There are many women in the United States who oppose abortion, and if asked would agree that federal money shouldn't fund it, so the assertion that the amendment throws 50 percent of the population under the bus isn't accurate, unless one takes the position that these anti-abortion women are suffering from false consciousness.
To which Ann Friedman rejoindered:
Actually, no matter what their beliefs about abortion, every woman in this country is indeed screwed over by this amendment. Many, many women who are opposed abortion rights have exercised those rights themselves -- whether for health reasons or because, when it came right down to it, they simply found themselves making a different choice than they thought they would in that situation. They might not think they're under the bus, but they probably don't think they'll ever need an abortion, either. Doesn't mean either statement is true.
Actually, no, at this point a majority of women in this country are old enough that it would either be impossible, or extraordinarily unlikely, for them to conceive. Some of the women of reproductive age are either infertile, or have had themselves sterilized. Others are lesbians, or long-term virgins. So in fact, at best you can argue that we've thrown a small minority of the population "under the bus".
And as a response, this seems to trivialize the preferences of pro-life women in a way that I find pretty disturbing from feminists. In what other area of life is it okay to pat the little lady on the head and tell her that she doesn't really want what she says she wants, because she might regret it later? Feminists get righteously angry when pro-lifers attack abortion rights on the grounds that a significant minority of women later regret having one--or when doctors won't tie our tubes, or give us IUDs, or otherwise allow us to make permanent choices about sexuality. We don't regard virtually everyone's preferences for laws against murder, rape, burglary, embezzlement, etc as somehow inauthentic because some minority of us will violate those laws. And as it happens, the rate of abortion seems to be pretty strongly inversely correlated with having pro-life views, at least at the state-by-state level.
Obviously, since I'm pro-choice, I think you can argue against abortion control in many effective ways. But this is not one of them--at least not if you hew to the feminist notion that women are entitled to their own choices and preferences as individuals, not lumped in with some vast undifferentiated mass of women who all want the same thing.
"Others are lesbians, or long-term virgins"
Oh! Megan insults both the lesbians and potential mothers of the living God by assuming that neither group is capable of becoming pregnant and regretting it enough to consider abortion!
"In what other area of life is it okay to pat the little lady on the head and tell her that she doesn't really want what she says she wants, because she might regret it later?"
Well, if I follow the argument presented on Roissy's blog correctly, most areas. But then he's not much of a feminist, at least according the the 'traditional' definition, anyway.
What about the trannies? I wonder how they feel?
Fact of the matter is that Democrats are the Party of Officially Killing Black Babies ... so rest assured that a black woman's requirement to abort her fatherless child will not be disturbed by Doctor Barack "Death" Obama.
The Genocide of African Americans will continue unabated.
You must be the guy that makes up the chalkboards for Glen Beck.
Perhaps you'd prefer Kate Harding in Salon:
Face it. The Democrat Party is not for women.
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/11/10/stupak_stupidity/
So, right there, you have the two largest Democrat voting blocs voting against their own interests. Democrats fund the genocide of black babies through Planned Parenthood and now they're going after the white women too.
I make it a point not to argue with the insane.
You cannot ethically frame this argument in terms of whom it effects medically. The abortion argument has never been, and will never be, only relevant when framed by, for, and to women of child-bearing age and ability. That is absurd.
Inasmuch as the core issue has always been some variant of "is a fetus equivalent to a human being?" it is insulting to think that only fertile women have a stake, or a voice in this. Doubly so, now that the issue is "will everyone be force to pay for abortions?"
Unless fertile women are the only people who would have to pay for abortions - and I don't ever recall that being proposed - this is an issue that rightfully involves every taxpayer.
The issue on abortion is one of ethics, not of medicine. And the issue here is whether people will be forced to pay for something that they believe is or is not murder.
Period.
The core issue is: "Is the mother black?"
If so, funds will be found - federal or otherwise. Democrats simply will not allow black people to pro-create in natural numbers. They'll pay any political price to keep the Genocide going.
You know, I used to think you were sane. In retrospect, I'd wager I just wasn't reading as closely as I should have been.
Nice reply. Full of facts and figured to back up your assertions.
Well reasoned.
Douché, sir.
Douché.
Who said I was trying to make an argument? Opinions really don't require citation. Still, if you want one, I suppose it can be arranged. Just insert a footnote at the end of my previous comment, citing your comment of 11/11/09, 5:30 PM.
Happy?
Any evidence that legal abortions actually reduce birthrate? Illegitimacy has certainly increased with increasing abortions, when we might expect the opposite.
If you kill 700,000 black babies a year, you've reduced the birthrate by 700,000 black babies.
Generally, legalized abortion increases the pregnancy rate and lowers the birth rate on the whole. I don't have any cites handy for that though.
And MTG, not true. If 500,000 of those black babies were only conceived because abortion is legal and the would-be mothers are having more/riskier sex because they know abortion is there to clean up the mess(and the stats I've seen say that's the case for the population as a whole, so I assume it's true of subsets as well), then 700,000 abortions lowers the birthrate by 200,000.
As balanced an argument as I would expect from a one-armed fruitcake.
Why aren't you out looking for work, bumblefuck?
movertyperguy is just turning around an old pro-choice trick against them: assuming negative motives for your opponents, while ignoring their real concerns.
Through this thread you can see plenty of 'pro-lifers want to punish women for their sexuality' clap-trap. The truth is that the concern for pro-lifers is the killing of babies, but that in practice, if we pro-lifers had our way, women would be to some degree more constrained in their sexual lives than they are now. This is a side-effect, not a goal for most of us.
And similarily, pro-choicers do not, in general, hate black people and want to see fewer of them born. Pro-choicers care about freedom and equality for women. The fact that wide access to abortion results in disproportionately far fewer black people in our society is a side effect and not a goal of the pro-choice agenda.
So movertyperguy's argument here is useful in the sense that it lets pro-choicers experience their own widely used rhetorical tricks from the other end, but it doesn't advance discussion on the issue beyond that.
"... it lets pro-choicers experience their own widely used rhetorical tricks from the other end ..."
Rules #4 For Radicals:
Liberals who support abortion kill more black babies every year in the United States than die in Darfur each year from the Genocide (which affects mostly adults).
movertyperguy,
I'm not sure it's wise to adopt Alinsky's tricks ourselves. Things like that tend to have diminishing returns. There may be some people who really believe pro-lifers hate the sexual freedom of women, but I suspect they are a shrinking group. And the more the pro-choice side bangs on that drum, while ignoring the fact that most people, even non-pro-life people, are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the on-going killing- the more they are destroying their own credibility.
We win this argument when both sides' motives are honestly characterized - which is of course why they have invested so much in distorting our motives. I'm not sure that we win by going down the radicals path: we may only cripple our own credibility.
In short, Lincoln beats Alinsky:
"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
The whole 'Rules for Radicals' approach is based on the premise that, with enough propaganda the people will be fooled all of the time. I'm betting against that premise.
An excellent point, nevertaken. I'd only add that at least some of the folk at the founding of the pro-choice movement did have reducing 'undesireable' populations as a goal, not just a side-effect.
Margaret Sanger is one such.
In point of fact, many of the positions of the original "progressives" would be abhorrent to those who today proudly claim the "progressive tradition" were they to ever bother learning their own history.
I think this misses Friedman's point in a couple of ways.
1. Friedman isn't being paternalistic. She isn't saying "you pro-lifers are too shortsighted to realize how you might need abortion rights", though surely a lot of pro-lifers DO have very unrealistic attitudes about pregnancy, sex, and the need for contraception (I'm talking to you, "true love waits" crowd!). Rather, she's saying that just because someone has a political preference for the pro-life side or even a personal aversion to abortion doesn't mean that having the right available wouldn't benefit that person. She might very well, in a different time in her life and in different circumstances, decide she needs to have an abortion. Not because her earlier view is a false consciousness or because of any intellectual incapacity, but just because circumstances change.
Indeed, think of Sarah Palin considering an abortion (as she admits she did) when she found out the fetus she was carrying had Down Syndrome. She might have never imagined that she might want an abortion, not, again, because she was stupid or hadn't thought through her views, but just because she never thought that she might ever face a Down Syndrome pregnancy. So, it even throws Sarah Palin under the bus, in a sense, when abortions are made more difficult to procure.
2. The women who benefit from abortion rights are not only those who are currently sexually active and fertile. Women who will be sexually active and fertile in the future also benefit. So do women who are not sexually active (or are not having vaginal intercourse with men) but who are fertile and could be raped. So do women (and men) whose daughters are sexually active and fertile. Indeed, legal abortion even, in all probability, increases the security people feel when they pursue sexual relations, which benefits everyone in the sexual "marketplace"-- i.e., it probably increases the availability of sex, even to the infertile.
When you total it all up, that's a pretty huge chunk of the female population who benefits from legal abortion.
women are not continuously fertile, a point obscured by pro-abortion folks. fertility awareness is actually effective in preventing or reducing (depending on the woman's preference) unexpected pregnancies.
fertility awareness means either using a barrier birth control method if choosing to have sex while fertile, or avoiding procreative sex methods while fertile.
out of a given cycle of 28 days, say, a woman will be able to actually get pregnant for about 5-7 of those days.
this biological reality is completely dismissed when bringing up how women need abortion for insurance against getting pregnant. most women don't actually know they are infertile most of the time. that changes how one might view the risk of pregnancy and resultant methods of dealing with it. it might also change one's view of always being sexually available to men as the most feminist choice possible.
abortion rights look very different when you realise most women simply cannot get pregnant at the drop of a hat and that the lie that they can has governed much of the abortion debate.
it is also quite ironic that fertility awareness to optimise conception chances is very popular among the same upper middle class white women who campaign so hard for other, younger, more reliably fertile women to get abortions (and who were happy to get abortions themselves when they were younger and had more fertile days per cycle to work with).
Fertility awareness isn't "effective" if what you mean is that a woman can have a freewheeling sex life throughout the month whenever the mood strikes her with whatever partner she desires without having to have any worry that she might be stuck with a baby.
Fertility awareness is moderately effective if you have a woman who really doesn't mind giving up sex for part of the month and really doesn't mind if an accident happens and she has to deal with a pregnancy and bear a child.
And since the first scenario is what most women think of as effective birth control, fertility awareness (which was NOT, in fact, conceived as a fullproof way of having sex without conceiving but was rather conceived as a way to fit human sexuality within absurd and silly religious restrictions) is a nonstarter for most women.
i find it interesting that you think the narcissistic selfishness in the first example is ok. also, most women do not in fact know they aren't continuously fertile. plenty of women really do believe they continuously ovulate or ovulate multiple times per cycle.
fertility awareness is 95% effective when practiced among nonliterate populations, as one example of demonstrable effectiveness. above 99% in some populations.
as i already noted, what is so precious about procreative sex for pro-abortion people that giving it up for 5-7 days (when most women also do not have procreative or non-procreative sex daily as a norm anyway) is such a hardship?
also, why is it acceptable to get abortions, which are physically invasive and uncomfortable even if we presume zero mental effect, and also acceptable to use fertility awareness biology-based information to optimise pregnancy after those abortions in youth but not acceptable to avoid the abortion through managing one's fertility? why is it not acceptable to teach women that no, they aren't actually men and they can have control over when and how they get pregnant, that it is not just randomness.
fertility awareness means more freedom to say no to marginal sex partners and reduce much of the social pressure to have casual sex and binge drink that many women feel. i am not sure why the 70s gay male model of frequent, multiple partners at any price is held up as what 'most women' think is optimal female sexuality or as what 'most women' actually want to spend their time doing.
And this, of course, is what the abortion debate is really all about. A woman who wants to have sex throughout the month, and who wants the ability to have it (if she wishes) with partners whom she doesn't want to conceive a child with under any circumstances, is "narcissistic" and "selfish". Really? That sounds like plain old garden variety healthy sexuality to me.
But even if it were somehow wrong, it isn't your place to try and restrict it. Women who want to use NFP can use it, and they can have the sex lives they want to have and take the risks they want to take. Women whose sexual desires aren't compatible with NFP can use other forms of contraception. And every woman has that backstop of abortion rights, if they are needed. That is sexual freedom for women, and it was one of the single greatest advances in Western society in the last century.
As for fertility awareness meaning more freedom to say no to sexual partners, that's just batty. First of all, men who want to have sex over their partners' objections, for any reasons, are monsters. Further, they don't have very good judgment, and aren't the type who are going to be swayed with "but I might get pregnant". If they are even concerned about that (rather than simply imposing their will on women), they will use a condom.
More generally, restrictions on abortion rights entrench exactly the sort of patriarchal society where men control women's sexuality. How that would ever enhance the ability of women to refuse sex is a mystery. Certainly the reports of the rates of marital and acquaintance rape in societies that still enforce traditional strictures on female sexuality are not encouraging.
Finally, both of your arguments-- that wanting to have frequent sex is narcissistic and selfish and that NFP increases women's ability to say no to sex-- are predicated on a model of sexuality that says that women really don't like sex, they don't want to have a lot of it, and what we really need to do is clamp down on those people who do want to have a lot of it, because there's something wrong with them. This is a very unhealthy, perverted fear of female sexuality. In the real world, lots of women like sex, it's healthy to like a lot of sex, it's really healthy to be able to have sex with whoever you want to, and it's really really healthy to be able to do it without facing the burden of an unwanted pregnancy. In other words, this desire to control female sexuality, to cabin it, is based on an irrational and unhealthy fear of sex. Of course, any particular woman has the right to fear sex and to order her life around that fear. But to use the force of the state to inhibit those women who have healthy conceptions of sexuality is another matter entirely.
A woman who wants to have sex throughout the month, and who wants the ability to have it (if she wishes) with partners whom she doesn't want to conceive a child with under any circumstances, is "narcissistic" and "selfish".
No, a woman who wants to murder a child for her own convenience (a child conceived most often through her own voluntary choices) is narcissistic and selfish.
In other words, this desire to control female sexuality, to cabin it, is based on an irrational and unhealthy fear of sex.
Or, possibly, a rational desire to simultaneously 1) minimize the murder of children, and 2) minimize the number of damaged children brought into the world by idiots incapable of either a modicum of self-control or the proper use of birth control.
There's nothing wrong with wanting sex, or food, or sleep, or leisure. There is something wrong with being ruled by those desires, and something very right about a social effort to encourage continence.
1. Whether you want to label it "murder" or not, the claims of an embryo who doesn't think, have dreams, have interests, and is similar to a tadpole are outweighed by the massive interests of women in gender equality and being able to control their own lives and have whatever sex they want to have without asking Rob Lyman's permission.
2. Wanting a lot of sex is perfectly healthy. But, again, even if it isn't, it isn't for pro-lifers to say how much sex women should have. And if you notice, even though they swear it's all about murder, whenever you actually TALK to a pro-lifer about sex, it turns out they have all these prejudices against female sexual freedom. Because that is what the abortion issue really turns on. You will find very few pro-lifers who actually buy into the sexual revolution. Most want to reverse it.
1) You're simply assuming the conclusion. That's fine; we have different priors, they're irreconcilable, etc. But don't fool yourself into thinking this is an actual argument by you. feel pretty comfortable declaring that murder is worse than not having sex, so any argument that says "murder is an unfortunate necessity in order to allow more sex" isn't going to be particularly persuasive.
2) I don't pretend to know what most pro-lifers think about sex. But then, I don't care or think it's relevant. Speaking for myself, I don't care how much sex you or anyone else has, as long as you don't kill anyone in the process, or claim that your need for sex is so great that it justifies killing. Sexual desire which requires killing for its satisfaction is most definitely not a "healthy" desire for sex.
Dilan Esper:
This does not remove the right to abortion from women. It simply means that citizens who do not wish to pay for it will not see their tax money go toward abortions (that group of citizenry just happens to be in the majority at the moment). Women can still have abortions, and can still have insurance for abortions, they just have to pay for it.
Further, this gets back to the problem with government run health care, and the big problem libertarians and conservatives have with it outside of cost: health care decisions become political, and the majority party gets to make those decisions. In this country, the majority party changes frequently enough that this should be a huge concern to both sides of the aisle.
"the claims of an embryo who doesn't think, have dreams, have interests, "
I presume you have no objections if someone murders kills you in your sleep?
"In the real world, lots of women like sex, it's healthy to like a lot of sex, it's really healthy to be able to have sex with whoever you want to, and it's really really healthy to be able to do it without facing the burden of an unwanted pregnancy."
On the contrary, you are describe neurotics with complusive behavior here.
Substitute the equally natural process known as "eating" and everyone would realize that this is a clarion call for infantial immaturity.
I used fertility awareness for nearly 6 years with no pregnancies because of various difficulties with other forms of birth control. It is extremely effective when used correctly. It is extremely difficult to use correctly. It involves abstaining when women's libido is at its peak. When cycles are short, it involves abstaining most of the time. (yeah, 5-7 days out of a 21 day cycle. Add to that 5-7 days of menstruation and that is abstention 1/3 to 1/2 the time, during most of which one is in the mood to not abstain). FAM is an option for some people but it is not for everyone, and especially not for those who don't have the mutual commitment and willpower to see it through. We found something else (not perfect, but better) because it nearly killed our intimate life as a married couple.
As for abortion, the only people who really need abortion coverage would be at the very low end of the income scale, where it's impossible to save up a few hundred dollars. So this is throwing poor, fertile women under a bus.
Orgasm: The little death.
I just wish there was a rider attached to the existing bill winding its way through Congress that would exclude anyone from having to contribute their tax dollars to the other governmentally supported program of mass-murdering foreigners "for their own good", although I'm sure some would say it's not murder killing innocent civilians, it's "collateral damage".
Dilan:
1. Whether you want to label it "murder" or not, the claims of an embryo who doesn't think, have dreams, have interests, and is similar to a tadpole are outweighed by the massive interests of women in gender equality and being able to control their own lives and have whatever sex they want to have without asking Rob Lyman's permission.
Personally, I agree with you. But you're crazy if you think that just blandly stating it that way is going to win you any points with people who don't. If one regards embryos as human, with the according legal rights, then the descriptors of the embryo's state of mind are meaningless to them, and your statement is morally equivalent to saying "Whether you want to label it 'murder' or not, the claims of a (member of some minority group) are outweighed by the massive interests of (majority group) in (something far less important than life or death)".
You regard the embryo as ethically meaningless, and defend abortion because it defends a secondary right. Pro-lifers regard the embryo as ethically human, and find the promotion of a secondary right(choice in how to deal with a pregnancy) over a primary one(life) to be appalling. It all comes down to axioms, and you won't change those with a bland appeal that's clearly based on fundamental ignorance of your opponent's position.
Whether you want to label it "gender equality" or not, the claims of a woman who merely wants some physical pleasure without consequences whenever she wants it, are outweighed by the massive interests of babies in not being killed. (Ipse dixit is fun.)
Nola:
I will concede (as I think any intellectually honest liberal has to) that one of the downsides of increased governmental involvement in the health care system is increased governmental influence on particular medical decisions, including abortion. I don't like this, but I don't see a way out of it other than to leave a lot of people with no health care and soaring medical costs.
But it is a perfectly legitimate thing for pro-lifers and conservatives and libertarians to say to liberals-- "you want more government involvement in health care, you are going to get more government involvement in private medical decisions". It happens to be true.
Well, I guess you object to life insurance because you have to pay premiums to support folks who make bad life decisions and die early deaths, then, right?
Or does this only apply when we are talking about slutty women who offend the invisible man in the sky by having TEH SEX?
Life insurance is 1) a voluntary transaction (which health insurance won't be soon), and 2) permitted to make premium and issuance decisions based on both health status and behavior (which health insurance won't be soon).
If you feel like buying abortion insurance, I'm not going to stop you. Nor would I want to stop you from smoking 6 packs a day, eating until you're 700 lbs (because it's really really healthy to eat whatever you want, whenever you want, with whomever you want), and then trying to buy life insurance. Just don't ask me to pay for your stupid decisions in either case.
It your place to force me to pay for something I think is wrong, either. We're not talking about preventing someone from getting an abortion, here. We're talking about who should pay.
FAM is also quite difficult to use "perfectly" if one's menstrual cycle is less than 100% textbook-regular. Wibbles, I'm not sure if you are female and have used FAM/NFP yourself, or are relying on your spouse's account, but I am female, formerly infertile, and have been using FAM to some degree since 2005. I've read the books and the websites, have a FertilityFriend account which I actually use... and if I were relying solely on it to prevent pregnancy, I'd be screwed.
In my experience, FAM helps you know when when you're within a day or two of ovulation, which is great if you want to try to get pregnant, notsomuch if you want to use it for birth control. I've never been able to determine via FAM principles whether I am within 5-7 days of ovulation, which is the "safe" zone for not getting pregnant. It hasn't even been 100% reliable for determining whether I've ovulated on cycles in which I actually got pregnant or had more advanced monitoring that proved ovulation. Today, I pay vague attention to my chart because it's nice to have an idea of where I am in my cycle. However, I also had a tubal ligation, because I would never trust it for anyone with a compelling reason to avoid a pregnancy.
Color me unimpressed by 95%, or even 99%, reliability. If 1 in 20, or even 1 in 100, women will have accidental pregnancies (per year of use, and I've got ~10 fertile years ahead of me), we're talking about a LOT of women spread over the US population. Personally, it's darn near imperative that I not get pregnant again for medical reasons, and FAM just isn't reliable enough for me, despite being as educated in the finer points of reproductive biology as anyone but an OB or an RE.
ah, so the effectiveness rates of BC pills and depo provera don't impress you.
also FAM works just fine whether a woman's cycle is textbook or not. lots of PCOS sufferers find it extremely useful in better understanding and handling their own health issues.
this belief that women's bodies are too complex for women to manage their own fertility without an edifice of males scraping them clean of 'mistakes' caused by 'random pregnancy' is way more paternalistic than including fertility awareness education as part of an overall reproductive and gynecological health education.
also FAM is very handy for diagnosing many common STDs and gyno issues so one can get treatment in a timely fashion.
No, I'm not especially inclined to regard them as foolproof either. I've made previous comments here to that effect, in response to claims that maternity health insurance coverage should be optional because getting pregnant is totally avoidable.
Now, FAM. I just told you how, after five years of direct personal experience, I still can't reliably pinpoint ovulation farther than a day or two in advance, and how I had a more-or-less accidental pregnancy while using it. Want to tell me again how FAM "works just fine" for non-textbook cycles, or alternately, explain how I'm too brainwashed by the patriarchy to use it properly?
I repeat: for many, many women, FAM is useful for nothing more than a general understanding of one's cycle, not for directly achieving or preventing pregnancy. In addition, it requires more education and daily effort than any other method of birth control. It is not an all-purpose solution to the problem of unintended pregnancies.
I'm going to ask you directly: are you female, and do you personally use FAM to keep your own chart? Have you ever attempted to use FAM in the context of a very irregular cycle? Or did you just go to an NFP class or read Toni Wechsler's book, and drink the kool-aid?
I must have missed where the Stupak amendment made abortion illegal. Can someone point it out to me?
What yancey said. And as for the rape argument, the Stupak provision includes the usual "rape, incest or
life of the mother' exclusion.
This reminds me of the embryonic stem cell debate.
Thanks Yancey for pointing this out. Friedman is clueless. And her link purportedly showing that abortion benefits all women somehow is risible. It consists of anecdotes followed by studies that don't even come close to supporting her assertion.
"Others are lesbians, or long-term virgins"
Serious, you really believe this? Please, come and explain to us in a future post how lesbians and virgins will never have the use for abortion services.
Very, very rare
Once in the last 2009 years if my calculations are correct.
And she had already agreed to have the baby.
And also, covered by the rape exception
You know that's pretty weak. Forgetting rape for a moment, you do understand that it's possible for lesbians to have sex with men, and for virgins to actually lose it, right?
Furthermore, the rape exception for the "pro-life" crowd is just a political move. You know that "pro life" crowd would want that carried to term no matter how she got pregnant.
Sure, many prolifers would probably prefer that pregnancies from rape be carried to term. But they aren't trying to require that in this law. They are not even preventing taxpayer funds from aborting such pregnancies, so it seems like a pretty moot point
Can anyone explain how the rape exception works under Stupak-Pitts?
Poor women purchasing through the exchanges are prevented from buying plans that cover abortion with their federal subsidy. So if a women is impregnated through rape and does not have supplemental coverage, what standard does she have to meet to get her abortion covered? Can she just report the rape at a hospital? Or does there need to be trial and conviction? Does she need to prove that she was impregnated by the rapist? This has not been explained to me.
I sense in this discussion a distinction between those who see abortion in the context of negative versus positive rights.
Those holding the negative rights view see the issue as the right to be free from government intrusion into the most intimate aspects of a person's autonomy. From a positive rights perspective, abortion itself is a right to which women are entitled and government has affirmative obligations to ensure access.
I suspect Ms. McArdle and Ms. Friedman have opposite views on the nature of the right.
Anybody see where the New York Times complained this was politicians interfering in a choice that should be between a patient and a doctor?
Where was this reverence for patient-doctor autonomy when Obama was talking about requiring people to take blue pill instead of the red one?
Government control of health care means control of your body by whomever controls the government. Politicians' power, politicians' choice.
"Where was this reverence for patient-doctor autonomy when Obama was talking about requiring people to take blue pill instead of the red one?"
WTH are you talking about?
People like you need to be pointed at at laughed at, repeatedly, in public.
Gee dskc, what the hell are you talking about? Your comment is senseless and incoherent. Have you taken your meds today?
WTH are you talking about?
People like you need to be pointed at at laughed at, repeatedly, in public.
Here is the video.
"Maybe you are better off not having the surgery But taking the painkiller"
Heh. A lot of people seem to think this a Matrix reference.
I firmly believe that the decision as to whether or not a doctor will charge to perform an abortion should be between the doctor and his patient.
@ RobMq1981 4:42
And the issue here is whether people will be forced to pay for something that they believe is or is not murder.
Two problems with this:
1. I think capital punishment is murder. Maybe war too. Do I get not to pay for those?
2. Do people who don't pay taxes (and therefore aren't "forced to pay for this") get to have a say.
If you're going to argue that the issue is ethics, I don't see how it adds to bring who pays into it.
1. You can certainly urge your elected representatives to avoid spending our taxes on war and capital punishment and vote against them if they do.
2. Everyone will be forced to buy health insurance whether they pay taxes or not.
Please, come and explain to us in a future post how ... virgins will never have the use for abortion services.
If they need abortion services, odds are they are not virgins.
Well, sounds like we'll get a free market system for abortions. They'll be mostly legal, but you gotta penny up out of your own pocket.
We'll get to see how much domestic terrorism drives the price up, too.
More important than how many are affected is that it is the first politicized coverage restriction for subsidies. There are any number of people who would object to subsidizing insurance and treatments for a number of personal choices that affect health and care usage.
It seems sometimes like people get caught up in trivial battles and miss what such an amendment says about the future of broader government intervention in health insurance and care.
I've tried, but been unable to put it this coherently. It's been incredibly difficult to have a conversation recently with proponents that have a problem with this amendment.
Ann Friedman is just stating a reality: many women (and men) are staunchly pro-life until they find themselves dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Is this a paternalistic claim? Well, it's one of those things. We know this occurs again and again. We can pretending that it doesn't happen to maintain the illusion that we live in a world of perfect decision-makers. Or we can legislate taking in account what we know happens in the real world.
The other reason the "paternalism" argument is pretty weak in this case is that this is not about what women want for themselves. It's about de facto forbidding abortion for a subgroup of other women.
Pro-lifers are in favor of the Stupak amendment because it will diminish the number of abortions. Others are in favor of it because they simply don't think abortions should be state-subsidized. Fine. But let's not kid ourselves on what Stupak will mean in practice - abortions just for the women who can afford them.
Thus, the woman who will be most affected by the bill will be the ones least likely to meet the conditions for raising a child. Disproportionally adolescent, single mothers, living in poverty.
And, statistically, we know what this means for the probable lives of their children. This is an incredibly dumb and short-sighted amendment. It puts populism and "principle" over the certainty of bad consequences.
Or they could put the kid up for adoption. Or all of those feminist groups concerned for women who can't afford abortions could pitch in and create a private subsidy fund.
Adoption is a wonderful thing, and women who decide to carry their unwanted pregancies to term and give the babies up for adoption are heroic, but adoption doesn't protect a woman's interest in being able to have a fruitful, healthy sex life with whomever she pleases and without the fear of an embarrassing, debilitating, difficult pregnancy and childbirth. The only thing that protects that is abortion rights.
Do men have a right to a fruitful, healthy sex life with whomever they please without the fear of an embarrassing, financially debilitating, and difficult paternity suit?
Obviously not, but do you think they should?
Never:
Men don't bear the burden of childbearing. That's why it has to be a woman's decision. It's a binary world: either we (1) empower women to make the decision, which means that some men will have to provide for children that they did not wish to have (but will not be forced to bear those children), or (2) disempower women, which means that women will not only have to provide for those children but to actually bear them and suffer the grievous harms to their lives caused by unwanted pregnancy and childrearing.
In that situation, empowering women is the obviously correct choice.
I believe you mean a "fruitless" sex life. The fruit being discarded as unwanted, after all.
Dilan,
We obviously see the world in different ways, and it is highly unlikely that one of us will convince the other on this topic. So I will state how how I see the world is different from what you just described, not with the intention of convincing you, but just to try to illustrate our differences.
We are biological entities, and as you said, that biology dictates that women, not men, bear the burden of childbearing. That biology also links the act of sexual intercourse to our reproduction: if you have sex, you might - even if you take precautions - conceive a child. These are two dictates of the natural world that we humans can't change.
So both men and women are 'empowered' on the choice about whether to bear the burdens of reproduction: physical, emotional and financial. But that empowerment is exercised by choose to have sex or not (this is why I would not want to prohibit abortion in a case of rape, there needs to be a choice before society imposes an obligation as large as bearing a child on a woman). It would be nice if we could successfully remove our sex lives from our reproduction, just as it would be nice if each couple could choose whether the man or the woman would experience the pregnancy: but that's just unfortunately not the way it is.
Moving the choice away from the decision to have sex, to the mother's decision to abort or not, is disempowering the weakest human being involved: the conceived child.
So I don't see it as a choice between empowering women or disempowering women: women are empowered by the choice they can make regarding if, when, and with who to have sex. The choice of empowerment is between a pregnant woman and her conceived child: the 'obvious choice' is to empower the much weaker individual, who has not had any choice whatsoever about the situation he or she finds him/herself in.
Never:
The separation of female sexuality from childbearing is one of the greatest accomplishments of the West in the 20th Century.
In a state of nature, as Hobbes observed, life is nasty, brutish and short. So you will excuse me if I don't think the world's women should be enslaved by your narrow concept of what is "natural".
I'm not clinging to 'nature': if we could actually separate sexuality from reproduction, I'd be fine with that. We can to a large extent, and I have no problem with that. But cannot 100%, so there will be reproduction sometimes when we have sex, even if we don't want the reproduction.
We don't defeat nature and make life any less 'nasty, brutish or short' by 'empowering' some humans to kill other humans.
We do, however, make life much better than the state of nature when we empower women to control their own bodies, not bear unwanted children, and kill any non-sentient tadpole-like creatures in their wombs.
Well from here it seems we go into the familiar discussions about 'personhood', 'viability' etc. Like I said at the outset, we weren't going to change each other's minds.
Thanks for the mini-discussion anyway.
"The separation of female sexuality from childbearing is one of the greatest accomplishments of the West in the 20th Century."
And this is why Playboy is a great abortion supporter, supplying funds for major pro-abortion groups: men feel entitled to exploit women on the grounds the women do not, after all, have to bear the children.
There's no exploitation involved. Really, again, it seems like pro-lifers are incapable of believing that women might enjoy sex and want to have a lot of it. Any woman who is actually exercising sexual agency must either be a selfish narcissist or must be being exploited! They can't be doing it because they enjoy it!
Really, a lot of this comes down to there are some people with really weird views about sex. Like it is impossible for it to simply be a highly pleasurable activity involving rubbing your bodies together. It has to be connected to an invisible man in the sky, or to reproduction, or to some guazily defined impossible to capture "essence" that nobody agrees upon anyway. It is as if the only actual sex out there is the type that gets described by euphamisms in Harlequin novels. Anyone-- and certainly any woman-- who just wants to screw like wild monkeys must have something wrong with her.
What a depraved, deprived view of the world! How strange it is to fear carnal pleasure, or to insist that it be bottled up, contained!
The sexual revolution gave us a great gift. It is horrifying that some would want to take it away.
What a depraved, deprived view of the world!
You're the one saying that killing children is a fair price to pay for orgasms. Depraved, indeed.
Of course, if it's not a child, then you have no need to justify it by pointing out that it enables compulsive sexual behavior.
The sex angle adds nothing to your argument. Either it's a child, and you're a demented pervert who thinks that a desire for pleasure justifies killing, or it's not a child, and it doesn't matter why anybody wants it, because it's no more significant than removing an unsightly mole.
As for the sexual revolution being a great gift: the industrial revolution was greater by hundreds of orders of magnitude. I wouldn't mind more sex with more people in more positions, but there are many, many things that are far more important. So yeah, I'm inclined to regard people who make sex the center of their lives as having something wrong with them, male or female.
tell me again how having sex often but not daily is NOT a fruitful, healthy sex life?
if a woman practices FAM and thus has procreative sex 10-15 times a month (but not when she is fertile, avoiding pregnancy)because she really likes sex, how is her situation 'less sexually healthy' than the woman who has procreative sex the same 10-15 times per month (remember, women don't actually have as much sex as gay men during the 70s did, and i am not counting non-procreative sex for either lady) but doesn't practice FAM and thus opts to have an abortion if she gets pregnant?
plus also what all the sane people said about how nobody should be surprised abortion is being used as a political football given that it is a consequence of going de facto single-payer.
you want women to have abortions? stop supporting single-payer health insurance, because americans are split and the matter will get tossed back and forth foreva. see also euthanasia, cancer and obesity.
Dilan Esper -
In a state of nature, as Hobbes observed, life is nasty, brutish and short.
Hobbes asserted, he did not observe. Native Americans actually were better fed than their European counterparts. In any case, Natural Law is something entirely different than 'a state of nature.'
We do, however, make life much better than the state of nature when we empower women to control their own bodies
I disagree. Illigitimacy has risen as # of abortions has. Similarly, a generation after the legalization of abortion, the crime rate skyrocketed. The 'freakonomics' assertion that abortion cuts crime was dead wrong and has been recanted by its authors.
Perhaps these things are unconnected, or the causality flows the other way. It's hard to say. But it does seem likely that abortion, on a societal level, has tremendous costs that some of the most ardent pro-abortionists (who have a more positive view of abortion than those who are just 'pro choice.') tend to ignore.
Really, again, it seems like pro-lifers are incapable of believing that women might enjoy sex and want to have a lot of it.
I believe it. I also believe that STDs hurt people. Ever seen a picture of a baby with congenital herpes?
There's no exploitation involved.
Pure wishful thinking. Or do you think Playboy doesn't exploit women?
Rob:
Abortion is not killing children. It's killing tadpoles. I am sorry that some people in this world can't tell the difference between a zygote and an infant.
And the countervailing interest isn't "orgasms". It's the ability of a woman to live her life and screw anyone she wants to without having to have her life destroyed by a pregnancy that interferes with her education, her career, her relationships, or her standing in the community.
And it isn't about "making sex the center of your life", though there's nothing wrong with that. It's about people being able to make their own fricking evaluation of how important sex is to them without some bluenosed prude telling them that there's something wrong with them.
wibbles:
Upthread, there's a couple of people who explain what a pain in the butt NFP is and how it isn't effective enough to allow a woman to have sex whenever and wherever she wants to with whomever she wishes to.
And as I said upthread, I agree with you that this whole controversy is a legitimate criticism of government involvement in health insurance. I don't really see an alternative, but it's a perfectly legitimate critique.
Ryan:
There's no such thing as "natural law". In nature, there is no law. If there's a God, She has never involved Herself in human affairs. And whether or not Aquinas was right that we are imbued with moral concepts, there is absolutely no agreement as to what those concepts are. "Natural law" arguments are simply unsupported assertions that empirically questionable claims should be accepted merely because they are somehow "natural".
As for the rest of your post, that, of course, is what this issue is all about. Pro-choicers think sex is really good and people should be able to have as much as they want without procreating. Pro-lifers think sex is the cause of all sorts of bad things in the world and the traditional patriarchal rules that constrained it (for females, of course) protected our society. That's a debate I can win. It also, of course, shows that all the crap about "abortion is murder" is a subterfuge. This is really about the clash between 19th Century and 21st Century conceptions of sex.
mischief:
You can certainly argue that soft-core porn, including Playboy, is exploitative. Indeed, you can argue that non-porn, such as the fashion modeling indsutry, is exploitative. Many feminists point this out.
But your reasoning seems to be that since (1) Playboy is exploitative and (2) Playboy supports abortion rights, therefore (3) all the pro-sex pro-choice feminism is condoning exploitation of women. But that doesn't follow at all. By allowing more sexual freedom, liberalized abortion laws allow more women to make NON-exploitative choices to have sex with whomever they want.
Abortion is not killing children. It's killing tadpoles.
Oh, well, then I'm convinced.
Assuming you're right, there's no need to justify it by saying it makes wild-monkey sex possible. It's harmless and nobody should object whether sex is involved or not. You are the one obsessively bringing up sex, not me or some hypothetical band of bluenoses.
Assuming you're right, there's no need to justify it by saying it makes wild-monkey sex possible.
Well, it's both, Rob. Legal abortion both doesn't kill anything that has the rights of a human person, and is very important to gender equality.
But gender equality is the main point here, not the status of the fetus. People who are committed to feminism and the sexual revolution are almost always pro-choice (or may be personally pro-life but do not think abortion should be illegal). Pro-lifers are almost entirely comprised of the people who never liked the sexual revolution to begin with.
In other words, if one thinks the sexual revolution is wrong and that abortion encourages sexual licentiousness, it leads one to exaggerate the status of the embryo.
Dilan Esper - There's no such thing as "natural law".
Some social arrangements work better than others, and all have consequences. Natural Law is a way of addressing that fact. Societies which do not prevent theft are weaker, and are eventually destroyed millitarily. The law higher than custom is "what works." I would note that at least some of the benefits touted by the pro-abortion (not pro-choice) crowd.
It also, of course, shows that all the crap about "abortion is murder" is a subterfuge.
I think there are people who oppose abortion in some cases who don't feel that abortion in nessicarily "murder." (Personally, I support people's right to medical privacy.) I do think it's unsurprising that pro-choice advocacy has convinced some guys that they shouldn't have to care for a kid because "she chose to have the child." And doesn't that logically follow from a pro-choice standpoint since the choice to parent a child is no longer made at conception and people should be able to have lots of sex without having to deal with the consequences? If it's the mom's choice to deal with the consequences and the dad has no say, why does he have any responsibility?
It can be perilous making accusations of hypocrisy against a group with disparate reasoning behind their conclusions.
I would note that at least some of the benefits touted by the pro-abortion (not pro-choice) crowd.
Should say " at least osme of the benefits touted by the pro abortion crowd have not materialized.
DE says: "protect a woman's interest in being able to have a fruitful, healthy sex life with whomever she pleases and without the fear of an embarrassing, debilitating, difficult pregnancy and childbirth"
So let me get this straight. Perhaps, just perhaps, if she'd KNOWN that an "embarrassing, debilitating, difficult pregnancy and childbirth" might happen before she rode him hard and put him up wet. Oh, wait....
I'm going to abort this thing(tad pole or not) because I'm an irresponsible twit? Is that your salient argument?
And no, I'm not a rabid pro-lifer in the least.
Ryan:
"Natural law" doesn't get you anywhere with respect to preventing theft. First of all, lots of people don't even believe that property r ights are natural and individual (think Marxists or Native Americans). Second, people don't agree what constitutes theft (think teenage music file sharers). Third, people don't agree when theft is justifable (think libertarian arguments against taxation or arguments that what Robin Hood did is justified).
At anything other than the most useless level of generality, natural law has no content at all, except for "whatever some religious nut or conservative claims is natural". Accordingly, there is no such thing as natural law (at least that is of any use to any of us).
Dilan Esper - "Natural law" doesn't get you anywhere with respect to preventing theft. First of all, lots of people don't even believe that property rights are natural and individual (think Marxists or Native Americans).
The purpose of 'natural law' is to argue for some standard which trumps culture or opinion so the assertion that different people had differnt ideas about what constitutes natural law (and the Marxists did have their equivalents) are not counterexamples, by themselves. The examples you give make my argument for me, based on the criteria I gave.
The Soviet Union had to spend 50% of its GDP on weapons to try and match the West, and when it collapsed, as it did, the things of greatest value in its possessions were mostly natural resources rather than things that it produced. Many of its cars were produced in factories that had been given to it by the US to help it fight WWII.
Native American culture was similarly non-productive, and similarly overrun, militarily.
I'm not arguing that Natural Law is the highest law. I am arguing that some beliefs lead to societal self-destruction in the long term and can be argued against on that basis.
Sure, there are gray areas and lots of areas that aren't relevant one way or another. But that shouldn't obscure the fact that some things are relevant. Beliefs have results. Some of those results are different than what is intended by those acting out the beliefs. To use the standards that you've set up; if illigitimacy increases along with abortion, as it seems to, (and I don't know how the causality runs) we might fairly ask if that childrearing setup is really conducive to a healthy sex life and the 'liberation' of women. Also, if an increase in STDs leads to more kids born with congenital disease, does that violate the child's rights in any way? Or is that just a tough break?
The problem with that position is we shouldn't be subjecting women's sex lives to central planning. It's really, really bad to be telling some women "we are going to force you to have a baby that you don't want to have and possibly ruin your life because we think that will create proper incentives that will lead to a better society overall". That's basically the Soviet mindset applied to sex.
I don't think it's any of our collective business to try and stop women from having casual sex. (I also don't buy the claims that women having casual sex are really the cause of all the problems you mention. But it really isn't our prerogative to try and stop women from having sex you don't approve of even if it were the cause.)
It's pretty amazing that people who can cite all the problems with the central planning model when it comes to economic activity suddenly embrace it when it comes to stopping women from being "too slutty". Abortion rights and the sexual revolution allow women to decide these questions for themselves-- and I trust women to make their own decisions more than I trust social planners who think they can use government policy to control illegitimacy rates.
The problem with that position is we shouldn't be subjecting women's sex lives to central planning...That's basically the Soviet mindset applied to sex.
First, I agree that people should have a 'right to privacy' in regards to their medical decisions. I don't know if abortion is murder or not, but I wouldn't fire a gun into a bag that held a creature, not knowing if the thing was human or not. Even if it was legal. But abortion is, ultimately, a personal decision.
I just don't think that abortion is the perfect solution that it's often made out to be by some people. My point is, the social acceptance of abortion has costs. If a woman is unable to give consent (due to rape or being underage) abortion may make some sense (or not, I don't know.) If a woman finds that there are unacceptable medical complications due to her pregnancy (and she should determine what is acceptable) then she shouldn't have the government interfering in her medical choices, in my opinion.
But to compare such laws to central planning seems a deeply flawed analogy. Things like lack of price signals or a need for technological innovation simply don't apply to sex the same way that they apply to industry. (Though I am curious whether you're consistent in your libertarianism. Should charity via things like medicare also not be subject to central planning? What about centers for adoption or care for those kids who are wards of the state? What about education?) Like them or not, societies with cultural or legal restrictions on abortion were functional in a way that the Soviet economy was not.
Describing unprotected promiscuous sex as people having fruitful, healthy sex life with whomever she(they) please(s) makes as much sense to me as describing the free sale of melamine contaminated milk as the product of a 'fruitful, healthy food industry.' The result of both is to make people sick. There are an increasing number of bacteria resistant to antibiotics, and viruses which are not readily curable with antivirals. Such a lifestyle demonstratably hurts men, women and children.
It's really, really bad to be telling some women "we are going to force you to have a baby that you don't want to have and possibly ruin your life because we think that will create proper incentives that will lead to a better society overall".
If you don't believe in any kind of God or even Natural Law, what force does your objective claim of "really really bad" even have, beyond being your own opinion? Do you mean to say you "really really don't like it?" I can assert that something is 'good' or 'bad' because I believe that 'good' and 'bad' are objective things.
More materially, is it also really really bad, in your opinion, if a baby is born with a congenital STD? Doesn't congenital herpes 'ruin a child's life' to some extent? There are probably a few cases of congenital reactive arthritis caused by transmissible disease. Does chronic pain ruin a kids life? One problem that I've brought up that hasn't really been addressed is that the increase in illegitimate births, not to mention STDs, which coincides with widespread abortion suggests that acceptance of abortion might actually 'ruin' the lives of more women by altering societal standards which worked in their favor.
Look at how much men tend to contribute to child rearing in cultures more tolerant of female promiscuity. There's a pretty good correlation between female fidelity and male contribution to childrearing, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Why would men want to raise a kid for any length of time in a society where the kid probably isn't theirs? Also, I had one friend whose mother had had more than a dozen abortions. Because of some complications, she couldn't abort one of her pregnancies. So he was born, and without a father to speak of. Sometimes women relying on abortion change their mind when it's time to get the procedure, for various reasons. A functional culture tries to put barriers around large pits, to prevent people from falling into them accidentally.
I also don't buy the claims that women having casual sex are really the cause of all the problems you mention.
Well, what kind of evidence would convince you? Or is this a matter of faith for you? And how can you not think that increased casual unprotected sex leads to increased STD risk? And if increased congenital STD risk is not important, then why not just leave 3 year olds on a doorstep somewhere. If the mom suddenly can't afford to care for her toddler, why should that ruin HER life? Noone has a legally or even culturally enforceable responsibility to take care of kids, right? Because to enforce that is "central planning."
Describing unprotected promiscuous sex as people having fruitful, healthy sex life with whomever she(they) please(s) makes as much sense to me as describing the free sale of melamine contaminated milk as the product of a 'fruitful, healthy food industry.' The result of both is to make people sick.
Just because it is possible to spread STD's through promiscuous sex doesn't mean that promiscuous sex inevitably leads to STD's. The sexual revolution should have led to huge spikes in STD rates, but it didn't-- because it turns out that people who aren't ashamed of being openly sexual take precautions much better than people who have to negotiate repressive situations.
Just because it is possible to spread STD's through promiscuous sex doesn't mean that promiscuous sex inevitably leads to STD's.
Your hypothesis is empirically disprovable.
source
It's true that bacterial diseases diminished during the 1960s due to the introduction of antibiotics (which is part of why the sexual revolution occurred.)
Ryan:
The sexual revolution didn't end in 1979.
The sexual revolution didn't end in 1979.
Sexual mores seem to have become more conservative, at least among some groups, in the late 80's and early 90's with the rise of HIV and Hepatitis B, emergence of resistant strains of bacterial pathogens, and the increased understanding that unprotected sex with multiple partners does seem to have some severe consequences. Also, the invention of PCR in the mid 1980s and its increased use in the early to mid 90s introduces a complicating factor in the rate of positive diagnosis (increased sensitivity of diagnosis) that I didn't want to get into.
Is there any reason to believe that the data set I gave fails to speak to the issue (and to do so more clearly than a 90s-00's set would?)
Where's the evidence that people went back to 1950's sexual morality starting in 1980?
I was in high school 1985-88 and college 1988-92, and that wasn't my experience. Nor does it appear to be the experience of generations who went to college after me.
Where's the evidence that people went back to 1950's sexual morality starting in 1980?
I didn't say that people "went back to 1950s sexual morality in the 1980s." I provided evidence that increased promiscuity led to increased STDs using a given non-controversial dataset. The 1980s onward data is considerably more complex, for a number of reasons, some mentioned. Which introduces complicating effects, some not directly related to promiscuity.
I agree that certain conditions outside of promiscuity, such as female power in a relationship, can affect STD transmission rates, since female power improves consistency of condom use. And economic empowerment and education can increase female power. That's still not the same as an argument that promotion of promiscuity is good for women, however, or that it actually reduces STD transmission.
If you're willing to acknowledge that increased promiscuity led to increased spread of STDs in the 1960s and 70s, we can move on to other points. Otherwise, I'd like to nail down what should be one simple point before we jump to a different one which is irrelevant to the point I was making.
I'm basing my assertions regarding changes in promiscuity in the 80s on what people born in the 60's and 70s have claimed. (Certainly not an objective source. You're welcome to provide a better measure. And it doesn't diminish my point, regardless of the result.)
For instance;
I'm basing my assertions regarding changes in promiscuity in the 80s on what people born in the 60's and 70s have claimed.
Should have read; those who went to school in the 60's and 70's.
Ryan:
The sexual revolution happened, and people adjusted their conduct soon thereafter to take account of sexually transmitted diseases. Very, very few people wait until marriage anymore, and most college students and many high school students are sexually active. Further, fewer people are waiting until they are in a committed relationship or living together to have sex. These are all trends that have CONTINUED through the 1980's and 1990's. The only thing that reduced the STD rate was condoms; condom use was spotty in the 1960's and 1970's, and is now de riguer for most people who are not in serious relationships.
So no, casual sex doesn't cause any of this. Indeed, there are plenty of monogamous women in Africa who are HIV positive.
The sexual revolution happened, and people adjusted their conduct soon thereafter to take account of sexually transmitted diseases
Roughly 25 years and several tens if not hundreds of thousand of unnecessary deaths later, yes.
Very, very few people wait until marriage anymore, and most college students and many high school students are sexually active.
I haven't said otherwise. The question is what the result of their behavior will be.
The only thing that reduced the STD rate was condoms
Again, this is objectively disprovable. Bacterial STDs were significantly reduced during the 50's and 60's by the introduction of antibiotics.
Of course, this doesn't touch on your central thesis that number of sexual parterns does not influence STD rates. I mention it because there are numerous factors which are at play here, and it is careless to make catagorical statements like this.
So no, casual sex doesn't cause any of this. Indeed, there are plenty of monogamous women in Africa who are HIV positive.
This is an non-sequiter. Would you say; There are some people who die before 40 and have never gone skydiving. Therefore skydiving (especially if it is done properly) does not pose an added risk factor for premature death? The insurance actuary tables tell a different story.
The reason that I did not use HIV as a model for STDs in general is that Male with Male sex seems to be a significant mode of infection among men, much more so than with other STDs.
Likewise, number of partners is a well established risk factor for STD infection. If you believe otherwise, please provide evidence.
Ryan, this is why conservatives aren't worth arguing about with regards to sex.
Consensual sex is a pleasurable activity. If it didn't get women pregnant, and it didn't spread STD's, the proper amount of it to have would be "as much as you feel like with whomever you feel like". Because it's fun.
Of course, women can get pregnant, and it can spread STD's. So with no technological solutions to such matters, there are decent reasons to be less promiscuous and to curtail one's sexual activities.
But we have technological solutions, including contraception and abortion to deal with pregnancy, and condoms and treatments to deal with STD's. Now, do these work perfectly well? No. Are people always conscientious and responsible using such things? No. And for those reasons, again, it may make sense for people who are not going to use these things properly and conscientiously to curtail their promiscuity and sexual activity. And that's fine. That works for some people. An I will concede-- it is possible to gear public policy towards reducing promiscuity and sexual activity, and it may have some effect in reducing risky conduct.
But for people who can conscientiously and responsibly use the technology, it doesn't make any sense at all. Because they would be giving up lots of pleasure that could be enjoyed with very little safety risk. And here's the key-- it is possible to use public policy to increase the number of people who conscientiously and responsibly use the technologies.
And so, you have two possible models. The first one may reduce disease incidence, but does so by taking away a pleasurable activity.
The second model also reduces disease incidence, but does so by making it safer for people to engage in the pleasurable activity.
The second model, of course, is far superior. But it offends conservatives, because they believe in some incoherent and nonexistent natural law, or, worse, some fairy tale about an invisible man in the sky who is offended when people use their genitals in certain ways. And that's the real issue here. People are supposed to have less sex because it offends conservatives.
Thankfully, the sexual revolution happened, and liberals won the argument.
Ryan, this is why conservatives aren't worth arguing about with regards to sex.
Ad homeniem. I've cited objective material to support my positions. I don't think we're operating from grossly different presuppositions. We both want people to be happy and free of pain. You seem to put more weight than I do on the importance of immediate physical pleasure in the face of possible tremendous pain or difficulty in the future. If you want to say that our differing values on that point are the source of our entire disagreement, I'll drop the matter. I like physical pleasure, but am probably not willing to sacrifice as much for it as you are. The question, through this whole discussion has been; "what is the result of certain kinds of seuxal conduct?" This is something which can be addressed fairly objectively. It's only not worth discussing if you are not interested in the objective consequences of certain policies.
And as it runs, I'm not a dyed in the wool conservative. I'm a fairly moderate classic liberal, as are some of the other people you've argued with in this thread.
Consensual sex is a pleasurable activity. If it didn't get women pregnant, and it didn't spread STD's, the proper amount of it to have would be "as much as you feel like with whomever you feel like". Because it's fun
Sure. I would certainly be more sexually active if my actions didn't have consequences. But they do. Heck, some significant diseases like CMV, HHV-8 and mycobacterium like drug resistant tuberculosis (which seems to be making a comeback) can be spread via saliva.
And here's the key-- it is possible to use public policy to increase the number of people who conscientiously and responsibly use the technologies..it is possible to gear public policy towards reducing promiscuity and sexual activity, and it may have some effect in reducing risky conduct..
And for some groups, absolutely, I agree, public policy can have an impact. Though public policy doesn't seem to have as much of an impact as social pressure from family, peer groups, and religious organizations. From what I've read, those with "C-" averages and and poorer in school tend to not be influenced at all by the school-based sex-ed programs that I've looked into.
And for those reasons, again, it may make sense for people who are not going to use these things properly and conscientiously to curtail their promiscuity and sexual activity.
Part of the problem is that those less likely to use protection properly are probably also the least likely to identify that fact and respond with sufficient foresight. This is conjecture on my part. But it matches my personal observations.
But for people who can conscientiously and responsibly use the technology, it doesn't make any sense at all.
It does make some sense. You seem to agree that even condom use has a failure rate in protecting people from STDs, even if used correctly, and then seem to argue as if it does not?
And I have had one friend get pregnant via a broken condom (as she explained it, anyways.) I don't know if she was doing something incorrectly like using an oil based lubricant.
And so, you have two possible models. The first one may reduce disease incidence, but does so by taking away a pleasurable activity.
The second model also reduces disease incidence, but does so by making it safer for people to engage in the pleasurable activity.
The two strategies of partner reduction and barrier protection are not mutually exclusive. And I'm not talking about taking away a pleasurable activity. I'm talking, first and foremost, of reducing # of sexual partners. Which is another apparent adjustment in response to the sexual revolution. During my grandparents day, people dated multiple potential mates at once, even up to the time of a marriage proposal. Today, relationships tend to become monogamous much more quickly.
So if the "pleasurable activity" you're referring to is, say, a Ménage à trois every weekend then yes, we may have different subjective evaluations of the value of short term pleasure vs. long term pain caused to ones self and others that would prevent any agreement between us. Otherwise, the matter seems to be fairly objective.
But it offends conservatives, because they believe in some incoherent and nonexistent natural law, or, worse, some fairy tale about an invisible man in the sky who is offended when people use their genitals in certain ways. And that's the real issue here. People are supposed to have less sex because it offends conservatives.
Thankfully, the sexual revolution happened, and liberals won the argument.
There were some beneficial aspects to the sexual revolution. However as I've said from the beginning, I've given objective evidence for my position. Objective evidence of harm (a component of Natural Law) should offend any compassionate human being. Science has included things like phrenology, spontaneous generation and so forth. It isn't discarded for that, or dubbed 'incoherent.' The particular issues are debated objectively and then settled. Likewise, different beliefs in what is naturally good are not, in themselves, a refutation of all Natural Law. As I explained earlier and you seem not to have understood.
Policies which increase harm are failures, to the degree that they increase harm, even if their proponents hold power. But please remember; if you don't believe in any kind of objective morality at all, then you give up the capacity to make objective judgments about other people's policies. Words like "superior" have no meaning, because you've asserted that there is no basis for objectively superior policy. There are only things that you like, or things you don't like. (or possibly 'superior' can mean 'superior for anyone who shares your presuppositions.') If you are going to fault those who you disagree with for being 'incoherent' then it would make sense for you to work on your own coherency.
Ryan:
I don't find the rest of your points particularly interesting at this point (no matter how many times you refer to it, "natural law" means nothing more than "stuff Ryan made up which no other person in the world is obligated to obey"), but it's worth noting that right wingers way overstate the risk of condom failure. Bill Maher has a great line about it, saying this is a product he has used for 30 years and it is as reliable as a toaster.
Condoms fail because they are misused, and because often men think with their ****s when the thing breaks (news flash-- vaginas and latex feel very different) and don't pull out. But used correctly, condoms basically never fail and the risk of a promiscuous person who conscientiously uses a condom getting an STD or conceiving an unplanned pregnancy is probably less than the background risk of a monogamous person who does not use a condom catching an STD because he or she doesn't know that his or her partner is cheating on him or her.
STD's and unplanned pregnancies are for the most part a result of bad decisionmaking in the heat of the moment, not some incapability of the technology to prevent the risk. Condoms work fine, and they'd work even better if conservatives got over their hangups on sex and allowed a more open public discourse on the issue.
no matter how many times you refer to it, "natural law" means nothing more than "stuff Ryan made up which no other person in the world is obligated to obey"
You have given no hint that you understand what I'm saying. I have given objective criteria, and you respond by asserting that they are subjective.
But used correctly, condoms basically never fail
Actually, Planned Parenthood had a line of widely used condoms a while back with a very high failure rate. I posted on a blog about it at the time (that almost noone read), and got replies from several people who reported that the thing had broken several times when used with their boyfriend. (Planned Parenthood condoms were the outlier, granted, and they claim to have since re-designed them.)
Designed correctly, websites are technically unhackable. But when dealing with any large population, human error (or deliberate misuse) is always a factor that has to be taken into account. Whether condoms are 'technically perfect in a lab setting' is irrelevant. I'm concerned about how well they work in real life when exposed to user error (or deliberate misuse.) And sure, some public discussion could improve things. To an extent. Every indication is that it's not going to completely eliminate user error.
Murphy's law is a design principle.
And as mentioned, there are other routes of disease transmission (oral transmission) where people don't typically use protection at all.
(news flash-- vaginas and latex feel very different)"
News flash; at that point it can be a little late if the guy already ejaculated and decides to keep going or if he's secreted any significant quantity of pre-cum.
Of those who had used condoms during vaginal intercourse, 49% of the prostitutes had experienced condom breakage in the previous 6 months and 16% of the clients in the previous 12 months. The breakage rate was 0.8% for prostitutes and 1.5% for clients. Condom quality was seldom reported as the cause: breakage was generally attributed to human factors, such as rough or prolonged intercourse, incorrect handling of the condom, or the use of insufficient lubricant. Prostitutes also identified penis size as a cause. Condoms slipping off before or after ejaculation was reported less frequently than breakage. 13% of clients and 36% of prostitutes expressed a need for either smaller or larger condoms.
source
So if the argument is that people are not skillful enough in their use and many prostitutes don't even get it right it seems logical to conclude that encouraging a standard of having multiple partners is, in fact, going to increase disease transmission in a population to an extent. Because some people are going to screw things up.
In any case, this is my last post. I get the feeling that I could post all the data in the world and it wouldn't change your conclusions. So I will leave you to them. Condoms are the one and only solution to everything and enough sex ed and public policy can make all people use them perfectly and think with their brains rather than their genitalia. People never have oral sex or exchange bodily fluids in other ways.
I sincerely hope you have a pleasant life.
Dilan Esper - Re: "Men don't bear the burden of childbearing. That's why it has to be a woman's decision."
If you assume the pro-choice position on the central point of controversy in the abortion issue, that the fetus is not a human and has no rights or rights that fall well short of those of humans, then I'd agree with you 100%. Other possible objections to allowing abortion just don't cut it against the woman's liberty and interest in the situation.
But that's a big assumption. Its begging the question for the core of the debate.
If you assume the other position, that the fetus is a human, with human rights, than your argument breaks down.
So what if we assume neither. Well without a decision or assumption on the central issue you can't really resolve the abortion issue as a whole (and since I don't think the central issue will be resolved, the abortion debate will continue IMO), but I'm not trying to resolve that debate, or even push a side of it here. I'm limiting my analysis to just your, "Men don't bear the burden of childbearing That's why it has to be a woman's decision" comment. If abortion may possibly be murder, may possibly be a violation of the human rights of the fetus, then men (and women other then the specific pregnant woman) would reasonably have a say on the issue, just as they would on any human rights issue.
Nimed:
Ironically, one of they key arguments against a single-payer or government run option has been that it is short sighted, doing nothing to control for rising health care costs, and based on populism and principle, the principle being that everyone deserves health care so we should fix it now. The problem with government run health care is a constituent "paternalism" caused by politicians deciding what the government run system will cover. If you don't like that, you should not be in favor or government health care.
Well, that particular key argument seems to clash with the fact that some single-payer systems do a relatively good job of controlling health care costs. And at least according to some measures of performance, populism, principle and good outcomes are aligned in this particular subject.
Furthermore, I wasn't arguing against paternalism. I was saying that Megan's use of the notion in this post is pretty flimsy.
"Ann Friedman is just stating a reality: many women (and men) are staunchly pro-life until they find themselves dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Is this a paternalistic claim?"
Forget the paternalism. Consider the silliness.
Many people are staunchly opposed to murder, burglary, robbery, etc. until they find themselves dealing with a situation where such acts woudl faciliate their lives. Were they delusional before? Of course not. They close their eyes to something they could clearly see as long as self-interest is involved. "This would be useful to me" is not conducive to clear thinking.
That's not a very good example. People who steal or kill someone very rarely come to the conclusion that what they did was ok and everybody should have the right to steal or kill.
A better analogy is a kid who thinks there's nothing wrong with pushing other kids around until he himself gets bullied one day, and finds the episode very illuminating. He changes his view because he went through a experience that wasn't quite what he had imagined.
I wouldn't count on that being true. It does not, in fact, square with what I know of criminals, who tend to be masters of self-justification.
Don't be slippery now. Self-justification is a broad term. Criminals almost never justify their actions by saying "Everybody should have the right to steal and kill people".
Many pro-abortion souls has changed to pro-life on the realization that if the rules they advocate had been applied to them, they would be dead -- a much closer analogy than yours.
That's silly. Every pro-choice advocate knows that, had their mother performed an abortion, they would never have been born. The vast majority of them, knowing this, are still in favor of abortion.
Megan - what Martin said. Self-justification can take many forms. "As a rule it is wrong to steal, but I stole the bread because I was really hungry" - Jean Valjean.
Women, OTOH, change their position on abortion. That suggests they were anti-abortion before because they lacked imagination. They simply couldn't put themselves in the place of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Like the bullied bully.
Every pro-choice advocate knows that, had their mother performed an abortion, they would never have been born.
Only academically.
When presented with a concrete example, they wake up.
To some extent for sure. More Americans think that abortions should be permitted at any time and for any reason than think abortions for sex-selection should be permitted.
As a pro-lifer Ann's argument is equivalent to me saying that I'm 'under the bus' because the federal government won't subsidize me if I ever feel the need to hire a hit-man to off someone.
But, as a rhetorical question, I wonder if Ann thinks that all the men who may ever impregnate a woman and then want to pressure her into having an abortion are also 'under the bus'...
Very well put. I will respect a pro-lifer who says that he understands the consequences of the Stupak bill, but considers the abortions prevented move valuable than the negative outcomes.
As a pro-lifer, I see the abortion itself as a 'negative outcome': A dead child is a worse outcome than a poor child.
Very well put. I will (respect probably isn't the right word, here) appreciate pro-choicers who only thinly veil the fact that his or her support for abortion is really based on a belief in the power of eugenics as much as support for women's rights.
Considering the conditions in which a child is raised is the opposite of eugenics, you fool. And, of course, the whole point is that you're giving women a choice, not forcing them to have a child when they can't pay for an abortion.
I guess I should have said pro choicers who only thinly veil the fact that his or her support for abortion is really based on a belief in the power of eugenics.
Oh, wait...
Looks like someone's attempts at cleverness don't even thinly veil a bad case of cretinism.
One would be tempted to add that Johnson's poor grasp of the subject of eugenics is quite transparent.
Yes!
Women will know that if they get pregnant, they will have to pay for their own abortions, or give birth. As a consequence, they will be more conscientious about not getting pregnant.
Win all around!
Question: what do women who can't afford abortions do now, in out current land of non-universal health care?
men pay for it.
a male friend, the father, or a 'male friend' (as in customer/trick).
that is my experience among poor women who 'can't afford' abortion. they find the money, nearly always from a man.
This is an incredibly dumb and short-sighted amendment. It puts populism and "principle" over the certainty of bad consequences.
Nimed, you yourself said this would lead to fewer abortions, or to put it another way, fewer murdered children. It seems to me pro-lifers probably regard that as a "bad consequence" averted.
I agree with the correction. Sam and nevertaken said it: this is for all purposes overturning Roe vs Wade for a specific group of women. A pro-lifer can reasonably say that at least poor women won't be able to afford "murdering their children", and that makes up for the documented negative consequences of adolescent, low income, single motherhood.
But pro-choicers can't be in favor of this bill. To repeat myself, you're de facto denying the right of having an abortion precisely to the women who gather the worst conditions to raise a child.
I take exception with Megan's position. She's essentially using old pro-life arguments (some women can't/won't have children, so this is not about women) that don't make sense if you're pro-choice.
You could similarly say that denying a woman's right to have legal representation in a divorce isn't really about women. After all, some women will be single all their lives, some will remain happily married until the end, and some are lesbians! Only a minority would ever want to get a divorce anyway.
this is for all purposes overturning Roe vs Wade for a specific group of women.
Well, my personal health care platform is "you should pay for your own damn health care, and also cut your hair and get a real job, you damn hippie," so I can live with that.
The Second Amendment is de facto inoperative for people with no money, and the First Amendment is de facto inoperative 60 days before an election for groups of people who need to pool their money to buy a TV ad instead of being rich enough to do it without pooling, most of the justice system is de facto unavailable to anyone who isn't a millionaire, and the Third Amendment is de facto inoperative for homeless people (although they probably don't mind).
It sucks to be poor. I suppose it sucks even more to be poor and have to exercise some tiny modicum of self-restraint to avoid the entirely predictable and well-documented consequences of unprotected sex.
She's essentially using old pro-life arguments (some women can't/won't have children, so this is not about women) that don't make sense if you're pro-choice.
I agree, I think almost everything associated with the OP (including the posts that inspired it) is a bit silly and off-point. But that's balanced out by Dilan Esper (one of my favorite liberals, but still) and his goofball argument that killing babies is really, really important because it leads to more orgasms. I can really see the NRLC getting on board with that one!
Nola Dawg and kkjamess are the only ones hitting the actually important point here.
You can only discuss this subject so much without dealing with the status of the fetus. To me, it seems completely absurd that a single fertilized cell, or even a 3 month fetus, has in the minds of some people the same personhood as Fred.
The development of human life in utero is a gradual process to which we are forced to apply a binary classification task. No matter how much we argue about the best criteria, there will be people unhappy with it. It's very much like discussing the ideal starting age of drinking, driving or voting, except that misclassifications can lead to murdering a child or forcing a raped woman to giving birth. So naturally there's a lot more yelling involved in abortion discussions.
At this time I would start my stump speech about how the nervous system development is what really matters. But I've sort of given up having these conversations. I don't think I've ever witnessed anybody change their minds on the subject.
"Sam and nevertaken said it: this is for all purposes overturning Roe vs Wade for a specific group of women. "
Bosh. If they want the baby dead that much, they can pay for these women's abortions.
Both sides are profoundly sexist. The notion that men have no interest in abortions is absurd.
Sadly, the biology of the matter is pretty profoundly sexist too.
Oh, good to know I don't have an interest in whether or not I have children. It's retarded to pretend that males have nothing to do with it.
Hey, I'm a guy. I don't like the idea of having no say in the matter of my own kids. I'm just saying, this is one issue where there really are fairly profound differences between men and women, and we can't do much about them.
Bottom line here is we've got 2 extreme sides. One of the libertine side which says women have the right to have sex 50 times a month with 5-7 partners, and have federally funded abortions on demand. The other is the Christian whacko right that wants to outlaw all abortions. Can't we find a middle ground?
'Can't we find a middle ground?'
Realistically speaking, the answer is 'no'.
Stripped of your insulting language, the pro-life side does indeed want to make abortion largely unavailable, because they believe that it's child murder, absolutely no different than taking a gun and shooting a five year old to death. If you start with that as your initia; premise, there's very little room for a middle ground. From that POV, abortion is an atrocity.
For those who don't accept that premise, who start with the assumption that the unborn are not separate human beings, then restrictions on abortion are a profound violation of personal freedom, an invasion far more profound than kicking in the door of someone's house without permission or legal right.
From this later POV, the number of times the woman has had sex or without how many partners is just irrelevant. They might grant that the government shouldn't fund it, but that's as far as they can go, and some who see it as a 'positive right' can't even accept that.
There just isn't much room for a gray area here, there are a handful of areas where compromise might be possible, esp. with regard to rape, but for the most part it's either/or by the very nature of the issue.
For a historical comparison, imagine trying to find a middle ground between abolitionists and pro-slavery activists (and which one maps to which side of the abortion debate depends on who you ask).
From that POV, abortion is an atrocity.
Sort of. We're pretty fortunate that there's no large body of people who *act* as if abortion was an atrocity.
If a state was allowing for the execution of 1,000,000 "undesirables" a year (almost 50,000,000 from 1973), I think most people would be making a case for the immediate overthrow of the government and the replacement by, if necessary, a non-democratic entity until one could be assured that populace was purged of those condoning mass slaughter, even at the cost of devastation of that country.
Given that there's no hint of that, I think we can safely say that a lot more people say abortion is murder than believe it is murder. (Or they tolerate murder a lot more than we might expect.)
Most people, most of the time, don't act on their beliefs. That can suddenly change, though, as history shows us.
In practice, right now the pro-lifers are winning, so it's something of a moot point.
Yeah, this has always stunned me. If abortion is truly murder, and you can't get it banned through the legal process(which, given that it's been 36 years, I'd wager that they can't), then one would almost assume a terror campaign is your moral duty, same as it was for resistance movements in WW2, to name one example. I mean, I'm pro-choice, so I'm glad they don't act on their beliefs, but it's always confused me a little.
In the late 1700s, there was a significant abolitionist movement, but you didn't see a lot of violence. That doesn't mean the abolitionists tolerated slavery, they just hadn't convinced enough people to join their ranks. But they kept at it.
Of course, by the 1850s, they had convinced enough people to force a resolution of the issue. And it was very violent. I hope we never see that sort of problem resolution again, but I would never rule it out.
Tom, do you realize that in order to win a cheap rhetorical point, you are giving comfort to the extremists who kill abortion doctors? These extremists are generally rejected by the pro-life community: and that community is not failing in the courage of its convictions by rejecting them.
Maybe most pro-lifers are not as violent as you? Maybe many of us are guided by Christian teaching, which says to 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's'? Maybe we see the tragic truth that humanity is a brutal species and conclude that using violence to try to change that is only adding to that problem?
So many possibilities other than your conclusion that we are lying about our beliefs.
nevertaken, yes I am making a cheap rhetorical point, but only off those who use cheap rhetoric: "abortion is murder", holocaust analogies, etc.
I suspect the truth is that a most pro-lifers do not consider abortion to be the equivalent of the murder of a sentient human being with the same culpability and moral obligation to oppose it. However, there are some that think that they advance their cause by using rhetoric that equates abortion and murder.
My (perhaps ill-advised) shot was meant to point out the hypocrisy in the use of such rhetoric. Those using it want the moral suasion invoked by such terms without having to be responsible for the moral obligation imposed by the its use.
Anyway, your reasoned response means I will attempt to refrain from succumbing to this particular temptation again next time it comes up.
Was the Holocaust not an atrocity?
Yet people lament attacks on Nazis in occupied Europe -- because they
1. didn't stop the Holocaust
2. caused reprisals from the Nazis on innocent civilians.
Tom, you say:
"I suspect the truth is that a most pro-lifers do not consider abortion to be the equivalent of the murder of a sentient human being with the same culpability and moral obligation to oppose it."
I won't claim to speak for all pro-lifers, just myself. I think abortion is killing a not-yet-sentient human being (early term abortion anyway, we can have medical-based debates on whether a late term fetus is 'sentient' - in any case at least as sentient as a newborn baby, but very few people support killing them). I don't see much of a difference between the acts of abortion and the killing an unconscious adult who would likely regain consciousness given time.
However 'murder' requires more than an act. It also requires a state of mind: in order to murder, you have to know what you are doing. I obviously cannot see into the minds of any women who decide to have abortions, so I cannot condemn anyone for 'murder'. I suspect there are a few who realize the reality of what they are doing, and do it anyway: that's murder. But most, probably believe they are doing something other than killing a human being. 'Tragic ignorance' is the best I can come up with to describe that.
So I don't think one can say 'abortion is murder', some abortions may be, but most probably are not. The situation is more akin to masses of people dying of a disease when there is a simple cure, but the society they live in has a cultural hang-up about using that cure. Our society has built a mythology which obscures the clear scientific fact that a concieved embryo is an organism of the species Homo Sapiens, i.e. a 'human being'. The solution is education and an effort to discredit this mythology: not violence or insurrection, which would get us no where and lead to many more pointless lives lost.
Obviously, pro-choicers know that an embryo is of the species "Homo sapiens". So is a zygote. So is a human stem cell (not necessarily embryonic), or any differentiated cell in a human body.
It's nice to pretend that you have a simple criterion that could solve the abortion discussion, and that the people who don't agree with you are simply misinformed. But that is manifestly false.
"Personhood" is a forced binary classification that we impose on the gradual process that is the in utero development of a human being. Zygotes slowly and gradually become human beings in the course of a pregnancy. Any set of criteria will always seem silly on the margins. There is no easy answer to the personhood problem.
Obviously, pro-choicers know that an embryo is of the species "Homo sapiens". So is a zygote. So is a human stem cell (not necessarily embryonic), or any differentiated cell in a human body.
It's nice to pretend that you have a simple criterion that could solve the abortion discussion, and that the people who don't agree with you are simply misinformed. But that is manifestly false.
"Personhood" is a forced binary classification that we impose on the gradual process that is the in utero development of a human being. Zygotes slowly and gradually become human beings in the course of a pregnancy. Any set of criteria will always seem silly on the margins. There is no easy answer to the personhood problem.
Nimed,
You skipped half my statement. A conceived embryo is A) human; and B) an organism. Together these mean that a conceived embryo is a human being: not just a part of a human being.
A zygote fits these criteria; your other examples do not.
"Personhood" is a mystical concept: different religions or philosphies define it in different ways. I do not think that any human being ever has the right to impose her personal mystical definitions on any other human being through killing.
The cold fact is that a human being comes into existence on conception. Only by imposing your own mystical definitions of personhood on some, but not other, human beings can you escape the implication from this fact that abortion is the killing of a human being.
There's nothing mystical or "my own" about the concept of personhood. It's a shared social concept to which we attribute certain characteristics. It's evidently less well-defined than the concept or organism. But it is the one people are concerned about. Take for instance, another concept - "adulthood" or "maturity". It has no well-defined biological reality. That doesn't stop us from basing all kinds of decisions on this "mystical" concept, like the appropriate age to start voting or drinking.
You want people to care about the biological concept of organism. The problem is, nobody does, including pro-lifers. As Tom West pointed out, virtually nobody really behaves as if a zygote is the equivalent of a human being. There's a spontaneous rate of abortion of up to 50%, the vast majority on the first trimester. Where are the funerals and prolonged grieving that we associate with the loss of a sentient human being? And no, it's not just because we don't "know" the zygote. People react very differently about news of a stranger that died in an highway accident than to the tragic true story about a zygote that failed to attach itself to the uterine wall and starved.
That's because people just don't value a single-cell very much. It's not only that it can't communicate, has no sentience, doesn't feel pain, etc. The problem is that it's too much like the other cells that die by the thousands every hour in a human adult - it's basically a bunch of molecules inside a membrane of microscopic radius. Yes, it has potential, but so does a oocite and a spermatozoon. We are not completely indifferent to potential, but we don't value it very much either. We care about what we recognize as human beings.
You can scream all you want that there's an easy way to solve the debate, if only people's emotions responded to biological classifications. Alas, the "zygotes are humans!" argument is a pretty old one in the abortion debate. It hasn't solved anything so far.
To conclude, allow me to repeat the last paragraph of my previous comment:
"Personhood" is a forced binary classification that we impose on the gradual process that is the in utero development of a human being. Zygotes slowly and gradually become human beings in the course of a pregnancy. Any set of criteria will always seem silly on the margins. There is no easy answer to the personhood problem.
Nimed, I agree with your last paragraph about 'personhood'.
That is why such a criterion cannot be used to determine who lives and who dies. The question is whether you believe in human equality: are all human beings equal under the law, or not?
If not then we can all make our own personal criteria for who is, and who isn't a person. Or we can do what we do, which is convince majorities of people to not classify certain humans as 'persons' and make them subject to arbitrary execution.
Your point that most people don't relate to zygotes like they do to adults is beside the point. If most people in a society didn't emote over [insert minority group here] as they did over [insert majority group here], that would not make it right to subject the minority group to arbitrary execution.
Adult humans die by the thousands; there are populations of adults subject to more than a 50% mortality rate; there are populations of adults who no one, or very few people care about at all. None of these points justifies subjecting any human being to arbitrary execution.
As to your point about the 'age' of the zygotes are humans argument: there are many examples of 'X are persons' arguments which took many many times longer to have any effect on the prevailing views. That did not make them illegitimate arguments; it brought great historical shame on the societies which did not recognize them.
It's pretty clear that most anti-abortion people don't think it's actual murder to do an abortion. There would be many, many, manymanymanymanymanymanymanymany more murders of abortion doctors if people believed that. Generally speaking, people don't allow people they know have committed hundreds of murders to live near them.
Out of sight, out of mind.
"It's pretty clear that most anti-abortion people don't think it's actual murder to do an abortion."
Of course not. Otherwise, they'd be fucking monsters. Wouldn't they?
It is, however, the killing of a baby that otherwise would be born normally.
This distinction is obviusly lost on the poor black child who gets killed, but hey ... whatever lets you sleep at night guy.
From this later POV, the number of times the woman has had sex or without how many partners is just irrelevant.
A person who has unprotected sex with a large number of people will spread disease, possibly even to their children when such are born. That seems relevant to me.
If there were no middle ground whatsoever between absolute evil and totally irrelevant, polititians wouldn't use soundbite positions like 'safe, legal and rare.'
Your imposing of your own beliefs on others is absolutely loathesome. Why don't I impose my views on you. See how you feel
Of course. The obvious middle ground is "women have the right to have sex 50 times a month with 5-7 partners", but they have to pay for their own abortions.
Or the flipside: if I have to pay for the consequences of someone's sexual activity, then I have a right to restrict that activity.
All you can do is insure a barrier exists simply to repel one from harming the other.
How about this for a middle ground - Women should have sex 50 times a month with 5-7 partners, and abortions should be outlawed. Who doesn't love a high birth rate?
Um, how is "it's legal but I don't have to pay for your abortion" not the middle ground already? It also just happens to be the status quo.
In fact, since the Stupak Amendment has the usual "rape, incest and life of the mother" exception, it ALREADY moves the ball about 10 or 15 yards in favor of the pro-death crowd.
BTW, it's a fallacy that science has separated sex from reproduction. Condoms fail, or cause problems for the man. Birth control pills causes very undesirable side effects in the woman(like growing a mustache). So for the radical feminazis to claim this is specious at best and reeks of sexual libertinism for it's own sake.
Yeah, sometimes he's so small he can't find a condom that fits right.
What's really funny is that they went through this already in the UK where technically abortion is only legal for rape, incest, and maternal risk. Of course since the mortality risk (to the mother natch) of a normal pregnancy is slightly higher than of a surgical abortion this legalized "abortion on demand". See Dr. Crippen for a British doctor's take (pro-choice).
The debate is utterly a Kabuki ritual meaning only that at the end of the day that the prospective mother need only to get an extra signature to get her abortion paid for by the government.
Since when does disagreeing with anti-choice types trivialize their arguments?
They're welcome to their beliefs against abortion, but there's no automatic protection for them to have their way. Tax dollars pay for wars that many of us find immoral, and for public executions at a rate that makes me hang my head in shame for ranking with the most barbaric states of the world. For education that says species evolve, even tho the Bible doesn't get around to mentioning it. For people of different races to marry (!) and other notions that would've shocked our grandparents.
Welcome, lifers, to a society where you get to have personal beliefs about whatever you want but are obliged to pay taxes and occasionally to give service to do what the majority wants. That's the fundamental contract of America with its people.
Meanwhile, the key point remains: in this posture, anti-choice types are NOT preventing women from having abortions, which are generally legally available. They are attempting to make them more difficult, especially for women of low economic status. Can you think of a worse public policy in terms of how much it hurts unfortunate individuals versus the minor, not even smug satisfaction to others?
As you say, there are certainly arguments pro and con about abortion, but how do you countenance the notion of having to pay extra for the right to control your own body? What banner does THAT go under? The Creator Restricts Some of Mankind from Certain Fundamental Rights?
"Welcome, lifers, to a society where you get to have personal beliefs about whatever you want but are obliged to pay taxes and occasionally to give service to do what the majority wants."
I believe Jesus called this "Giving to Caesar what is Caesar's".
I understand that in a democracy you sometimes have to pay for things you abhor. However, if you want to impose your beliefs on people that way, first you have to win democratically. And that's what this debate is about. You can no more take my money to kill innocent children without first winning the democratic battle, than I can refuse to pay taxes so you can have so much control of your own body that you can use it to destroy another's body if I lose the democratic battle.
Welcome, lifers, to a society where you get to have personal beliefs about whatever you want but are obliged to pay taxes and occasionally to give service to do what the majority wants.
Uh, the Stupak amendment passed.
Earth to Bizarro World.
Actually, no, at this point a majority of women in this country are old enough that it would either be impossible, or extraordinarily unlikely, for them to conceive.
Actually, no, according to the census bureau's 2008 update, 53% of women are 39 or younger. The 50/50 mark happens at about 37. Throwing in "or extraordinarily unlikely" does not remotely justify the use of an under 37 cutoff.
Also, lesbians never get pregnant. There is no discussion of gay pregnancy/parenting in this country. These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.
Furthermore, we discover that domestic violence and rape are not women's issues. At least not until more than 50% of women experience them.
The lesbians who get pregnant tend not to be looking for abortions, since they presumably had to go a bit out of their way to get knocked up in the first place.
It must be nice to have such a clear knowledge of the internal deliberations of a specific subset of the population.
Yes, it is nice to have common sense.
Dilan Esper said:
Men don't bear the burden of childbearing. That's why it has to be a woman's decision. It's a binary world: either we (1) empower women to make the decision, which means that some men will have to provide for children that they did not wish to have (but will not be forced to bear those children), or (2) disempower women, which means that women will not only have to provide for those children but to actually bear them and suffer the grievous harms to their lives caused by unwanted pregnancy and childrearing.
In that situation, empowering women is the obviously correct choice.
You botched that one pretty good. How is it a binary world? As long as your starting from the position that consensual sex should be free from any long term consequences, You can:
(1) empower women to decide on the pregnancy and empower women to force men to support an unwanted child,
(2) empower women to decide on a pregnancy but not to force men to support an unwanted child,
(3) empower men to make the decision on the pregnancy and to force women to continue providing support for the unwanted child after birth,
(4) empower men to make the decision on the pregnancy but not to require the woman to provide any support after birth,
(5) have a "life preference" where either the man or the woman can prevent an abortion or
(6) have an "abortion preference" where either the man or the woman can force an abortion.
That's just six approaches off the top of my head; pretty much not binary.
And considering you believe that a woman should be able to "have a fruitful, healthy sex life with whomever she pleases and without the fear of an embarrassing, debilitating, difficult pregnancy and childbirth," it seems you should logically go for option no. 1, no. 5 or no. 6, not no. 2; unless you for some reason feel that childbirth is too much of a burden on a woman's right to have sex, but that 18 years or more of alimony is not too much of a burden on a man's right to have sex.
proof reading isn't a bad thing. Maybe that should have said "logically go for option no. 2, or no. 6, not no. 1;"
Pro lifers claim that the beginning of life is at conception. Now consider this case: fetus in fetu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu
This is when 2 embryos are fertilized inside the womb normally, hence being 2 distinct lives, according to pro lifers. However, during the development, one fertilized embryo grows normally and the other doesn't, such that the healthly one completely envelopes and grows around the other one. The other weak undeveloped embryo then attaches itself to the healthy one, only partially developing some limbs, etc and in the case of fetus in fetu, the undeveloped embryo attaches itself inside the healthy baby similar to a tumor, similar to a parasite to the healthy embryo. So when the baby is born, the undeveloped mass of tissue threatens the life of the healty baby.
In pro-lifer's case, they would remove the underdeveloped baby 100% of the time, but given their doctrine, they will be committing murder, because that parasitic mass of tissue actually came from a fertilized embryo. Therefore, by choosing the healthy baby's life over the parasitic mass, this case proves that pro-lifers are all hypocrites.
Therefore, it is right to trivialize pro-lifer's beliefs, because they are antiquidated and are hyprocrites.
I realize I probably shouldn't even respond to this, but I'm missing where, if pro-lifers accept danger to the mother as reasonable grounds for abortion (as that vast majority in my experience do), this particular very rare example proves hypocrisy. You might be trying too hard.
In the case where the mother's life is in real danger, you are balancing one human life against another. To say that it's ok to pick one over the other in those tragic circumstances does not mean that you can't also say that you should not end a human life for lesser reasons without being a hypocrite.
So in other words, when you have to pick between lives, you're allowed to do so, which is exactly the situation bf was describing.
Alsadius,
Exactly. But bf thinks that if condone hard decisions when faced with a bad and a worse option, that you are a hypocrite if you oppose the 'bad' option in the absence of that tragic dilemma.
Except that bf doesn't strike me as being that stupid. So I suspect he (she?) is just playing rhetorical, and slanderous games in order to avoid facing the hard implications of the pro-choice belief system.
That's quite the conclusion you reach.
In the case you describe: initially there are two healthy human beings. Then tragic, but natural processes occur which render one of those humans unable to live, and the other's health threatened.
The underdeveloped baby is, in this case, in a similar position to a completely brain-dead adult: although at one point it may have been possible for either one of them to gain consiousness, now that possibility is gone. They are both essentially 'dead', altough their metabolism hasn't shut down yet. So it is no more 'murder' to remove the 'undeveloped mass' than it would be to allow organ harvesting from an adult who has no chance of ever waking up.
Here's a question for you: if you were injured and put into a coma, with no dreams. But the doctors thought there was a 95% chance that within 9 months you would regain full consciousness, would it ok to harvest your organs to save currently conscious 'full' human beings? After all, at this point you are a non-conscious piece of meat with only the 'potential' of ever being a 'person' again.
I could say that unless you answer 'yes it's ok to harvest my organs in that case' that your views can be 'trivialized' as 'antiquidated' and that you are a 'hypocrite'.
But that would be childishly simplistic.
Good points, but the point of that argument was first to expose that stress tests to beliefs often highlight inconsistencies, how arbitrary those decisions are, and to impose on others your own beliefs is disgusting.
The analogy you posed is good, but not exact in the case of an embryo. With the embryo, you do not know the outcome of the person, while with a person who is injured, yes. Therefore, you have proof that the person can add economic value to society, whereas an embryo you don't.
Further, that person is of age to decide his/her own fate, while an embryo does not. However, the embryo is not a human either, because it could turn into a mass like a tumor. Therefore, the strict adherence to adult laws does not apply to embryos because it is not an adult yet, nor a child. It is based on what is, and not what could be. To base something (especially law) on what could be is disastrous.
The life is potential, yes, but it could also be nothing. Nobody knows, but ultimately, it is up to the parents to decide the fate of that embryo, and not some super moral authority dictating what the mother should or should not do. The problem with prolifers is that in their super moral authority, they are trying to change laws that can affect others.
I have no problem with them adhering to their beliefs in their own family. I do have a problem with them trying to invade my life. Therefore, in your example, the spouse should decide, not some other person.
The decision to "kill" the tumor also highlights the slippery slope of the argument. They are now ignoring their main doctrine - life begins at conception (and this doctrine has no exceptions as I know, even if the embryo becomes a tumor) because of special circumstances. If pro-lifers then say the fertilized embryo is a tumor and we should kill it, they are basing their decision on fact, and not some potential chance in the future. Therefore, their entire basis of argument has changed. They are inconsistent. The fact that decisions change shows that the pro-lifers are making up the rules as it goes along, arbitrarily assigning what is right, what is wrong based on personal situation.
Therefore, it becomes a game of a pro-lifer's personal preferences being imposed by rule of law (if they lobby hard enough) or some other mechanism that directly inteferes with mine. That is loathesome.
Therefore, it becomes a game of a pro-lifer's personal preferences being imposed by rule of law (if they lobby hard enough) or some other mechanism that directly inteferes with mine. That is loathesome.
There was a great NRA poster years ago showing a gun sitting in a drawer. The caption was "If government doesn't belong in your bedroom, what's it doing in my nightstand?"
Laws are, by their very nature, invasions by the will of one upon the rights of another. Ideally, these invasions will be limited, and will be principally directed at preventing individuals from invading one another's rights. But that doesn't solve the abortion problem, because abortion is an invasion on the fetus/embryo's rights, assuming it has any, which is precisely the sort of thing that even hard-core libertarians think the government should prevent.
It's all well and good to say that people should make decisions for their own family, but we don't let them rape their children to make child porn, or starve them for disciplinary purposes, or refuse them schooling or medical care. There's no reason for us to let them kill them, either.
So the question isn't, and never was, "are pro-lifers profound philosophers or merely hypocrites?" The question is, "What is a fetus?" And that's not a question you can answer with glib references to rare medical occurances.
If that's the best you can do, you've lost the argument before you start.
Maybe the people who are pro-choice could set up some sort of organization to fund poor people's abortions?
You know, like Planned Parenthood, National Network of Abortion Funds, etc.
You probably even can get an income tax deduction for your donation.
Is it really too much to ask? I am pro-choice, but like conscientious objectors, I think forcing pro-lifers to pay for this is a bit much.
Or maybe the clinic should simply charge more for those who can pay and subsidize the abortion of those who cannot? (Let me guess, this is a horrible, horrible idea.)
Or maybe the abortion lobby is a profitable industry masquerading as social do gooders.
Or maybe the anti-abortion lobby is a not-for-profit industry masquerading as social do-gooders.
Now now, they're both real do-gooders. The question is whether those do-gooders do any actual good.
I support abortion in the case of rape/incest/life of mother, as well as in the case of major health problems with the fetus. I disagree with abortions done simply because the mother doesn't want the baby.
Regardless of my opinions or the laws of the US, rich people will always find a way to have abortions if they want them badly enough. So abortion laws really only affect the middle-to-lower classes. And I don't see why my TAX dollars should go to subsidize the abortions in this population, since I don't trust government to decide which abortions are justified and which are not.
Helping poor people pay for the abortions that are justified for the above reasons should be the task of charities who can exercise moral judgment without political concerns. I really want to start such a charity, with no religious affiliation, of course.
The length of the comments section doesn't convince that this topic makes any sense. Friedman's argument is ludicrous, the kind of thing people say who can't conceive of any point of view but their own.
Everyone really agrees with me, of course.
The entire argument (regarding the amendment) is something of a distraction. The Democratic Party is wedded, rightly or wrongly, to full government funding for abortion. It's the central animating issue of much of their activist base, they fully intend to put it back in in the final bill, though as like as not it'll be in some sort of innocuous-seeming language.
Compare this to the Senate debate, where the Dems got Snowe (R-Maine) onboard in committee by supposedly taking out the 'public option'. Do you really think they didn't fully intend to put it back in later? Abortion is no different in terms of the current debate, the Dems know what they want and are just zigging and zagging as best they can figure out how to get there.
My problem with Stupak-Pitts -- and I say this as someone who is somewhat on the pro-life side of the continuum, and has struggled to achieve and keep pregnancies -- is that it narrows down the conditions to requiring that the life of the mother must be in danger.
With my last pregnancy, an early ultrasound raised the possibility that my son might have Trisomy 18, a genetic condition which is generally considered fatal. 90% of T18 pregnancies don't make it to birth, 90% of the babies born alive die within minutes or hours, and almost all of the rest die within the first few days or weeks. A very, very few T18 babies, especially partial mosaics, survive to their first birthday, but that's very much the exception. If my baby had proved to have T18, we would have considered early induction of labor -- not because we wanted to get rid of him, but because we would have wanted to meet him and hold him and say goodbye, rather than waiting for the OB appointment where they couldn't find a heartbeat. But guess what? That's abortion, and our insurance wouldn't cover the delivery under Stupak.
And if we want to chop logic, how exactly do we define "life of the mother must be in danger"? The life of the mother is in some degree of danger merely from the fact that she's pregnant -- hundreds of women still die from direct pregnancy/birth causes every year in the US. On the other end of the spectrum, even conditions like ectopic pregnancy are by no means universally fatal. Is the life of the mother in danger if she has a 1% chance of dying based on her immediate physical condition? 10%? 50%? If you wait until it's 90% certain that the mother's death is imminent, you will increase the number of maternal deaths, because it's too late to perform an abortion when the woman is actually in full-blown HELLP and having eclamptic seizures. Where exactly is the statistical line drawn? And given that there are few or no studies linking a given set of clinical parameters like HELLP labs with actual death rates, how is one supposed to determine how endangered the woman's life actually is?
I'm really gratified that we are edging ever closer to moving out of the Stone Age and into the Copper one, on this whole abortion thingee. Now, if only a few million Teabaggers would choke on their chicken pot pie TV dinner while watching Glenn Beck talk his anal surgery/addiction to painkillers/racist conspiracy theories, we could move even closer.
You know, the abortion debate is a very old one and Christians were making the same arguments back in Roman times. I don't see on what grounds you argue that one stance is more 'advanced' than another.
I wasn't arguing.
I'm afraid it's even worse than that.
Pro-lifers are very cynical about 'health of the mother' exceptions because of specific court rulings (such as Doe vs. Bolton) that define 'health' incredible broadly. There's a reason why pro-abortion activists will sometimes agree to various restrictions as long as a 'health' exception is put in, it sounds reasonable but in fact under current standing court rulings most health exceptions result in 'abortion on demand'.
From Doe vs. Bolton:
We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
This is relevant both to why the pro-life and pro-choice factions take the positions they do, AND to the implications of 'health care reform'. The thinking embodied in that quote is terrifying from the POV of what 'health care reform' can touch upon.
The openness in this thread of the view that abortion must be illegal or discouraged in order to make women pay for their sexuality is useful and instructive.
That's funny Mike D. Kind of like the view that forced paternal child support payments must be common and encouraged in order to make men pay for their sexuality.
It's great fun to characterize the views of those with whom you disagree as being dark, while at the same time being willfully blind to their real concerns (fyi: the whole 'killing babies' thing is the concern of pro-lifers).
Given how open it is, I trust you will have no difficulty finding somebody actually taking the position that abortion should be illegal to punish women for having sex.
Almost as useful and instructive as the openness of some to the view that women must be free to slaughter their offspring in order to have what they characterize as "a fruitful, healthy sex life with whomever [they] please[]."
"or when doctors won't tie our tubes, or give us IUDs, or otherwise allow us to make permanent choices about sexuality."
Not on the main topic of this post, but IUDs are not at all a permanent choice; a woman can get pregnant as soon as she removes one. I imagine you know this, but I think it's worth clarifying because it makes it even more maddening that some doctors will refuse to provide them to women who are unmarried or have never had kids.
Thank you. It's ridiculous. They're a perfectly good alternative to the Pill - even better for women who are smokers, over 35, or sensitive to the hormones in the Pill. And a 99% effectiveness rate.
Thanks Rob (and others) for the reminder that "conservatives" are every bit as bug-fuck idiotic about some other things as "liberals" are about economics. I'm probably not going to post here any more, it has been weeks since the last time, and IE is even more annoying now that I have gotten used to Fifrefox 3.5 and I still can't sign in here under FF.
Hey man, don't go. What will become of this joint if the few genuine libertarians leave?
I am always glad to be of service!
"Actually, no, at this point a majority of women in this country are old enough that it would either be impossible, or extraordinarily unlikely, for them to conceive. Some of the women of reproductive age are either infertile, or have had themselves sterilized. Others are lesbians, or long-term virgins. So in fact, at best you can argue that we've thrown a small minority of the population "under the bus"."
While I think the argument of throwing women under the bus is silly on its face, if you are going to use fact-based arguments to counter it please take the time to deliver those facts.
Data Check- from NCHS vital stats estimates for 2006 - 62,258,466 women out of 151,886,332 total are between 15-44 (traditional def for child-bearing ages) or 40.99% of total female population. The figure for under 15 is 51,661,587 (34%) and for those 45 and over, 37,966,279 (25%). I think the last group falls into your category of "old enough" Throwing in infertility might be interesting for your argument but I would need to dig deeper. (AND that is your job, not mine. It's your argument) As for lesbians, they aren't fertile or having babies? where do you live? As for a category of long-term virgins - huh? In any case, you would need a lot of sexually inactive or infertile women to reduce that 41% to under 25%. If you want to include under 15 year-old females, you should say so but they are not part of the population that are "old enough".
For someone who likes to do quick and dirty data-based arguments you really should do better. It's not that hard to access basic population data- just go to either the census website or the nchs site.
"As for lesbians, they aren't fertile or having babies?"
I think the point is that a lesbian is highly unlikely to ever need an abortion, unless raped. Otherwise if she got pregnant it would assuredly be on purpose.
Also included in the category of women who are highly unlikely to ever need an abortion, excepting rape, are those who have had their tubes tied, have IUDs, or whose partners have had vasectomies. That's maybe only 10-15% of women 15-44 (just a guess) so I do agree with your general point that more than a "small minority" of the population is in a position where they could find themselves wanting to have the choice to have an abortion.
Thanks for explaining that. I was really not getting it. My problem is more generally with the use of evaluative terms like "small minority" which should be left up to the reader after perusing the facts. Most political discourse these days starts with some sort of assumption about the "basic facts" and if they aren't made explicit, I don't see how the arguments can logically proceed from them.
Thanks elliwyatt. I made the same data point above. There's a hell of a lot of "logic" and "common sense" in these comments and in this blog post that's undermined by reference to incorrect or completely made up facts. Even right here, it is "just a guess" that 10-15% of women 15-44 have had their tubes tied, have IUDs (which is irrelevant -- the woman next to me has a condom, is she off the list too?), or whose partners have had vasectomies (no one ever cheats thankfully).
I'm guessing that 97% of women are infertile, and the survival of the entire human race comes down to 38 women living in a commune in Vermont. I mean, it's just a guess, but think about the implications!
The sentence was:
The actual figure is 25%-30%. Kind of reminds you of the "hypothetical" episode.
I hate it when McArdle just creates her own facts. It makes you permanently suspicious of the content of the posts.
Megan,
I'm going to be blunt. This is a terrible argument. Arguing that abortion isn't a right is ethically coherent. Arguing the we don't need to protect abortion rights because a majority isn't interested or capable of exercising those rights is not ethically coherent. The percentage of people that might exercise the right has no bearing whatsoever.
Of course, par for course, you messed up the statistical argument as well. Assuming that the law is passed and that it isn't later repealed, a fair assumption for evaluating the implications of legislation, it will affect all future generations as well. So the correct proportion of women it will affect is the proportion of women that can bear children in a particular generation.
This is simple asymptotics. We've got an equation y=mt+c, c is the women currently alive that the law will affect at passage, t is time, m is the number of women born in a time interval that the law will affect. As t grows, c becomes an insignificant contribution to equation, and m dominates, no matter how big c is.
You are essentially saying c is really big, or that the bill is somehow ethical because you are counting upon its repeal. Terrible, really terrible, argument.