Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote: It is man's hubris to believe we have complete control over our bodies.
It is foolishness to believe we can't affect change in our lives either. If you've ever even taken aspirin for a headache you are negating your own argument.
Taking an aspirin to help with a headache is far from having complete control over your body.
I agree with your first sentence though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/04 22:34:23
whembly wrote: It is man's hubris to believe we have complete control over our bodies.
It is foolishness to believe we can't affect change in our lives either. If you've ever even taken aspirin for a headache you are negating your own argument.
Taking an aspirin to help with a headache is far from having complete control over your body.
I agree with your first sentence though.
Maybe I'm reading to much into it, but then I think the idea of 'complete control' over anything, not just our bodies, is a silly standard to go by. Until we master every atom in existence we can never meet that standard.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Slarg232 wrote: Why is it that when it comes to Tabaco, Weed, or Alcohol, it's "OH LORDY, THESE NEED TO BE TAXED SO PEOPLE DON'T HARM THEIR BODIES OR OTHER PEOPLE!" and when it comes to abortion it's "Yeah sure, go ahead....."
I'm pretty sure that having an abortion isn't addictive...
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
whembly wrote: It is man's hubris to believe we have complete control over our bodies.
What's your point? We don't just say "it's man's hubris" and decline to work on cures for diseases, so why should miscarriages be any different? If you don't see miscarriages as a horrifying crisis that demands our full efforts (even at the cost of ending research into curing other problems) then you're admitting that the fetus isn't a person.
Slarg232 wrote: Why is it that when it comes to Tabaco, Weed, or Alcohol, it's "OH LORDY, THESE NEED TO BE TAXED SO PEOPLE DON'T HARM THEIR BODIES OR OTHER PEOPLE!" and when it comes to abortion it's "Yeah sure, go ahead....."
Because many people who support access to abortion DO think you should be able to have those things. I think the war on drugs is incredibly stupid and if someone wants to smoke some weed that's their business (and yes, it should be taxed, just like every other product or service).
CptJake wrote: Even in your example, not being able to make ends meet, means aborting for convenience.
You have a strange definition of "convenience" if it includes "I can't afford to feed this child so it will have a miserable life".
You really cannot look at those reasons and claim that the majority of abortions done because the pregnancy was due to rape or incest, or that the mother's life is in danger (which tend to be reasons a lot of pro-choice give).
Why do you give an exception for rape and incest? If "I can't afford to feed a child" is a matter of "convenience", then surely "I don't want to have the emotional difficulty of having my rapist's baby" is also a matter of "convenience".
And of course the rape exception is more proof that it isn't really a child. We don't consider it acceptable to kill a person because someone else committed a crime, so by allowing an exception for rape you're admitting that the fetus isn't really a person.
I find it interesting that Scott Peterson was convicted of 2nd degree murder for killing the fetus inside his wife when he capped her, and is a large reason he was sentenced to death. That seems to indicate that at some point the state of CA considers the fetus a person.
Or it suggests that "personhood" in this case is a legal fiction to allow a harsher sentence.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
CptJake wrote: I find it interesting that Scott Peterson was convicted of 2nd degree murder for killing the fetus inside his wife when he capped her, and is a large reason he was sentenced to death. That seems to indicate that at some point the state of CA considers the fetus a person.
Laci Peterson was 8 months pregnant. There hasn't been a single person in this thread to date that has argued for the legality of an abortion at 8 months.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ahtman wrote: Maybe I'm reading to much into it, but then I think the idea of 'complete control' over anything, not just our bodies, is a silly standard to go by. Until we master every atom in existence we can never meet that standard.
Most people don't understand how the majority of the things they interact with every day work on anything but the most general level. That doesn't stop them from working, nor does it mean that someone somewhere isn't working on understanding how that thing works to an ever increasing degree of detail, down to the quantum level (or even beyond perhaps...).
whembly wrote: It is man's hubris to believe we have complete control over our bodies.
It is foolishness to believe we can't affect change in our lives either. If you've ever even taken aspirin for a headache you are negating your own argument.
Taking an aspirin to help with a headache is far from having complete control over your body.
I agree with your first sentence though.
Maybe I'm reading to much into it, but then I think the idea of 'complete control' over anything, not just our bodies, is a silly standard to go by. Until we master every atom in existence we can never meet that standard.
I agree with you, but there seem to be quite a few people who don't think about it that much, or at all.
whembly wrote:Not because of the Mother's willful intent to cause the miscarriage... its due to nature's will.
So it's a theological thing? I mean, smallpox and polio are "nature's will", but we seemed to take exception to those.
Of course not... it's NATURE. You know, try as all you might... things happen in nature outside of our control.
It is man's hubris to believe we have complete control over our bodies.
Yet we DO attempt control... sometimes. And yet others we don't.
So then miscarriages are fine because there was a metaphysical roll of the dice somewhere, so we don't spend money on correcting those, even though that's thousands of DEAD BABIES a year. But polio deaths, also a metaphysical roll of the dice somewhere, were worth developing a vaccine over?
sigged. If you don't want this on my signature just let me know and i'll remove it.
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
Ouze wrote: I see no problem with prohibiting abortion past the point where the fetus is viable outside of the womb- i.e. what our current laws already support.
I can't agree with calling a lump of cells the size of a grape "a baby" and granting it rights greater than the person within whom it resides. So, I guess I'm with the libertarians on this one, right?
daedalus wrote: So then miscarriages are fine because there was a metaphysical roll of the dice somewhere, so we don't spend money on correcting those, even though that's thousands of DEAD BABIES a year. But polio deaths, also a metaphysical roll of the dice somewhere, were worth developing a vaccine over?
There's a major difference between a miscarriage and an abortion, which is, of course, intent.
And if they were able to "vaccinate" against miscarriages I'm sure many people would.
Ouze wrote: I see no problem with prohibiting abortion past the point where the fetus is viable outside of the womb- i.e. what our current laws already support.
I can't agree with calling a lump of cells the size of a grape "a baby" and granting it rights greater than the person within whom it resides. So, I guess I'm with the libertarians on this one, right?
I agree with the flying butt guy.
I think this is where most reasonable people draw a line.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/04 23:24:27
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
whembly wrote:Not because of the Mother's willful intent to cause the miscarriage... its due to nature's will.
So it's a theological thing? I mean, smallpox and polio are "nature's will", but we seemed to take exception to those.
Of course not... it's NATURE. You know, try as all you might... things happen in nature outside of our control.
It is man's hubris to believe we have complete control over our bodies.
Yet we DO attempt control... sometimes. And yet others we don't.
So then miscarriages are fine because there was a metaphysical roll of the dice somewhere, so we don't spend money on correcting those, even though that's thousands of DEAD BABIES a year. But polio deaths, also a metaphysical roll of the dice somewhere, were worth developing a vaccine over?
Uh... when have I ever said that we shouldn't spend money for those research?
o.O
I work in the fething healthcare industry... I'd WANT these research money rolling in...
You should almost never take away another persons decision,especially if it is not going to affect you in anyone.
However, I don't think it should be the first option for people to jump to, unless it's medically relevant. Explore the avenues, and take some time to think. If you then believe that it's your only option, then you should go for it.
Would I push for an Abortion, or would my wife ever get one? No, but that's our choice. I'm not going to push my views on anyone else, everyone should always have as many options available as possible.
I do believe, there was a study, about how legalized abortions in the U.S. contributed to a pretty significant drop in crime. Too lazy to look it up though.
Slarg232 wrote: Why is it that when it comes to Tabaco, Weed, or Alcohol, it's "OH LORDY, THESE NEED TO BE TAXED SO PEOPLE DON'T HARM THEIR BODIES OR OTHER PEOPLE!" and when it comes to abortion it's "Yeah sure, go ahead....."
I'm pretty sure that having an abortion isn't addictive...
Pretty sure almost everything is addictive if you do it enough times.
See Caffeine, Sugar, sleeping pills, pain pills, biting your nails, lying, buying any Trading Card Game, on and on.
Addictiveness isn't an argument.
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
CptJake wrote: The severity of the results of actually having the baby (not being able to make ends meet/getting kick out of the house and so on) really just help define how convenient it is.
And what is wrong with that? Do you really think forcing someone to have a baby they can't support is the higher road here?
Your asking a guy with three adopted kids, and who has two adopted brothers. As such, I submit that even if a woman carries the fetus through birth, there are options which do not mean the child grows up in abject poverty with a mother that cannot care for it.
I now see folks saying words to the effect of 'once it can live outside the mother without help perhaps we should not allow it to be aborted'? You are going to have to better define what you mean. Lots of kids born at 9 months need immediate and intensive medical support to live. Would your current argument mean it is okay to cap them? If not, why not? The typical answer will be because the kid was born. So now we are back to it isn't a person until it is born, as that seems to make some difference. Yet the killing an unborn 8 month developed fetus got Scott Peterson a 2nd degree murder conviction. So 8 months must be too old even if unborn. So what is the cut off that destroying the fetus = murder?
I'm sure I come across as a smart ass. Hooah, got it. I genuinely think folks need to really answer these questions though and then codify them into law, and if science later moves the timeline one way or another, the laws need to be adjusted regardless of how uncomfortable it makes people. I get the desire to defend 'choice'. But freedom of choice rarely allows one to take away another person's rights. And freedom of choice should NEVER imply freedom from consequences. So again, remembering that condoms and other birth control mechanisms are VERY widely available here in the US, and that the vast majority of abortions being performed in the US are done for reasons of convenience, I think we need to define at what point we assign personhood to the fetus and consider its rights worth defending. I am a limited gov't guy, but as I said earlier, one of the reasons we have a gov't is to secure the rights of those who cannot secure them for themselves. Children tend to fall into that category. So, now we need to define when that fetus is a person and entitled to legal protections.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/05 00:29:32
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: Yet the killing an unborn 8 month developed fetus got Scott Peterson a 2nd degree murder conviction.
Again, legal fiction. There's a huge difference between aborting an unwanted child and stacking extra charges on a murderer to ensure the death penalty.
So what is the cut off that destroying the fetus = murder?
Doesn't really matter. The vast majority of abortions happen before any reasonable cut off point, with only abortions done out of medical necessity happening that late.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: There's a major difference between a miscarriage and an abortion, which is, of course, intent.
But the same fetus is being destroyed. If abortion is murder then miscarriage is an almost unimaginable crisis killing millions of babies a year.
And if they were able to "vaccinate" against miscarriages I'm sure many people would.
The point is that we're currently not doing very much to work on a solution to miscarriages. The general consensus is that it's horrible when it happens (at least once the woman knows she's pregnant), but better luck next time. Our limited resources are better spent on things like cancer research to save people that aren't 20-week-old fetuses. However, if you feel that the fetus is in fact a person then stopping miscarriages becomes the highest priority, and you can tell all the cancer victims that sorry, we're stopping research on a cure for you to try to save fetuses.
And of course if you deny that miscarriages are the top priority you're conceding that the fetus at that point isn't really a person and its loss is not as important as the loss of a real person.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/05 00:40:11
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I can't agree with calling a lump of cells the size of a grape "a baby" and granting it rights greater than the person within whom it resides. So, I guess I'm with the libertarians on this one, right?
How about calling it what it is ; a human life in its embryonic stage? All this talk about 'meat blob' is disengenuous.
Let's all remember that by week 3 a human embryo is already building his nervous system, and that by week 6 he's already started the long process of 'compiling' his mind and consciousness.
Monster Rain wrote: When the death of an unborn person is conflated with that of a convicted murderer, the time for reasonable discussion has passed.
Well, its an interesting venue of interrogation. A pro-lifer who support the death penalty restricts his potential arguments to support his pro-life stance (or as to do some mental gymnastics to support it). A pro-choicer that criticize the death penalty does the same.
The problem is as follows ;
Can a conscious developped human entity that has done x/y/z horrible acts be killed in good faith? Can an unconscious, undevelopped human entity with no experience or agency be killed in good faith? Which of the enumerated characteristics should be evaluated in the answer to both statement, and why?
It seems to me to be a perfectly, if a little bit sidetracking, line of questionning.
Pro-choice. Most 'pro-life' arguments boil down to the same style as 'anti-gay marriage'. Either the big guy in the sky disagrees with it, or there's some specious logic twisted beyond all recognition.
To insert some suitable Caitlin Moran:
“I cannot understand anti-abortion arguments that centre on the sanctity of life. As a species we've fairly comprehensively demonstrated that we don't believe in the sanctity of life. The shrugging acceptance of war, famine, epidemic, pain and life-long poverty shows us that, whatever we tell ourselves, we've made only the most feeble of efforts to really treat human life as sacred.”
― Caitlin Moran, How to Be a Woman
When I see all these anti-abortionists getting just as worked up over war, povery, and famine, I might begin to pay attention to them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/05 02:11:33
Cheesecat wrote: Can't people already get money for donating blood or plasma?
Under most laws, not for selling blood or plasma (or sperm or organs), since you do not 'own' your body.
Many countries allow a roundabout way of doing this, giving cash to donors as compensation for the pain or the time. Not Canada, tho.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: Pro-choice. Most 'pro-life' arguments boil down to the same style as 'anti-gay marriage'. Either the big guy in the sky disagrees with it, or there's some specious logic twisted beyond all recognition.
To insert some suitable Caitlin Moran:
“I cannot understand anti-abortion arguments that centre on the sanctity of life. As a species we've fairly comprehensively demonstrated that we don't believe in the sanctity of life. The shrugging acceptance of war, famine, epidemic, pain and life-long poverty shows us that, whatever we tell ourselves, we've made only the most feeble of efforts to really treat human life as sacred.”
― Caitlin Moran, How to Be a Woman
When I see all these anti-abortionists getting just as worked up over war, povery, and famine, I might begin to pay attention to them.
Almost everyone agree that war, poverty and famine are negative states of being. Moran's argument is dumb in the extreme, as we have done an incredible lot across human history to advance our conditions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/05 02:18:55
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
Almost everyone agree that war, poverty and famine are negative states of being. Moran's argument is dumb in the extreme, as we have done an incredible lot across human history to advance our conditions.
Alright. Since its such a dumb argument, you'll have no trouble showing me the politicians in America who hold 'anti-poverty' as a massive part of their election campaign. You know, the ones whose supporters write massive blogs and articles denunciating all the people who are against anti-poverty measures as 'anti-life'. Those guys.
Because logically, they should be the same people as the anti-abortionists? Right? Because surely anyone who would consider themselves so 'pro-life' as to dictate and enforce what independent women may or may not do with their wombs and hold such strong views on the sanctity of life, would consider things like national health services and jobseekers benefits small beans in comparison.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/06/05 02:28:58
I can't agree with calling a lump of cells the size of a grape "a baby" and granting it rights greater than the person within whom it resides. So, I guess I'm with the libertarians on this one, right?
How about calling it what it is ; a human life in its embryonic stage? All this talk about 'meat blob' is disengenuous.
Let's all remember that by week 3 a human embryo is already building his nervous system, and that by week 6 he's already started the long process of 'compiling' his mind and consciousness.\
It's also the size of a pea. Sorry, not seeing that (yet) as a person with legal rights that supercede that of the woman it's in.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/05 02:29:31
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I can't agree with calling a lump of cells the size of a grape "a baby" and granting it rights greater than the person within whom it resides. So, I guess I'm with the libertarians on this one, right?
How about calling it what it is ; a human life in its embryonic stage? All this talk about 'meat blob' is disengenuous.
Let's all remember that by week 3 a human embryo is already building his nervous system, and that by week 6 he's already started the long process of 'compiling' his mind and consciousness.\
It's also the size of a pea. Sorry, not seeing that (yet) as a person with legal rights that supercede that of the woman it's in.
I was right there ^ ^ ^ ^ with ya... those exact same sentiment before my first squig was born. I have two rambuncious squiggies that'll no doubt turn into rampaging Sguiggoths. But, since they were born, my opinion has changed as I'm so much more pro-life.
Wanna know the weird thing? I don't think there should be an all-out ban... because it's such a dangerous precendent. I'd leave it up to the states.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/05 02:42:24
It may be akin to psyching out a pitcher on a winning streak, but I thought I should say that overall that this thread has not devolved as badly as quickly as they often do. Good Job OT.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Almost everyone agree that war, poverty and famine are negative states of being. Moran's argument is dumb in the extreme, as we have done an incredible lot across human history to advance our conditions.
Alright. Since its such a dumb argument, you'll have no trouble showing me the politicians in America who hold 'anti-poverty' as a massive part of their election campaign. You know, the ones whose supporters write massive blogs and articles denunciating all the people who are against anti-poverty measures as 'anti-life'. Those guys.
Because logically, they should be the same people as the anti-abortionists? Right? Because surely anyone who would consider themselves so 'pro-life' as to dictate and enforce what independent women may or may not do with their wombs and hold such strong views on the sanctity of life, would consider things like national health services and jobseekers benefits small beans in comparison.
I don't know the campaigns in the US. Here in Canada I'd say that 'anti-poverty' measures are on the slate of most of the federal parties, and most of the provincial ones. Disagreement over the methods/needs should not be misconstrued as lack of care over the issue. War, famine and poverty are issues which would currently demand incredible efforst and/or sacrfices on the part of an enormous mass of people to entirely resolve, even if that would be possible. Debate over which actions are ethical ones is much easier, and the legal system is influenced to a measure by public opinion.
And by no mean I've said that anti-abortionists should be the same people writing about anti-poverty measures. Human interest is limited and specialised. I've spent the majority of my life not having an opinion on abortion but having one on the death sentence.
Ouze wrote:It's also the size of a pea. Sorry, not seeing that (yet) as a person with legal rights that supercede that of the woman it's in.
Why should we limit ourselves to viewing only the current value of something, and ignore its future value? A good wine collector buys the bottles not for their current worth, but for what it'll be many years down the road.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/05 03:12:58
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Why should we limit ourselves to viewing only the current value of something, and ignore its future value? A good wine collector buys the bottles not for their current worth, but for what it'll be many years down the road.
And a vintner doesn't keep every grape that is on the vine, either.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Why should we limit ourselves to viewing only the current value of something, and ignore its future value? A good wine collector buys the bottles not for their current worth, but for what it'll be many years down the road.
For the same reason when you buy a packet of tomato seeds, you don't have to pay as much as you would for a bushel of tomatoes? I'm not trying to be flippant, I'm just not seeing the value of analogy here, and I say this as a connoisseur of analogies.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Kovnik Obama wrote: Why should we limit ourselves to viewing only the current value of something, and ignore its future value? A good wine collector buys the bottles not for their current worth, but for what it'll be many years down the road.
For the same reason when you buy a packet of tomato seeds, you don't have to pay as much as you would for a bushel of tomatoes? I'm not trying to be flippant, I'm just not seeing the value of analogy here, and I say this as a connoisseur of analogies.
If something is bound to develop itself into something which is considered of great value, or of the greatest value as it is often claimed, then it seems to me that you should not be treated entirely according to its current value. A 6 week old fetus is, yes, something digusting and hardly recognizable, incapable of anything currently, yet it still the seat of one of the greatest acheivement of nature ; human life in general, and the human brain and nervous system in particular.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
Maybe the difference between under-30s and their elders isn’t the era in which they grew up. Maybe it’s a lack of life experience. As young people pass from their 20s to their 30s, they get married and have kids. They lose their naïvete about self-realization, having it all, the equality of family structures, and the interchangeability of moms and dads. According to this theory, the reason why older people are more likely to believe that unwed motherhood is a big problem, or that kids do better with stay-at-home moms, is that beyond the age of 30, you discover that these things are true.
Spoiler:
Are Americans becoming more liberal about marriage, parenthood, and working women? A survey released last week by the Pew Research Center suggests we are. The survey showed big gaps between younger and older Americans on several questions: whether working moms make it harder to sustain successful marriages and raise children, whether kids are better off if their mothers stay home, and whether the increasing number of unwed mothers is a big problem.
The superficial interpretation of these findings is that the country will become more relaxed about family structure as the new generation replaces its elders. But on closer inspection, the picture is more complicated. What makes older people more conservative isn’t just age. It’s marital and parental experience. Yes, the population has become more liberal. But many of today’s young people will turn more conservative as they become moms and dads.
The Pew report cites previous polls that indicate changes in public opinion over time. In 1997, 82 percent of Americans said that the increasing number of women working for pay outside the home made it harder to raise kids, and 67 percent said it made successful marriages more difficult. In the new survey, those numbers have fallen, respectively, by eight and 17 percentage points. In 2003, 61 percent of Americans said children were better off if their mothers didn’t work outside the home. Today, that number is down to 51 percent. In 2007, 71 percent of Americans said that the increased prevalence of unwed mothers was a big problem. Now that number has slipped to 64 percent.
At first glance, the age breakdown of the Pew survey suggests these trends will continue. Compared with respondents aged 65 or older, respondents aged 18–29 were far less likely to say that unwed motherhood was a big problem (42 vs. 74 percent), that kids were better off if their mothers stayed home (37 vs. 58 percent), or that working moms made it harder to raise kids (60 vs. 76 percent) or sustain successful marriages (36 vs. 52 percent). It’s natural to infer that as sexists die out, the next cohort to reach middle age will be more egalitarian.
But the trend isn’t that simple. Take the question of whether the increase in working moms has made it harder for marriages to succeed. Among respondents under 30, the percentage who espoused this view was 36. Among respondents aged 30–49, the percentage rose to 54. But in the older age brackets—50 to 64, and 65 and over—there was no further increase. People born in the 1970s didn’t answer the question any differently from people born in the 1940s. The only division was between those who had turned 30 and those who hadn’t.
That raises an alternative possibility. Maybe the difference between under-30s and their elders isn’t the era in which they grew up. Maybe it’s a lack of life experience. As young people pass from their 20s to their 30s, they get married and have kids. They lose their naïvete about self-realization, having it all, the equality of family structures, and the interchangeability of moms and dads. According to this theory, the reason why older people are more likely to believe that unwed motherhood is a big problem, or that kids do better with stay-at-home moms, is that beyond the age of 30, you discover that these things are true.
Pew’s initial report showed little evidence for this theory. But Pew is no ordinary pollster. The folks who work there go out of their way to help reporters use their data. If you ask them to slice the numbers in a different way, within reason, they’ll do it. I asked them to break down the sample based on respondents’ answers to two other questions in the survey. One question was: “Are you currently married, living with a partner, divorced, separated, widowed, or have you never been married?” The other question was: “Do you have any children under age 18?” I wanted to see whether marital or parental experience influenced the respondents’ attitudes about wives and mothers.
The first tables Pew sent back were intriguing but fuzzy. Parental status made some difference, but not a lot, and not consistently. Marital status made a bigger difference, but the patterns weren’t clear. The categories were confusing. People who had no kids under 18 might be nonparents, or they might be empty-nesters. People who weren’t married might never have had a spouse, or they might have lost one. So I asked the researchers at Pew to separate the respondents without minor children into two subcategories: those over 50, who were more likely to be empty-nesters, and those under 50, who were more likely to be childless. I also requested three marital categories: married, never-married, and an “ex-married” group consisting of respondents who were separated, divorced, or widowed.
This time, the tables showed striking differences. On the attitudinal questions, people aged 50 or older who didn’t have minor children weren’t much different from people of any age who did have such children. But people under 50 who didn’t have minor children—the true nonparents—diverged sharply from those who had kids. Compared to parents under 50, nonparents under 50 were less likely to say that working mothers made it harder to raise kids (62 vs. 79 percent), less likely to say that working mothers made it harder for marriages to succeed (38 vs. 56 percent), less likely to say that kids were better off if their mothers stayed home (36 vs. 47 percent), and less likely to call unwed motherhood a big problem (49 vs. 63 percent).
The tables exposed similar gaps based on marital experience. Compared with people who had never been married, those who were married at the time of the survey were more likely to say that working mothers made it harder to raise kids (82 vs. 62 percent), more likely to say that working mothers made it harder for marriages to succeed (56 vs. 37 percent), more likely to say that kids were better off with their mothers at home (56 vs. 30 percent), and more likely to say that unwed motherhood was a big problem (74 vs. 44 percent). In nearly every case, the gap between marrieds and never-marrieds was bigger than the gap between the youngest age group (18–29) and the oldest (65+). If you want to predict what somebody thinks about women and families, marital experience is a better clue than age.
On their face, these numbers imply that marriage and parenthood could mitigate, or perhaps even halt, the liberal trend in public opinion. But that, too, is uncertain. On some questions, the cultural fight is effectively over. In the Pew survey, fewer than 30 percent of young people agree that it’s better for a marriage if a husband earns more than his wife, and the number doesn’t rise with age until you get to senior citizens. That sort of male supremacism seems to have fallen into permanent minority status. (On the other hand, even among young people, there’s a 30-point gap between the percentage who say kids do better with a stay-at-home mom and the percentage who say kids do better with a stay-at-home dad.) Furthermore, it’s highly plausible that many of the attitudinal differences between married and never-married people, and between parents and nonparents, are causes rather than consequences of marriage and parenthood. If you’re socially conservative, you’re more likely to get hitched and have babies.
But to the extent that experience affects our attitudes about women and families, what’s really intriguing in the Pew data is evidence that this factor cuts both ways. If entering marriage makes you more conservative, leaving it seems to make you more liberal.
To illuminate this pattern, you have to compare married respondents to respondents who classified themselves as separated, divorced, or widowed. On three of the four attitudinal questions, these ex-married respondents were significantly more conservative than never-married respondents, but not quite as conservative as married ones. Compared to marrieds, ex-marrieds were less likely to say that working mothers made it harder to raise kids (75 vs. 82 percent), less likely to say that kids were better off with stay-at-home moms (48 vs. 56 percent), and less likely to call unwed motherhood a big problem (65 vs. 74 percent). The only question on which the gap closed was the one about whether working mothers made it harder for marriages to succeed—a question on which a broken marriage obviously makes you more likely to say yes.
Maybe the sort of people who separate or divorce are simply more liberal than those who stay married. Or maybe the experience of living alone again, and perhaps raising a child by yourself, sometimes restores your confidence that working women can raise children without men around. Conservatives might expect the opposite: After your divorce, you’d find that raising a child on your own as a working parent is harder than it was when you had a spouse’s help. Either way, we’re better off if experience, not age, drives public opinion. Debates about marriage, motherhood, and sexual equality are best resolved not by dying but by living: not by the expiration of our elders, but by learning which claims about happiness and family structure—the left’s or the right’s—turn out, in real life, to be true.