need to work around the needs of your child.


 And it bothers me because:


> That the life of another human being is worth so little that it doesn’t deserve a consideration of the consequences of bringing it into this world?


 They may be marvelous parents afterwards, but that’s not what I’m arguing.


> Here is a fourth presupposition: People who are having sex are not doing so recreationally; rather they are doing so to simply have children. This presupposition also negates the idea that the children in question were conceived by accident.


 Mind if I pour lighter fluid and light your strawman up? It’s kinda taking up too much space. I’m also a little pyro.
Of course people have sex recreationally, and some fail to take proper precautions, that’s why we have children born out of accident, DUH. I never even said anything like that, how on earth did you read that? The eighteen years thing is to illustrate the consequence one reaps from a moment of carelessness.


> You have two more presuppositions here. The fifth is that anyone truly knows how involved taking care of a child is. The sixth is that anyone who does not truly know how involved taking care of a child is will not be able or willing to adapt to the reality of the situation. I am willing to make a reasonable assertion that nobody truly knows the difficulty and commitment necessary to raising a child until they actually do it, planned or not. I am also willing to assert that if someone is morally inclined, one can and will adapt to the real requirements to raise a child.


 I don’t think anybody ‘truly’ knows the amount of work involved into taking care of a child, but why should _exact _values matter? Anybody who’s been raised by a parent or a guardian who at least gives a shit can realize the amount of money and work and effort that goes into raising a child even if they have never had a lot of first-hand experience themselves, maybe not the exact amount but it’s a LOT. A LOT more than anybody should go into so carelessly. Of course somebody can have children by accident and love and want and do whatever the child a best life it can have, but that’s not what I was saying.
You know what? At at this point in time I’m starting to think you’re just arguing with me for the sake of arguing, i.e. in bad faith. Your post is full of misrepresentation of my points, but I’ll keep on replying to you anyway.


> Three presuppositions here. Presupposition number seven: unplanned children should be aborted. Should your implied assertion override ones moral objection to abortion? Does ones moral objection to abortion indicate a loving and caring person who would raise the child correctly, thereby overriding your assertion? I am inclined to believe the latter in most cases.


 Holy shit, dude! You own a farm or something? You seem to have a barnyard full of straw. 



> The eighth presupposition: Parents who have unplanned children did not take the necessary precautions of using contraception prior to sex. As we all know, contraception is not 100%. In the hypothetical situation of a married couple that don't want children yet, should they refrain from having sex since abstinence is the only sure way to prevent a pregnancy? Keep in mind that sex is just as much an expression of love as it is a method of reproduction.


Again, I didn’t say that. 


> The ninth presupposition: Whether or not an unplanned child is welcome and loved or not is irrelevant due to an ad hoc lack of care and love for the child stemming from the nature of its conception. I am _really_ curious about your reasoning here because this strikes me as obvious absurdity.


You know what’s absurd? Strawmen and red herring.
Also, you know what? I’ve changed my mind. Your post is full of random and invented thoughts and I’m not going to waste my time.


----------



## secretspaz (May 26, 2011)

I was the only planned one out of four so I can believe that. Actually, so are the majority of other people between 1990 - 1995 that I know.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

edited because it really didn't make sense or express my point correctly.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

I didn't make my last post clear.

People are saying a good parent "can"/"could" be found under any possible circumstance. Which I assume is agreed upon from everyone here?


Some people don't think life should be taken lightly and are probably just as sick of careless people and people who really don't care at all about life.


So both sides agree it seems to me. However the part that isn't being agreed upon is simply saying the 2nd part will absolutely lead to bad parenting. Which again, seems like everyone is agreeing it's not true. 


Going back to the "scope" of the topic, I still say human beings aren't collective enough to say we "view" any particular subject as a collective whole. I think it's all about perspective, some people don't think life is precious, who is to say it really is? Who is to say it isn't? 

We all follow a course of perspective based on whatever defines ourselves. I don't agree with people on certain things, and then others I do. I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's opinion or beliefs. There are concerns in this world on a global scale, some people choose ways to deal with them. One great example would be birth control/etc. which is actually what the article is about, it's about how effective birth control and education has been to reducing unintended pregnancy, is that number zero? No. Sadly it may never be. I don't think people are saying preventative measures shouldn't be taken lightly, or anything else for that matter, it's simply infringing on the idea that unintended babies can't be loved or wanted.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Kayness said:


> Too bad I don’t come from your school of debate. Emotions is what moves me, and anger is what motivates me to address and work to prevent or stop what I think shouldn’t be happening, or at least to get my voice out and be heard. Also, emotions inevitably come into play when talking about any issue pertaining to human beings and their relationships. I could take emotions out, but then I wouldn’t be here ‘debating’ in the first place. I would be like what I was a few years ago, a numb, unhealthy Nine, deep in my shell and not wanting to face anything in case it might upset me. I wouldn’t have given a shit enough to debate. Pathos is also a valid, commonly used communication technique. Perhaps it doesn’t work for you, but it works for me.


Well essentially that's what I said, but if your audience isn't sympathetic, or you're just downright rude in your delivery, you might as well be pouring your heart out to a brick wall. 



> Oh hello there strawman. I NEVER said that “all of the people in this thread who were accidentally conceived never could have been raised well or the parents in this thread who accidentally conceived a child could never raise their child well.” Or anything like it, because that’s not my argument. I believe that a parent can have a child out of accident and raised it well and love it very much, and vice versa can be true. That’s never my point. My point is it shows a lack of forethought and carelessness, as quoted:
> 
> This is something that bothers me because:
> 
> ...


Perhaps instead of attacking me, you can attack my points, pointing out where I went wrong. My intentions were not to make you the straw man. I simply meant to show you the presuppositions I read from what you said. I read your post several times, and those are what I drew from it. I also appear not to be the only person who read into your post in that way. If you would like to break down what you meant in a more calm tone, I will reevaluate what I said. Otherwise, re-quoting yourself using the same stuff I seem to have misunderstood in your opinion is not going to change my mind.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Oh Stephen oh Stephen oh Stephen
Its time to take you down with a beating
Your thoughts in this thread leave me speechless
like a T-bone steak that is meatless



Bizzar, that is all.


----------

