One point that I believe is missing from your Both/And argument is pregnancy prevention. You write about the Netherland’s policy of social support as a way of reducing abortions. Is that just one example or is it your be all, end all example. Our social support of the seventies did nothing for the “black community”, but cause more children to be born and the subsequent need for more social support. It is also a widely held belief by many in the black community, at least where I grew up, that the “white man’s” social support programs were the destruction of the black family.

IMHO, concentrating educating in abstinence and sexual repsonsibility would be a better path along with social programs that promote responsibility within the parents instead of the state. Furthermore, real abortion education would also assist in reducing abortions. So both real, productive, education and social support systems would be a better than outlawing abortion.

One other question — “Hugo and other pro-lifers don’t want to talk about the disgusting carnage they’ve caused; there are about 70,000 women who die every year from unsafe abortions, mostly in third-world countries where evangelical Christians have succeeded in banning legal abortions.” How did pro-lifers cause 70,000 women to die every year from unsafe abortions? Were all 70,000 abortions forced by some barbaric regime or did these women decide to have an abortion on their own accord? I would agree with your point if they were forced to have an abortion, but if they had an abortion on their own free will . . . ?

Hugo likes to say that he’s against “either/or” choices, but in the real world sometimes choices have to be made. Every dollar spent on trying to ban abortion is a dollar that could have been spent advocating for a policy that would more effectively save more preborn lives. Every minute spent supporting banning abortion is a minute that could have been used supporting policies that would more effectively save more preborn lives.

And then earlier, you say you’re a “both/and” type of guy…well, it doesn’t look that way from this paragraph, as you are advocating an either/or choice here.

And you overlook the choice that would make abortion go away entirely: Abstinence.

Unfortunately, Amanda, forced female or male sterilization would cause us to be extinct.

Therefore, abstinence is a better way to reduce abortions than a vasectomy or tubal ligation.

More seriously, there is no doubt that abstaining from heterosexual genital sex is the most effective way of preventing pregnancy, for any particular couple. (Note that they can still have all the not-hetero or non-gential sex they want and it remains just as effective). However, as a matter of public policy - and public policy is what my post is discussing - abstinence (either in the weak “the goverment requests that people not have sex” form, or the strong “have sex and we’ll throw you in prison” form) is not an effective policy.

* * *

Mike, I favor “either/or” policies when they’re possible but also recognize that in some situations “either/or” is not possible. So it is possible to support both female rights and reduce abortion rates; but it’s not possible to spend the same dollar on both abortion bans and on social supports. There’s nothing contradictory about that.

My preference is to view an “unwanted pregnancy” like an STD. If we educate in the same methods as we do for STD I think that would be an effective policy.

The current political strategy of “pro-abortion” advocates, I disagree with. Blame the government and pro-lifers for the situation you are in, not the person having sex. Your comment regarding 70,000 dead because of “pro-lifers” is an excellent example. Rarely do you hear (except in the case of HIV/AIDS) the blame the government rhetoric for contraction of an STD. The focus on personal responsibility in regards to STD’s has a more effective impact on sexual responsibility than the “blame the government/men” mantra.

The problem is that vasectomies, for the most part, are not reversible.

From Columbia University:

Results of recent studies indicate that following microsurgical vasovasostomy sperm appears in the semen in approximately 85 to 97% of men. Approximately 50 percent of couples subsequently achieve a pregnancy.

Following microsurgical vasoepididymostomy, sperm appears in the semen in approximately 65% of men. Approximately 20 percent of couples subsequently achieve a pregnancy.

Even with the best methods available, it only seems to restore fertility in roughly 50%. Also, microsurgery is very, very expensive.

So, that’s the problem.

Excellent essay, btw.

DISCLAIMER Prior to the onslaught of tomatoes, eggs and feces — Aside from the fact that there are cultures that actually believe that statement is true, the above does not reflect the true opinions of the commentor nor the editor)

In addition, you’ve been warned - multiple times - about using insulting, baseless anti-feminist cliches on this website, such as claiming that my argument is part of a “blame the government/men mantra.” Please cut it out.

Forced Vasectomies–’Cause It’s Men’s Turn

That’ll be our motto.

Lots of methods out there, folks (although admittedly not enough for men)–pill, injections, diaphragm, IUD (yes, they’re still available and safe, people just got scared off by the whole Dalkon Shield thing… They’re also almost as effective as sterilization AND they’re reversible without any surgery), condoms, etc.

I say teach about them all in school, make them readily available to all… and, as amp is suggesting, go for the Belgian or Scandinavian model of lots of individual freedom and low rates of unwanted pregnancy.

Thanks for taking on this debate, by the way…

Cheers

Hugo

The belgians have rock-bottom abortion rates because they incessantly hammer “ALWAYS USE CONTRACEPTIVES!” into the skulls of their children. This is the message their shools send through their sexual-education programmes, it is the message which their media sends through ads and slogans, and it is what dutch parents tell their kids when they are on their way to a party.
There are other parts to the programme such as “What are the various bits and what do they do?” and the emotional aspects of relationships are also emphasised, but the central core of the policy is to get every-one to “double-dutch” Which means using the pill in conjunction with condoms.

It works.

The social policies also have something to do
with it but it is a secondary effect. Poor people typically have more unwanted pregnancies in any society so policies that reduce the number of poor people reduce the number of abortions, but the US simply doesn’t have a social underclass big enough to explain a rate of teenage pregnancy
*13 times as high* as the dutch.
Thats right. An average US teen is 13 times more likely to become pregnant out of wedlock than a dutch teen.
Social policy doesn’t cover it, this is the result of dutch teenagers knowing how to manage their sex-lives responsibly and american teens being kept in deliberate ignorance.
AKA: Abstinence Only.

You are the BOMB! Next time I am in Texas would love to get together for a beer — no scissors please.

- - - -
Amp — I did not intend to say your argument was part of the “blame the government” mantra. You wrote several paragraphs regarding Hugo’s post. I disagreed with one statement becuase it seemed to say pro-lifers are the cause of the deaths of 70,000 women every year.

“I understand why . . . pro-lifers don’t want to talk about the disgusting carnage they’ve caused.” and “there are about 70,000 women who die every year from unsafe abortions.”

I presumed you meant — Hugo and other pro-lifers don’t want to talk about the disgusting carnage to which their pro-life policies contribute; due to those policies, women who want to abort their babies, must resort to an illegal abortion. Their choice to get an illegal abortion causes 70,000 deaths per year. I just wanted to clarify that was what you meant.

Barbara’s explaination — “No one suggested that the government was responsible for the underlying condition . . . but for the lack of safe medical care.” — sufficiently clarified your point.

I don’t believe “blame the government” is a feminist position — therefore, I fail to see how “blame the government mantra” could be an anti-feminist cliche. I have never heard of it as an anti-feminist cliche, but I will take your word on it and apologize for that too.

I agree that your new phrase, revised after my criticism, is not an anti-feminist cliche. Your original phrase, however - refering at least partly to a supposed “blame the men mantra” - certainly was an anti-feminist cliche.

* * *

Hugo:

You’re right, the last paragraph sucks, and detracts from what I meant to say. I’ve revised it. (For those who came to this post after my revision, the original last paragraph said: “And yet, it doesn’t interest pro-life feminists at all. They have no interest in supporting both women and preborns, choosing instead to support bans that accord all respect to preborn life and none to post-birth women. What on earth is feminist about that?”)

[cricket noises]

Yawn.

Ampersand, I was wondering if you discussed this already: why do these groups think it’s acceptable to impose their personal/religious beliefs on perfect strangers?