(Very) Basic Economics and Abortion
| January 22nd, 2006
I’ve been debating abortion a little on the comments of Post Tenebras Lux (from which I swiped the title of this post). I’m reposting some of my comments here. somewhat edited.
Xon wrote (in part):
How successful has the war on drugs been at lowering demand for pot? How successful was prohibition at lowering demand for alcohol?
Let’s introduce another concept from (very) basic economics into the discussion: elasticity of demand. I’d argue that for pregnant women who don’t want to be mothers, the demand for abortion is extremely inelastic. If I’m correct, then raising the price of abortions - for instance, by making abortions illegal - will have a relatively small impact on demand.
The problem with before-and-after Roe v Wade abortion rate comparisons is that too many people mix up the rate of legal and reported abortions - which obviously went up post-Roe - with the rate of abortions. But in fact, there were about a million abortions a year in the US in the few years before Roe - about the same as there were in the few years just after Roe.
What we need, to lower abortion, is a substitute for abortion. Attacking the supply side won’t do much to lower abortion rates, but attacking the demand side can work. For instance, policies which push birth control on teenagers (including the importance of always using two types at once) so hard the teens get bruised. Countries like Belgium have used this sort of policy to have the lowest abortion rates in the world. I don’t understand why pro-lifers have so little interest in imitating that.
Lux comment-writer Matt Weber responded:
Nothing. But you’re not understanding the concept of elasticity of demand. If something has an inelastic demand, that doesn’t mean that making it more expensive won’t have any effect on demand, just that the effect won’t be especially large.
Look, let’s say we ban drinking alcohol. That will lower demand for alcohol - but there will still be a huge demand remaining, and the black market will be substantial. That’s because demand for alcohol is pretty inelastic; you can raise the cost a lot, and people will still want it. People want alcohol very badly.
Compare that to banning RCA brand alarm clocks. Such a ban would probably be totally successful, because the demand for RCA alarms is very flexible; people will switch to Sony or Panisonic alarms and never notice the difference. Pretty much no one wants an RCA alarm badly.
Which would you guess the demand for abortion is more like - the demand for alcohol, or the demand for RCA alarms? I’d say the former. Women who want abortions often desparately want one; they’ll take on substantial trouble, risk and expense to get one.
Will you lower demand on the margins by banning abortion? Of course. But it won’t make a very big difference, because the demand for abortion is pretty inelastic.
The countries in the world with the lowest abortion rates are countries where abortion is legal - without exception. No country has ever succeeded in getting to a really low abortion rate by banning abortion.
Do you believe in the marketplace or not? If you do, then you have to admit that when the demand is high enough, the market mostly finds a way around barriers - and that includes legal barriers.
The only way to have a really low abortion rate is to lower demand, rather than banning supply. That means pushing birth control on teens as if it were oxygen, and also providing painfully generous welfare support for single mothers.
Will that have negative side effects? Maybe. But if pro-lifers are serious about lowering the abortion rate, they should be willing to consider the trade-offs. What good is an “idealogically correct” approach to lowering abortion rates, if it doesn’t actually work very well compared to other methods?
One method is to do a representative sample survey and ask women if they’ve had an abortion. This will lead to an underestimate of the true number of abortions, since people are strongly motivated to lie about having committed illegal acts (and even where it’s legal, many women prefer not to admit having had an abortion), but it’ll at least give you a baseline to work from.
Xon responded:
Dammit, why must it always come down to evidence! :-P
Although measuring something as hidden as illegal abortions is always difficult, the best pre-Roe scholarly assessment came to a figure of about a million abortions a year (”…prior to the adoption of more moderate abortion laws in 1967, there were 1 million abortions annually nationwide, of which 8000 were legal.” From Christopher Tietze, “Abortion on request: its consequences for population trends and public health,” Seminars in Psychiatry 1970;2:375-381, quoted in JAMA December 9, 1992).
Another option is to look at what happens to birth rates; a sudden, large increase in abortions should lead to a corresponding sudden decline in the birth rate. So if Roe caused a big jump in abortions in its first few years, we’d see it as a decline in the birthrate. So what actually happened after Roe was passed?
Year Births Birthrate
1973 3,136,965 14.9
1974 3,159,958 14.9
1975 3,144,198 14.8
1976 3,167,788 14.8
1977 3,326,632 15.4
1978 3,333,279 15.3
1979 3,494,398 15.9
1980 3,612,258 15.9
Similarly, what happened when Poland banned abortions in the 1990s? If pro-life policies reduce abortion significantly, there would have been a spike in Poland’s birthrate. But Poland’s birth rate remained steady. (See Reproductive Health Matters (Volume 10, Issue 19 , May 2002): “The restrictive abortion law in Poland has not increased the number of births.”)
There are three questions this brings up, in my view.
First of all, has the pro-life movement actually been proposing that we treat abortion as if it were murder?
I’d say not. The most recent federal partial-birth abortion ban, for example, said that mothers absolutely cannot be punished for their part in abortion; doctors could be punished by a fine.
Is there anyone in the world willing to endorse this policy for a murdered five year old child? A mother hires a hit man to kill her five-year-old child; if that happens, should we have a law saying that no matter what the mother cannot be punished, and the most that happens to the hit man is a fine?
The argument that pro-lifers can’t consider what is practical, because of their unshakable moral commitment to treating abortion as murder, falls apart when we look at the laws pro-lifers propose.
Second question: Is the “let’s do it both ways” plan viable, or are abortion reduction strategies a binary, one-or-the-other choice?
I’d say it’s one or the other. The U.S. has a two party system; no matter how nuanced our personal positions, the real choice we make is between column D and column R. One party supports policies that have actually led to low abortion rates in the real world, but opposes a ban. The other party opposes policies that have actually led to low abortion rates, but supports a ban. And that’s our choice.
And it’s a choice that matters in the real world. If the US had an abortion rate as low as Belgium’s, that would mean something between 700,000 and 800,000 fewer abortions a year, according to my seat-of-the-pants calculations.
Which brings me to my third question. In a system that forces us to choose between one or the other, which is better: 700,000 murders potentially prevented, or 700,000 murders not prevented plus an official statement calling abortion murder?
I don’t know what Xon’s position is. But the pro-life movement as a whole clearly favors the latter policy. And I find that incomprehensible. Putting abstract principle above 700,000 lives doesn’t seem like a supportable position, to me, and certainly undermines the pro-life claim to be motivated only by caring about what happens to babies.
January 22nd, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Very well said, Amp.
One thing that I might add is the assertation that if the pro-lifers want to go with the strategy of
they need to start embracing these better ways before they try to outlaw abortion, as the first priority. They’re the ones who have the problem with the results of legalized abortion, not us—therefore they are not justified in demanding that we give up our rights while we wait for them to stop attacking things that decrease the demand to exercise them.
They don’t like the side effects of our rights to choose not to be pregnant, they need to find something to eliminate the side effects without damaging the rights. There are many things that reduce the demand for abortion without eliminating the right or messing with the availability. The fact that the pro-lifers haven’t embraced these is telling.
And I’m sure I’m not the only one who wants to know, if they don’t support contraception, sex-ed, financial help, et cetera to reduce abortions when they’re legal, how the hell could they be trusted to support them if abortion becomes illegal and from their perspective all the important problems are solved?
I disagree with whoever-it-was, obviously, regarding making abortion illegal—even if I had the goal of reducing abortions as much as possible. Any decrease in abortion that is not demand-based is a violation of the rights and autonomy of the women who are denied abortions in order to make that decrease. The only legitimate way for there to be no abortions is for there to be no demand for abortions, and if that were the case there would be no reason for a law against abortions because there would be no abortions.
100%-effective birth control, convenient and free and available to everyone, male or female, who wants it; encouragement to take it even if you don’t intend to need it; an end to rape; completely comprehensive, compulsory sex education that everyone recieves before they need it; an end to the stigmatizing of single and teenage mothers, universal, affordable health care, maternity and paternity leave, convenient, readily available, affordable, high-quality child care, a living wage, welfare and unemployment benefits for whomever needs them, and counseling and support for anyone who feels overwhelmed by family- or parenting-related issues or life in general.
Or, an incubation tank that creates a perfect copy of the environment in a uterus, complete with a means of delivering nutrients and oxygen and removing waste from a developing embryo or fetus, with the proper balance and amounts of everything it needs tailor-made for each week of gestation, so that anyone who wants an abortion can come in and have one, with the embryo or fetus placed in such a tank to grow to infant stage; sufficient funding to provide the technology and employees to manage them free of charge to the woman who had the abortion; and a culture that made no distinction between biological children and adopted children, to the point where every aborted pregnancy resulted in a preemie-ward-grown baby soon to be adopted by someone who is ready to love him or her.
Either of those scenarios, or both together, are the only ways that the abortion rate could rightly and legitimately zero out. Assuming, of course that the aspect of abortion that the pro-lifers want to end is the embryos-being-killed part and not the women-controlling-their-own-bodies part. Sometimes I wonder.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
January 22nd, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Blog for Choice Day
Excuse this brief interuption. Pictures of knitting and cats have graciously stepped aside for Blog for…
This comment was written by Rhymes with Mango.Report this comment to the moderators
January 22nd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
But it has always seemed clear to me that they are not interested in babies. What they are interested in is fetuses and the untrammeled innocence and untaintable purity that fetuses represent to them. This has always seemed to me to be the underlying motivation for those who would institutionalize their opposition to abortion by making abortion not only illegal, but by defining it as murder.
I wish I had more time to flesh out what I am saying here, but my bed calls. I start teaching again tomorrow and I need my sleep. Perhaps I will post more on this on my own blog.
This comment was written by Richard.Report this comment to the moderators
January 22nd, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Thank you. This is one of the more original pieces I’ve seen on this topic today. I truly appreciate that.
This comment was written by Rowan.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:07 am
I broadly support Amp’s position on abortion and disagree with the people he’s arguing against. That said:
Xon isn’t saying above that abortion=murder in a strict sense (the view Amp attributes to him), he’s saying that abortion=unjustifiable homicide. In common law countries abortion’s never been murder, because you’ve never been able to murder someone who hasn’t been born. Abortion’s always been a different crime - such as “child destruction” or so on.
Whatever you say about the pro-life movement, they’ve been consistant in maintaining that abortion is a form of unjustifiable homicide and should be recognised in law as such.
Aren’t you begging the pro-choicer’s question here? The question is “is the demand for abortion inelastic?”. Not “is the demand for abortion inelastic for pregnant women who don’t want to be mothers?”. The suggestion is that people who don’t want to be mothers will be less likely to get pregnant should abortion be banned.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:14 am
Impressive post.
I agree, that is the argument. But does that argument really make sense?
It sounds almost like women are getting pregnant (where is the man in question, I wonder?) just to have an abortion. Or, perhaps more fairly, the argument is that women aren’t taking necessary steps to avoid possible pregnancies because of the availability of abortion (or that women deliberately delay the decision on whether to become a mother or not to include pregnancy). Some ugly stereotypes here.
The actions of pro-lifers betray them: Pro-lifers generally have little interest on making contraceptives and sex education widely available (thus making it less likely that women just get pregnant). Kudos to the ones who are fighting the demand side.
I think the fact that birth rates have been constant and that the number of abortions has not been reduced by pro-life policies is an empirical evidence on the invalidity of the argument people who don’t want to be mothers will be less likely to get pregnant should abortion be banned. That is covered in the post too, then.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:25 am
Small addition to Kyra’s list of things that would have to happen for abortion to disappear through lack of demand: an improvement in medical science such that any condition that might afflict a woman during pregnancy can be treated without additional harm to her or risk of harm to the fetus.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 5:32 am
I don’t know whether this has been discussed before, but…
I object to the characterisation of the abortion prohibitionist stance as ‘pro life’. Abortion antiprohibitionist advocates should not be buying into their opponents’ propaganda.
Firstly, ‘pro life’ does not describe any part of the abortion prohibitionist agenda. They wish to prohibit abortion; that is all. There is nothing inconsistent with abortion prohibitionism and support for the death penalty, for example, or the war in Iraq. The only life that the prohibitionist stance is ‘pro’ is the alleged life of the foetus, and to call it a ‘life’ is to beg one of the central questions in the debate.
Secondly, in practice it is antiprohibitionist who are more likely to oppose the DP, the war, support medical care for all, etc., so they have a better claim to being ‘pro life’ than the prohibitionists.
‘Pro choice’, while not ideal, does at least accurately albeit incompletely characterise the stance: We are in favour of allowing pregnant women the choice to have an abortion. ‘Abortion antiprohibitionism’ is arguably a better term.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:02 am
The suggestion is that people who don’t want to be mothers will be less likely to get pregnant should abortion be banned.
To be more blunt, there’s a sincere belief from anti-choicers that without abortion as a fallback position if contraception fails, women will quit having sex. Since most anti-choice activist groups are already moving towards agitating for bans on at least some female-controlled contraception, that seems to be the final goal overall–make women stop having sex or in lieu of this, be punished for it by repeated child-bearing.
The problem with this viewpoint, besides being unnecessarily cruel and invasive about stuff that’s none of their business, is that it’s based on some false belief that in the past the threat of pregnancy forced women to refrain from having sex. More likely is that it put constant strain on relationships between men and women because while both want sex, only the latter “paid” for it, meaning that negotiations about frequency, etc. were bound to be tense.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:20 am
The only way to have a really low abortion rate is to lower demand, rather than banning supply. That means pushing birth control on teens as if it were oxygen, and also providing painfully generous welfare support for single mothers.
Those certainly are ways to lower demand for abortion. But there are other considerations:
1) Teach the virtues of abstinence, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint. This has gotten a bad rap because of the efforts on some people’s part to teach this to the exclusion of all other viewpoints. But that doesn’t mean that it should not be a strongly emphasized part of the curriculum. It would also have the side effect of cutting down on STD’s, as it did in Uganda.
2) Making adoption a much more attractive option might encourage more single mothers to have their children and then give them up. A friend of mine adopted a child, and you’d have thought they were signing up for the CIA the way they were investigated. The whole process sounded like it was engineered to discourage people from adopting children. I’m also given to understand that there are a lot of sleazy operators in the adoption industry as well. Perhaps this could be cleaned up and made more easy for both the mother and the prospective adoption parents.
Do you think that providing painfully generous welfare support for single mothers encourage an increase in the number of single mothers? Do you consider that desirable, undesirable, or neutral?
As far as measuring the abortion rate by observing birthrates pre- and post-legalization, I’m curious to know what the abortion/live birth ratio is. Perhaps the rate is so low that significantly increasing the abortion rate would not appear to change the birthrate significantly. Perhaps there are some kind of “baby boom” effect from an imbalance of the number of women at various ages I wanted to give an example, but I found myself stymied by the “birthrate” statistic. Is that births per 1,000,000 people? Per 1,000 women? Per 100,000 women between the ages of 15 - 45? I don’t understand.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:22 am
Firstly, ‘pro life’ does not describe any part of the abortion prohibitionist agenda. They wish to prohibit abortion; that is all. There is nothing inconsistent with abortion prohibitionism and support for the death penalty, for example, or the war in Iraq.
What does the Iraq war or the death penalty have to do with opposition to abortion?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:39 am
Nothing. It has something to do with a person styling themselves as “pro life”.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:12 am
Ron:
Abstinence is NOT a moral choice. It is a very pragmatic approach to not getting pregnant (for women at least) but it is not a moral choice.
There is nothing moral about denying yourself something that is healthy, pleasurable, natural, and one has a strong urge to do.
This “deny yourself because it makes you a better person” is, at best, incomplete and at worst, harmful. The denial is not moral: denial is only moral if your denying to inflict harm on another person. (although, why one would naturally want to inflict harm on another is beyond me).
Denying yourself for the sake of denying yourself is harmful: it makes you frustrated and fixated. For moral actions, moderation is key.
You may disagree with me, of course, as is the right of every American to come up with your individual moral code. But to claim that YOUR moral code is the ultimate, and that is the one that should be pushed is discriminatory and harmful. At the same time, it has the very real effect of demonizing people (most likely women) for choosing it as a moral decision.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:56 am
A very interesting article in the New York Times today by William Saletan. Three Decades After Roe, a War We Can All Support It also speaks to the fact that reducing the need for abortion (i.e. reducing unwanted pregnancies) should be something that both camps should embrace.
As a staunch pro-lifer (or “anti-choicer” if it makes you feel better) I would definately be all for reducing unwanted pregnancy first and working on moral sexual issues with my teens second. Of course, we had this discussion some time back and I was accused of keeping my children ignorant because I didn’t want schools to be preaching “when” to have sex. What was lost in that discussion was that I had no problem with schools teaching about birth control.
This has been brought up before and I still don’t know where this comes from. I am a republican right wing evangelical Christian so I would guess I am the quintessential anti-choicer and I have yet to hear anyone I know nor have I read any “like-minded” commentators I read indicate in any way they are “moving towards…bans on at least some female-controlled contraception”. I would really appreciate some links regarding this assertion since it apparently is happening with “most” groups but I know of none.
This is what I am guessing - Christian anti-choice groups are against most “morning-after” pills because they are primarilly abortive. Therefore, they are no better, in their minds, than abortion. Although pro-choicers would maybe disagree that they are abortive, the devil is in the details. Since most abortion providers don’t classify you as “pregnant” until implantation, anything that prevents implantation prevents pregnancy and therefore is contraceptive. The opposite view is that the “pregnancy” (carrying of a new life) begins at conception and therefore anything that ends it is abortive.
The only other thing I have seen in Christian circles is some grumbling about oral contraceptives. Since the last resort of these pills is to prevent implantation, and therefore they have at least an abortive potential, some (very few) Christians are against them as well. Although I have heard this stance in some circles it would be a great exageration to say that “most” are of this opinion.
Well, I would agree to a point. Christian believe heterosexual sex inside of marriage is the only sex that God blesses, therefore this is a moral choice outside of that circumstance. Inside of marriage, it would turn pragmatic. It should be pointed out, though, that any prolonged abstinece inside of marriage would be viewed as problematic, at best, inside Christian circles. At any rate, inside marriage, abstinence is not considered a viable birth control method for Christians (they use contraceptives or rythym methods). Conversely, when Christians talk about abstinence, they are universally speaking of extra-marital behavior. Therefore, for them, it is a moral choice. They don’t deny it is “healthy, pleasurable, natural, and (something) one has a strong urge to do”, they simply believe it is only morally allowed within marriage.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:57 am
What Amanda said about morality.
Abstinence is being pushed in sex-ed curricula as the best way to avoid both pregnancy and STDs, just as it always has been. Other methods of prevention frequently get short shrift in classrooms, to the detriment of student health and safety, but not abstinence. Abstinence-based sex-ed is status quo, and its effects on lower pregnancy and STD rates will continue to be exactly what they are now: sadly insufficient, and far less effective alone than pro-abstinence plus comprehensive safer-sex education.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:03 am
Substitute “most doctors and healthcare providers” for “abortion providers” in that sentence, and you’d be telling the truth. The idea that pregnancy starts at implantation isn’t an anti-medical minority viewpoint adopted for political reasons; that is in fact true of “life begins at conception.”
Amanda conceded that point: it’s a choice that fits into some moral codes. It doesn’t fit into others. That means that it shouldn’t be presented as the moral choice when we’re talking about a curriculum that is neither Christian nor designed for that subset of Christians.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:21 am
I didn’t mean it as such.
I appologize, I wasn’t clear in my quoting. I was referring to Antigone’s post at this point.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:42 am
I see. I didn’t mean to jump all over you.
I don’t have a problem with introducing the question of responsibility into the issue of whether or not to have sex. In good safer-sex education, that question is paramount. The possibility of hurting someone, endangering someone, or fucking someone over is a real one, and people are encouraged to think very carefully about it. Without that concern, protection doesn’t really make sense. The problem with “morality” is that it tends to mean morality the way Amanda interpreted it: continence, chastity. Having sex is just wrong, full stop. It’s damaging and insulting to you, your partner, your future partners, their future partners, etc. That kind of morality I have a problem with, particularly given its demonstrated potential to muddy issues of responsibility to one’s health and the health of one’s partners, and the way it inevitably conflates “contamination” and “filth” with transmission risks.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 12:21 pm
[...] Ampersand has up a post on the (basic) economics of abortion. I encourage you to read it, no matter what side of the pro-choice/pro-life aisle you’re on, and perhaps we can take up a discussion in our comments section. There’s a lot to talk about. [...]
This comment was written by LIBERTY BELLES » The Economics of Abortion.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Yeh, I didn’t read her exactly that way (or wasn’t that clear on it) but let’s go with that. Actually, let me see if I read you right.
Historically, there has always been a “sex is bad…period” element out there. I am ashamed to say that this probably was propagated in Christian circles first and even more ashamed that there are some in the Church who still hold to this belief. If it is that that you are getting at, I totally agree with your points and emphasize, from my perspective, that even for those who choose to wait until marriage to engage in sex it is very damaging.
Even if I set my moral perspective aside, I can sympathize with what y’all are saying, especially if the approach to abstinence is one-sided like you outline.
And I have read the statistics on abstinence education and they are not great so far. Abstinence only programs are abysmal. The curriculum may be bad but my guess is it is more likely that those being “educated” are simply not interested, (or in the heat of the moment lose interest) in staying abstinent. If that is the case, other methods too avoid the ultimate tragedy, the unwanted pregnancy, need to be employed.
(I also should point out that I am no saint. In my youth I certainly did not practice what I now preach. Having two teenage daughters sure changes ones perspective on a great many things.)
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 12:53 pm
… too avoid the ultimate tragedy, the unwanted pregnancy…
The ultimate tragedy is unwanted pregnancy? Honestly, I’d put AIDS (or a host of other, potential fatal, diseases) as a worse tragedy.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 1:10 pm
For anyone who might be interested, I have done my part to keep this discussion going by responding to this post over at my blog.
This comment was written by Xon.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Although measuring something as hidden as illegal abortions is always difficult, the best pre-Roe scholarly assessment came to a figure of about a million abortions a year (”…prior to the adoption of more moderate abortion laws in 1967, there were 1 million abortions annually nationwide, of which 8000 were legal.” From Christopher Tietze, “Abortion on request: its consequences for population trends and public health,” Seminars in Psychiatry 1970;2:375-381, quoted in JAMA December 9, 1992).
Methodology?
Another option is to look at what happens to birth rates; a sudden, large increase in abortions should lead to a corresponding sudden decline in the birth rate. So if Roe caused a big jump in abortions in its first few years, we’d see it as a decline in the birthrate. So what actually happened after Roe was passed?
Year Births Birthrate
1973 3,136,965 14.9
1974 3,159,958 14.9
1975 3,144,198 14.8
1976 3,167,788 14.8
1977 3,326,632 15.4
1978 3,333,279 15.3
1979 3,494,398 15.9
1980 3,612,258 15.9
Uh - Amp, Roe occurred in January of 1973. To see what effect Roe had on births, you really need to include some statistics from 1972 and before for us to compare these to.
1963 4,098,020 21.7
1964 4,027,490 21.0
1965 3,760,358 19.4
1966 3,606,274 18.4
1967 3,520,959 17.8
1968 3,501,564 17.5
1969 3,600,206 17.8
1970 3,731,386 18.4
1971 3,555,970 17.2
1972 3,258,411 15.6
(1971 and before based on a 50% sample of births, except for 1967, which was based on a 20-50% sample of births)
source.
Ultimately, birth rates seemed to be going down anyway, so it is not apparent that Roe has much of an effect.
It sounds almost like women are getting pregnant (where is the man in question, I wonder?) just to have an abortion. Or, perhaps more fairly, the argument is that women aren’t taking necessary steps to avoid possible pregnancies because of the availability of abortion (or that women deliberately delay the decision on whether to become a mother or not to include pregnancy). Some ugly stereotypes here.
I don’t think that people are saying that women literally decide not to use birth control because abortion is available. What is being said is that the availability of abortion makes the consequences of getting pregnant far less burdensome, and therefore decreases the motivation to (a) abstain from sex and to (b) be religious about proper use of birth control. In other words, when abortion is available, people will be more likely to have sex, and will be more likely to be careless about birth control; this is not to say that anyone is deciding that birth control is unnecessary.
As for stereotypes: I don’t care if they’re ugly. I want to know whether or not they are, on average, accurate.
In any case, nik (#5) makes a good point: Amp’s use of live-birth statistics to show that the number of abortions did not rise significantly makes the assumption (without any support) that the number of unwanted pregnancies was not at all impacted by the legalization of abortion.
Steve Sailer has argued that legalized abortion increased the unwatned pregnancy rate, so that a large proportion of the abortions post-Roe were likely from pregnancies that wuld not have even occurred without Roe.
The idea that this is impossible, or that suggesting such carelessness is simply “perpetuating a stereotype,” is unrealistic, I think, and comes from a sort of middle-class assumption that everyone thinks like us, that is, “the availability of abortion would not affect my decision to use birth control, so it wouldn’t affect anybody else’s, either.”
The countries in the world with the lowest abortion rates are countries where abortion is legal - without exception.
Does “without exception” refer to how legal abortion is or to the constancy of the trend of pro-choice countries having low abortion rates? That is, are you saying that in the countries with the lowest abortion rates, all abortions are deemed legal, or that there are no exceptional countries with low abortion rates and where abortion is illegal?
According to this Guttmacher study, northern and southern Africa have a very low abortion rate, despite abortion being moistly or completely illegal (judging from the proportion of abortions, 96 and 100%, respectively, that are illegal).
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Thing is, the alternative doesn’t involve flinging condoms at seventh-graders. Abstinence is a kind of protection, and it’s included in any discussion about how to protect yourself. It’s the best way to prevent STD transmission or pregnancy. It’s a good thing.
I think that the reason abstinence-only education tends to fail is because it introduces the morality question in a bad way. Transmission risks are non-negotiable. Morality is incredibly slippery, particularly when you’re dealing with people who really, really want to do an immoral thing. Once you conflate safety and morality considerations, the morality considerations will become subject to a lot of equivocation, and the safety considerations will suffer.
And when a dichotomy like “sex bad, abstinence good” gets imposed on the grayscale spectrum of higher-risk/lower-risk behaviors, you’ll have kids concluding things like, “Unprotected oral sex isn’t ‘really’ sex, so it’s better than intercourse with a condom,” “Well, I’m going to hell anyway, so why bother using protection?” All of the things that make you safer–planning, protection, careful discussions, regular testing, sobriety–make you a bad person.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 2:47 pm
I personally would automatically include this under the heading of “comprehensive sex education.” Probably the most important and far-reaching aspect of sexuality is deciding when and whether and why to have sex, and the emotional factors resulting from that decision, its application, and other people’s reactions to it.
I consider it highly important from a feminist point of view that everyone be able to make their own, uncoerced, unpressured, fully informed decisions regarding the choice to have or not have sex, to have access to all the support they need to live that choice safely, and to have their decision accepted by everyone whom it might affect and ignored by everyone else. And most of all, the self-esteem and courage to realize that they don’t owe anybody the obligation to change their ways for some other person’s amusement or convenience.
The thing is, it has to be realized that in many cases, contraception will beat out abstinence because it’s simply so much more convenient to avoid pregnancy by taking a pill every day, than it is to avoid pregnancy by avoiding sex full-time when sex is something you greatly enjoy. Abstinence requires a significant behavior modification from people who enjoy sex—contraception does not.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:06 pm
A few have taken issue with Ron F.’s assertion that to teach abstinence ( as it hasn’t been taught forever, but even the Pope has a mother and all that) is an indefensible solution to the abortion wars, but I also take issue with his number 2 point. That is, adoption. Since we all know adopted children and many of us have adoption in our own families, we don’t always want to recognize that the rosy picture they are presenting of adoption post-illegal abortion is probably false.
Anti-choicers love to speak of adoption in unbelievably facile terms, as if bearing a child and giving it away were the simplest, most logical transaction in the world. All they have to do is imagine giving their own children away to see that this is untrue, but never mind, they don’t do that.
Why I really don’t like the “adoption is so easy” pushers is that I don’t think these people are really admitting what adoption can be like in a world where there is no abortion and/ or no good birth control. They think adoption has always been this well thought out choice, a sacrifice of a “redeemed” young mother, but really we only see it that way now because, ironically, it is a choice now. It won’t take much research by anyone to see that adoption’s history has often been one of coercion and shame and abuse. Think “Magdalena Sisters”.
Of course, even if the “seller’s market” were to end in the US, probably adoption wouldn’t go back to being how it was at times before. In this country. Maybe. But what about all of the children in orphanages around the world? What if there were a glut of white babies here? Orphanages in developing countries are frequently abysmal places, and many improve only after pressure from adoptive parents in developed countries. Will they remain so if women here are forced to go through with unwanted pregnancies?
The anti-choicers false view of adoption as the happy solution with no bad outcomes should no longer go unchallenged.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:11 pm
[applause for piny]
Self-loathing does not equal responsible views on sex.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:15 pm
The U.S. has a two party system; no matter how nuanced our personal positions, the real choice we make is between column D and column R. One party supports policies that have actually led to low abortion rates in the real world, but opposes a ban. The other party opposes policies that have actually led to low abortion rates, but supports a ban. And that’s our choice.
But do we have to accept that it’s going to continue to be that way? It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan that these reproductive questions got so deeply divided between columns D and R. That’s fine for those whose beliefs are fully in line with either the Ds or the Rs, but there are people who refuse to accept that as unalterable. At the same time that we vote now for Door #1 or Door #2, we will continue to advocate for another path.
This comment was written by LAmom.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:34 pm
I wouldn’t (and didn’t!) say that adoption does not have it’s pitfalls. I’m saying that it can have good outcomes, and that steps should be taken to maximize those. It’s not a solution for everyone, by any means. But I am proposing that it could be a solution for more people than it is now.
Abstinence is a moral choice. It may not be your morality in particular, but it’s a choice that is in accord with the prevaling morality, and certainly the parental opinions, of the communities that most of these kids are a part of.
We’re not just talking religion. Abstinence also means that you are much less likely to be the parent of a child you are not emotionally, financially or physically prepared to take care of. It means that you are less likely to have to go through the trauma (or be a factor in someone else having to go through the trauma) of an abortion or of childbirth. It means that you are going to neither pass along or get an STD and thus will not bring harm to yourself or someone else.
Now, in some people’s morality, none of that is a problem. You can see numerous postings thoughout the threads on this site and (I’d guess) hundreds of others that will show that a number of people’s moral codes in this area boil down to “I’ll take my pleasure as I see it, and if someone else gets stuck with a burden, too bad.” Do you then think that because this is a moral choice, we should not teach it? Do you think that because many people don’t learn this lesson and do it anyway, and have done so since antiquity, we should not teach it?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Oy vey.
I suppose I should have put an impossible amount of disclaimers in the statement as to define the fact that I consider those assumptions ugly primarily because I don’t think they are accurate. Truth is, on average, beautiful (even if it is not always “nice”).
That is, I believe the majority of women are religious about abstinence/birth control, and the ones who are not can probably not be helped by punitive measures (the ignorant/stupid ones, the nonconsenting ones etc.) The obvious solution is to reduce ignorance.
But, reducing the number of unintended pregnancies is an area where pro-lifers and pro-choicers can be allies.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:36 pm
The fact that abstinence is also a pragmatic choice doesn’t mean that it’s not also a moral one. A choice can be both pragmatic and moral. I would propose that in many cases, morals develop from the understanding, though experience, that short-term desirable choices can lead to long-term undesirable outcomes.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Daran said:
Nothing. It has something to do with a person styling themselves as “pro life”.
Well, I’m sorry, Daran, but I’m completely missing your point. Please excuse my denseness. Could you elaborate?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:40 pm
All of the things that make you safer”“planning, protection, careful discussions, regular testing, sobriety”“make you a bad person.
It’s not the things that make you safer that make you a bad person. Or a good one. They contribute to it, of course. But the central point is what you plan to make yourself safer to do.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Once you conflate safety and morality considerations, the morality considerations will become subject to a lot of equivocation, and the safety considerations will suffer.
Something I have run into in “drugs are bad” discussions with kids. I end up making sure that 1) I present very factual information - I don’t lie about the bad effects/consequences to try to scare kids, and 2) I keep the morality and the scientific arguments clearly separate.
One thing I do say is that moral codes exist for a reason, and despite some apparently widespread opinions to the contrary that reason is generally not to jerk people around; they are the distillation of hundreds or thousands of years of experience. Moral codes should certainly be examined in the face of knowledge and experience. For example, it’s not appropriate to regard other humans as your property because they are a specific gender or relation to you, or a different race/nationality, even though this is still viewed as moral in many areas of the world. But you should come to learn about the ones prevalent in your culture and understand them before you decide to break them.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:56 pm
I consider it highly important from a feminist point of view that everyone be able to make their own, uncoerced, unpressured, fully informed decisions regarding the choice to have or not have sex, to have access to all the support they need to live that choice safely, and to have their decision accepted by everyone whom it might affect and ignored by everyone else.
Kyra, if a 15-year old girl decides to start having sex with her boyfriend, do you think that her parents should not pressure her to not do so, but should provide her with support?
I would agree with your statement for a 21-year old person. I think we’d all disagree with it if the person involved was 12 - for one thing, it’s pretty evident that such a person could be presumed to not be fully informed since, although they may have all the scientific evidence in front of them, they may not yet have the judgement to weigh it properly. The question then becomes, where do we draw the line? And how? And who has input - parents? Religious leaders? The law (e.g., the concept of statutory rape)? “Everyone” is a bit broad ….
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:09 pm
LA Mom wrote:
No. But most folks will insist upon us all adhering to the status quo because they are scared shitless of the unknown. Even a known quantity that makes you miserable is somehow prized above an unknown quantity that might not.
I’d add that a lot of Demo flag-wavers who continue to champion their party as flag-wavers of women’s rights should wake up and notice the egg on their own faces. Undermining of Roe started with the Hyde Amendment, way back in the 1970s, and has continued ever since. It is useless to pretend Roe staying on the books is the be-all and end-all of reproductive rights. It is also useless to pretend that the situation is merely a matter of incompetence on behalf of the people who we elect and pay to defend us. I think it’s time to face the fact that the line between incompetence and malice was crossed by the leadership some time ago.
Full article here.
Since it has become obvious that the average Democrat will put up with any shit from the leadership, there isn’t much hope for real change. The best one can hope for is that once Roe is overturned and the S.C. is completely full of Neanderthals, the Democrats will at least have to find a new boogeyman to bullshit their rank-and-file with.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Thanks for proving my point, Ron. This is exactly what I’m talking. Having sex makes you a bad person. Having premeditated sex, therefore, is even worse. It indicates a deep-seated moral failing, rather than a momentary lapse. It means that you knew exactly what you were doing.
So if you sit down with your partner and discuss risks, safety measures, history, you’re a nasty, nasty slut. If you use protection or go on the Pill, it’s worse than having unprotected, unplanned sex. If you have sex while falling-down drunk, you can pretend you were under the influence and therefore not completely in control of yourself.
This moral calculus plays itself out in countless abstinence-educated teens. ( “I’m not gay, I’m an alcoholic!” is also a pretty familiar dynamic to us homos.) It’s a very real, very dangerous outcome of making abstinence a moral decision.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Daran, in comment 8: Firstly, ‘pro life’ does not describe any part of the abortion prohibitionist agenda. They wish to prohibit abortion; that is all. There is nothing inconsistent with abortion prohibitionism and support for the death penalty, for example, or the war in Iraq.
It doesn’t necessarily follow, but the Roman Catholic Church official stance is against both abortion and the death penalty. But, it’s telling that the RCC has focused its ire on abortion, and not on the death penalty. RCC officials have not threatened politicians who support the death penalty with withholding of Communion or excommunication, but they have to pro-choice politicians, most notably with John Kerry in 2004.
Give the RCC faint praise for at least outwardly stating that they’re anti-birth-control, which means they’re more in league with the Junior Anti-Sex League from Nineteen Eighty-four than the fundies. The fundies, for tactical reasons, aren’t going to talk about birth control, but the unethical pharmacists who ally themselves with the movement will.
The fact is that the anti-abortion movement is wholly a religious movement seeking to punish pleasure outside of basking in God’s glory.
They seek to punish pleasure through law, disease (including unwanted pregnancy), or guilt. Pretty much all sexual activity is sinful in the eyes of the fundamentalist, even masturbation.
Hence laws against fornication, sodomy, pornography, and abortion, and the cluck-clucking of fundamentalists at women who were forced to give up children for adoption, AIDS patients, and people with herpes. (Heathen medical science has helped cure some venereal diseases, lessened the problem of herpes flareups, and turned AIDS into a chronic disease rather than an acute killer. Those doctors who flout God’s will will pay with an eternity in Hell, though.)
Of course, the fundies embody H.L. Mencken’s definition of puritanism: “…the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
This comment was written by Aaron V..Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Most more traditional societies in Africa favor a very high birthrate, to ensure that sons (ie, wives of sons) survive to take care of the parents when parents are old, and to ensure adequate farm labor when children are younger - even the youngest walking children can feed fowl and graze animals. However, there are studies suggesting that at least some of the African HIV transmission due to non-placental, non-sexual causes is due to illegal abortion, and that this may be more important than ritual circumcision/female genital mutilation, also a known factor in transmission.
The demand for abortion goes up as a society modernizes and it becomes more likely that children will survive to adulthood, more necessary to educate such children, and less likely to use children for home-based or factory-based child labor for survival of the family as a whole. Children in excess of one or two sons become expenses, not economic assets, to the family. Selective abortion of female fetuses still comes into play because in many rapidly developing or mixed-economy countries, females do not support their family of origin, and in some of the religious/ethical traditions there is a requirement for sons to perform ancestor rituals (Hindu, Confucian).
Glaivester presents 1963-1972 US live-birth stats and rate. Note that although the 1969 rate (pre-any-state-legalization) is 17.8, the rate was gradually dropping since 1963 (and before then as well). The late 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s cohort had larger family sizes than following cohorts, and were in fact larger than pre-WWII family sizes. The rate in 1972, 15.6, is slightly higher than 1973 and 1974, 14.9, but note the rate rises again in the late 1970s. The rate drops more between 1971 and 1972 (17.2 to 15.6) , a year when abortion was available in New York and Hawaii (I think) but not in the other 48, than between 1972 and 1973/1974 (15.6 to 14.9 and 14.9), when abortion became available in all states. This suggests that the demographic shift in live births rate is related to broader social change (wider use of birth control is the most obvious, increase in women’s participation in labor market another) and PRECEDES legalized abortion availability.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Glaivester presents 1963-1972 US live-birth stats and rate. Note that although the 1969 rate (pre-any-state-legalization) is 17.8, the rate was gradually dropping since 1963 (and before then as well)…This suggests that the demographic shift in live births rate is related to broader social change (wider use of birth control is the most obvious, increase in women’s participation in labor market another) and PRECEDES legalized abortion availability.
To be fair, I never denied this, and in fact, made a shorter version of the same point myself:
Ultimately, birth rates seemed to be going down anyway, so it is not apparent that Roe has much of an effect.
My reason for including the statistics was not to disporve Amp’s contention, as I admitted that the stats did not seem to indicate that Amp was wrong. I included them because including only the statistics for the years after abortion tells you nothing about how the legalization of abortion affects the birth rate because it lacks a control.
As for the issue of Africa, my point was simply to disprove the assertion that every society with a low abortion rate had legalized abortion (if that was what Amp was saying).
However, there are studies suggesting that at least some of the African HIV transmission due to non-placental, non-sexual causes is due to illegal abortion, and that this may be more important than ritual circumcision/female genital mutilation, also a known factor in transmission.
In other words, the level of abortion in African countries may be higher than listed on the table. Perhaps, but the Guttmacher study I cited attempts to include illegal abortions in its equations: 96% of the north African and 100% of the south African abortions it tabulates are illegal. In other words, there could be a significant number of HIV infections caused by illegal abortions without the statistics I cited being inaccurate.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Amanda,
To be more blunt, there’s a sincere belief from anti-choicers that without abortion as a fallback position if contraception fails, women will quit having sex. Since most anti-choice activist groups are already moving towards agitating for bans on at least some female-controlled contraception, that seems to be the final goal overall”“make women stop having sex or in lieu of this, be punished for it by repeated child-bearing.
To the extent that the anti-choice movement also opposes contraception they tacitly admit their true intentions.
No one could rationally believe that unmarried women will cease to have sex or that, facing modern society, would use abstinece within marriage to control the size of their families.
On the other hand, women would certainly face extremely strong social incentives to marry young or to face the perills of having many children without the added support of a man…
This comment was written by Lorenzo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Well, your first statement is partially right. It should read (this is from the Fundie perspective so don’t everybody freak) “The fact is that the anti-abortion movement is wholly a religious movement seeking to punish sin outside of basking in God’s glory. They seek to punish sin through law, disease (including unwanted pregnancy), or guilt” No “Fundie” I know gives a rip about your pleasure or lack thereof. They do care about sin, even yours.
Now, is this good policy? I don’t think so. I think that we need to be an example to the world but the world makes up their own mind. When we don’t follow this policy, we get Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. Not exactly the type of spokespersons I would prefer as I don’t think they convey what the rank and file really desire.
The second part of your statement is almost right, but pretty much bull. Certainly sexual activity inside of marriage is not sinful (unless it is forced, of course). Maybe you meant to exclude in-marriage sexual activity, but that isn’t apparent from the statement.
Considering masturbation, Christians are split into three camps. There is a “no problem with it” camp, a “no not ever camp”, and a “it’s permissable but has implications that can cause significant relational problems.” The “no problem” camp is across the board. certainly there are those in liberal denominations that are more “post-modern” that think it is a natural expression of sexuality. There are also many traditional older generation people who actually allow it to prevent men from having to carry out their sexual desires through fornication. (I have many older relatives that are very conservative that have alluded to it in conversation). The “not ever” camp is predominantly purity proponents who consider it a form of “self-sex” (i.e. not sex with your wife) and therefore consider it either fornication or adultery depending on your situation. Most of these people are closely associated with or are recovering from pornography or other sexual addictions or problems. The final camp understands where the “not ever” camp is coming from but realizes that there is actually no admonition in scripture against masturbation so they are relunctant to say it is, without exception, sinful.
The reason I go through this is to point out that stereotyping “fundies” based on whatever feminist propoganda you have read or heard or based on the few actual personal contacts you may have with them creates a very warped and false impression of who we really are. In reality, we are a much more varied group of people than you could possibly imagine.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:17 pm
There it is again. Where do you get this? I have yet to have any person who has made such a statement actual provide any evidence that it is true. I’d be willing to read any feminist material you could provide just so I could see the name of any anti-choice organization that supposedly holds this position. Seriously, I know of none and these are the circles I move in. It certainly is not true of evangelical Christians who supposedly, according to Aaron V., ARE the anti abortion movement.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Sorry, grabed the wrong quote - it actually was
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:39 pm
I don’t deny that there are some feminist writings that stereotype evangelicals (or fundimentalists, if you’d prefer). But a great deal of the stereotyping is caused by the people that are in the position of being evangelical spokespersons, such as Jerry Fawell and Pat Robertson. And although you personally disagree with those two (to your credit), I don’t think they could have reached their current positions without at least some support from ordinary rank-and-file evangelicals.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Absolutely, even a majority of support. But it is not an overwhelming majority and the rest of us are a pretty varied bunch.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 9:22 pm
No “Fundie” I know gives a rip about your pleasure or lack thereof. They do care about sin, even yours.
I know it’s the job of the clergy to eliminate sin within one’s flock, but when it comes to abortion and the denial of prescribed birth control, it becomes legislating one church’s morality. I am as uncomfortable with Catholic or some Christian doctrine becoming law as I am with mandating that the Jewish position of mandatory abortion if the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life.
Considering masturbation, Christians are split into three camps. …The “not ever” camp is predominantly purity proponents who consider it a form of “self-sex” (i.e. not sex with your wife) and therefore consider it either fornication or adultery depending on your situation.
I come from Catholicism and a mother who had that belief drilled into her for a long time, so that colors my view.
Certainly, I did not imply that Christians view marital sex as sinful, although some would probably think sex for pleasure instead of the explicit intent of producing a child is sinful. (What about same-sex civil marriages or same-sex religious marriages?)
I came to the view of fundamentalist Christians (and some Catholics) being anti-sex and anti-pleasure through my own observation, especially of conservative Catholics (who sometimes were born-again) I knew growing up. Feminist theory had absolutely nothing to do with it, and I part ways with both some feminists and Christian conservatives in my First Amendment absolutism.
This comment was written by Aaron V..Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Aaron - fair enough. I follow you now. And I should say that it is true that there are many Christians who deny the pleasure aspect of sex (I think I mentioned that before). What a shame.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Aaron V. writes:
The fact is that the anti-abortion movement is wholly a religious movement seeking to punish pleasure outside of basking in God’s glory.
If you say “wholly”, then it’s not a fact. There are secular, non-believing people who are anti-abortion (link to Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League).
This comment was written by LAmom.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 12:31 am
Glaive, point well taken.
LAmom, fair enough. But one could say that the anti-abortion movement is “overwhelmingly a religious movement” and that would be pretty darn accurate.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Ampersand writes:
Indeed. And is America a theocracy yet? “Very nearly, dear.”
My heart aches for the women of America (or anywhere) who have to fight for the right to control their own bodies, from access to sex education, to contraception, to the morning-after pill, to abortion. It despairs of the Christian women upholding patriarchal control - control in the most blatant and brutal way, trying to drag America back to the dark ages. (Or forward to ‘The Handmaids Tale’?) I want to offer up something by way of contrast.
In Sweden there are members of the ruling Social Democrat Party trying to find ways to provide foreign women with access to the free - yes - free - abortions that are the right of every Swedish woman. This attempt even includes illegal immigrant women, and how to achieve this for them without at the same time undermining the police and immigration authorities. This is what the separation of Church and State can look like. (though more than this is needed…) Sorry if I’m off topic here, but isn’t there some way a legal challenge can be mounted against the blending of these in your country? Because if Fundamentalist Christian morality around sex and sexuality and abortion etc. informs the laws of the land, something very basic to your democracy has been lost even inside the democratic process.
You are very informed and intelligent people on this blog, so I’m not suggesting I know something more than you do about how to meet this challenge in your own country, but I sure hope y’all give your foreign liberal allies something to shout about come your mid-term elections!!!!!
As to the ‘justifiable homicide’ comments above - if personhood is ever legally deemed to begin at conception - can ‘anyone’ explain to me how such a law could be anything other than total and absolute patriarchal control when the vast majority of women in the world ‘want’ access to safe and legal abortion should the need for it arise? That is, most women will never consider abortion to be ‘murder’ or ‘homicide’, in any degree, regardless of any man-made ‘law’ that says it is. What could be more stark?
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 9:05 am
So, you are saying that you prefer a country where there is not equal protection under the law when it comes to a right to life? Who decides then, which lives are worthwhile and which we can discard? Such a law would not be “total and absolute patriarchal control”. It would be a balancing of the acknowledged women’s right to privacy and control of her own body vs. the right to life of the unborn person. In general in our society, right to life trumps privacy and “bodily integrity” (short of life and death) rights. Not always, (I think there are cases where your property rights can justify you killing someone) but generally. That is not a hard call to make and has nothing to do with patriarchy.
Now, that isn’t to say that an argument can’t be made that abortion rights trump the right to life of the unborn. But no one in the pro-choice camp will go there because it acknowledges their greatest fear - that the fetus will indeed be considered a person. So, they wait cowering in the corner for the inevitable to happen.
At best, I think that kind of justification would be a very uphill battle.
It would be interesting to see how Sweden classifies the unborn. My guess is that they don’t consider it a person. Or, they may have less “right to life” protections for persons than we do. I don’t know. All I know is that if someone prefers their laws, then they should go live there. I hope they don’t mind 60% taxes as well.
As far as the personhod argument in general, it has nothing to do with patriarchy either. It has everything to do with biology. I’m afraid you are stuck with this one as the objective biological facts don’t change depending on which country you go to.
Get a grip. Feminist hysterics only feed the patriarchal paradigm you wish to escape from. Besides, no one is trying to revert to the “dark ages”. A “Victorian utopia” is the more likely.;-)
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 9:13 am
As to the ‘justifiable homicide’ comments above - if personhood is ever legally deemed to begin at conception - can ‘anyone’ explain to me how such a law could be anything other than total and absolute patriarchal control when the vast majority of women in the world ‘want’ access to safe and legal abortion should the need for it arise?
If the vast majority of women in a democracy with universal suffrage (e.g., the U.S.) want a given law to be passed, it should pass, given that there are more women than men of voting age. It might take two or three elections to get the job done, but eventually they’ll get it. So if such a law is passed, perhaps the underlying premise of “the vast majority of women ‘want’ access to safe and legal abortion” might be false in such a case.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 10:23 am
In Sweden there are members of the ruling Social Democrat Party trying to find ways to provide foreign women with access to the free - yes - free - abortions that are the right of every Swedish woman.
I’m curious as to how the Swedish government and whatever documents the government is based on justifies taking money from people by force (i.e., collects taxes) to fund abortions for free for whoever wants one. Why should anyone have to pay for that?
This attempt even includes illegal immigrant women, and how to achieve this for them without at the same time undermining the police and immigration authorities.
Especially people who aren’t even citizens of the country. And good luck on that “without undermining” bit.
This is what the separation of Church and State can look like. (though more than this is needed…) Sorry if I’m off topic here, but isn’t there some way a legal challenge can be mounted against the blending of these in your country? Because if Fundamentalist Christian morality around sex and sexuality and abortion etc. informs the laws of the land, something very basic to your democracy has been lost even inside the democratic process.
There is no process within American government that requires the governmental bodies to take notice of any particular religion’s doctrines or precepts. But due to our republican democratic government (note with a small “d” and “r”), our representatives are bound to take note of their voters’ desires, and they are also allowed to express their own. If the voters don’t like what’s going on, they can vote out the officials and put in ones whose actions and beliefs they approve of.
People who describe themselves as “Fundamentalist Christians” are a minority in this country. There is no way that any of their moral views can be imposed on the rest of the country unless the particular view in question is also held by a majority of the rest of the country.
Does anyone know of any surveys that match up opinions regarding abortion and religious beliefs? How many people who do not describe themselves as “Fundamentalist” oppose unlimited abortion rights? Certainly I would fall within that classification.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 10:31 am
cicely, I’m curious; can you give me a brief review of what bodies make up Sweden’s government (who has legislative power, executive power and judicial power) and how they are chosen and elected?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Free as in paid by taxpayers (btw, “60 % taxes”, is still complete bull. Where do the American conservatives get such “facts”?). Nevertheless, there are plenty of restrictions to abortion in Sweden. Second/third semester abortions require more reasons (health etc.), and I’m not sure, but it might be that the abortion law in Sweden is more restrictive than it is in the US. As it is in Finland. There is no absolute right to abort. Sorry to burst the bubble.
Yet I can’t remember a single case rising in which a woman would sue or otherwise need to fight for her right to abort (late-term). I suppose the system has been succesful in reducing unwanted pregnancies, and making sure that abortions, if performed, are done early (which I would say is a good thing for all). Thus the demand for abortions does not appear to be very high.
Protections for life for legal persons don’t suck in any of Scandinavian countries.
I fail to see how the personhood of embryo/fetus is an objective biological fact. Life, yes. Personhood, debatable.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 10:41 am
I have to agree with RonF on providing abortions to illegal immigrants. Doesn’t sound right.
Simple. If people don’t like it, they will vote for someone who wants to reduce public spending on abortions. Surely that holds true for most free societies that collect taxes from citizens?
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 10:46 am
RonF, I’m not cicely, but:
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2853
is something.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 10:47 am
From my Swedish brother-in-law. That is what he was paying in taxes (56% to be exact, so I rounded up) before he moved to America. His primary reasons for moving here (other than my sister of course) were to escape socialist medicine rationing of care, the government run (and paid for) church, and the burdensome tax rate. Something to think about if you really think Sweden is such a great place to live.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 11:03 am
See this discussion at biology-online for a complete breakdown of the argument.
Basically:
Person - A Living (biological state) Human (biological classification). The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
Human - A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
From Zygote on, the developing “thing” is living, genetically human, genetically distinct, and a complete organism (it is not a tissue, organ, or organ system based on the definitions of those roganizational levels). Therefore, by biological definition, it is a person - a living organism (member) of the species Home sapiens.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 11:24 am
I also checked Stedman’s Medical online, and it didn’t list any medical definition at all for the word “person” or “personhood.” Presumably you looked at a different edition.
The American Heritage dictionary online lists several definitions of “person,” , but not the one you’ve attributed to it. Among the ones it includes are these two:
It is these senses of the word “person” - most especially sense 3 - that I suspect Tuomas was referring to in comment 56. And he’s quite correct; the personhood of the fetus is not an objective biological fact.
You can, of course, respond by saying “personhood in the medical sense of the word is a biological fact.” Even if that were so, however, it is certainly not a biological fact that we must use that particular definition, rather than the definitions quoted above, when having this debate.
I see what you’re doing now as playing games with words. You’re too smart not to realize that there is a legitimate sense of the word “person” in the English language that is not resolvable by biology.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Amp - strange. I used dictionary.com to look up my definitions and cited their reference. The definition I used is the first definition in each instance. The definitions you use are also there.
I followed your link to American Heritage Dictionary and here is the full entry (at least those definitions of consequence):
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner’s person.
Physique and general appearance.
5. Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
As you can see - mine is the first one. Not sure how you missed it.
I reject 2-4 because they define characteristics or components of personhood but not objectively what a person “is”.
I would also disagree with using a philosophical definition because it is subjective. It makes personhood relative to what each person thinks it is. Of course, subjective and philosophical definitions have been used to tragic end in the past by many awful people who wanted to get rid of persons they didn’t like. Simply deny their “personhood” and it is ok to kill them. That is why an objective definition is imperative. The biological definition is the only objective one I can find.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 11:47 am
gengwall - Your definitions are not the legal definitions of personhood.
Legally, no one becomes a person until they are born. Note that birth certificates (not pregnancy certificates) are issued, taxing authorities do not give double deductions for pregnant women, state legislative and Congressional districts are based on born population, etc.
In practice, people tend to frown on abortion if it occurs later - quickening was the dividing line at common law (abortion bans were passed later, more to protect women from incompetent and unscrupulous doctors than to legislate morality).
And God is the biggest abortionist of all - 15-20 percent of all pregancies end in miscarriage.
This comment was written by Aaron V..Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Gengwall,
Look at how to read a dictionary entry (there is a page in every online dictionary that I have ever seen). The first sense is no more valid than the one hundred & seventy-eighth sense. Usually, senses are listed in chronological order. Even in the few cases where they are listed in order of common use/meaning, no sense is more valid than any other. I have some obtuse troll to thank for my knowledge of how to read a dictionary and for the rather enjoyable, if obscure & tangential debate, about the rules used in dictionaries.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 11:59 am
“Person” is a legal concept, when mentioned in the laws of this country. A long tradition of common law has considered embryos and fetuses as not having legal personhood, even after “quickening”. Only live-born infants have legal personhood. The law just Doesn’t Want To Go There (pre-live-birth legal personhood) in matters of inheritance, taxation, etc. Think about proving responsibility for every miscarriage (2/3 of conceptuses, by the way) - “act of God”, maternal smoking, paternal smoking and passive smoke influence, bad management of gestational or conventional diabetes by mother or doctor, intent to procreate by an individual (male or female) with a known chromosomal anomaly such as balanced translocation that leads to high rate of miscarriage, secondary liability (accessory to murder) of cigarette companies and supersizing fast food companies, etc etc.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Aaron - I didn’t say mine was a legal definition. But if you want to go there, fine. Some states have legal definitions that read “a human that is born and alive”. Many states have definitions that include the unborn at various stages of development including from conception forward. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act has this definition.
“a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”
So, as you can see, legal definitions are currently subjective. That is why I want to stick to an objective definition.
Jake - I don’t pretend it is the most important entry (did I say that? I don’t think so), just the most applicable to the issue.
Amp - I’ve done it again - led us all off hopping down the bunny trail. Sorry. I’m happy to continute this discussion but suspect you would rather we get back on topic. I’ll shut up about it unless you give the go ahead to continue. I refer to my forum entry on biology-online (link above) if anyone wants to continue the discussion from a purely biological perspective.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Every woman alive (including me) who has miscarried a wanted
This comment was written by Lu.childpregnancy has agonized over whether she did or didn’t do something to cause the miscarriage (the medical term btw is “spontaneous abortion”). If conception starts personhood, maybe we should convene a special court to decide each case?Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Accidental homocide is justifiable. If you had been negligent, depending on the state you live in, you might have been in trouble.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
See? This is exactly why this defining the fetus as a person is incredibly dangerous for women. This is exactly why it represents an enormous incursion on their bodily sovreignity and privacy. Think for a second about the practical implications of enforcing the law as you’ve just interpreted it.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Accidental homicide is often called involuntary manslaughter, for which one can serve time.
True story: I had a miscarriage the day after mowing the lawn.
Another true story: The fetus I was carrying was found by ultrasound to have died three days after I would have had amnio had I not refused it because of concern over the small but measurable risk to the fetus.
If Falwell et al. were in charge, could I be prosecuted for mowing the lawn? Or for having the amnio, if I’d had it?
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Gengwall, you’re skating on thin ice.
Compare these two definitions, please:
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. A Living (biological state) Human (biological classification)
They use a few of the same words, but they are not at all the same thing. Do you honestly not see that your definition has some rather important provisions in it (i.e., “biological state” and “biological classification”) that the dictionary definition lacks?
Furthermore, the dictionary definition goes on to give examples that seem more social than biological to me.
If you’re going to modify the dictionary definition - which appears to be what you’ve done - then honesty should compel you to let everyone else know you’ve modified it, rather than dishonestly attributing your modified version to the dictionary.
The question under issue is whether or not “personhood” is an objective term. (The original term you responded to was “personhood,” not “person.”) You can’t “prove” that a word is objective, not subjective, by arbitrarily choosing to reject all non-objective definitions; that’s called “assuming what’s at issue,” and it’s completely illogical.
It’s as if I said “all bowling balls are black,” and you responsed by showing me a bowling ball rack containing three black, two red and one blue ball. I can’t logically resolve the argument by saying “well, I reject three of those balls on the basis of non-blackness. Since all the remaining balls are black, clearly I’m correct.” But that’s what you’ve done here.
The fact that a definition is subjective doesn’t logically establish that it’s not a correct definition of the word; subjectivity is not a reasonable grounds for rejecting definitions.
The next time you, explicitly or implicitly, compare the pro-choice position to either the Nazi Holocaust or American slavery, you’ll be banned for a month. Do it a second time and you’ll be banned, period.
Likening the people you disagree with in a debate to slaveholders and/or Nazis isn’t reasoned debate; it’s invective.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
I reject 2-4 because they define characteristics or components of personhood but not objectively what a person “is”.
Fine. I reject sense 1 because biology is not the sole factor in determining whether a human life is a person or not and it totally ignores the social factors required to determine personhood.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Amp - I will leave the last word to you for now on personhood as I still believe you would like this to get back on track.
I certainly was not comparing anyone to Nazis or Slave holders nor do I believe anyone here is like that. What I was saying is that Nazis and Slave holders used subjective and philosophical definitions to dehumanize their victims. Is this not true? Was not the woman’s movement about the fact that a patriarchal society had made women “second class persons”? To simply point out the facts is not name calling or stereotyping (at least not stereotyping anybody here and now). If we remove ugly historical points from the discussion we don’t learn from our history. I don’t think it is out of line for me to point out that, for example, the Dred Scott decision used subjective logic to treat slaves as “not persons”.
If I have offended people I certainly understand and accept banishment. I mean no malice with statements that I have made and I know in my own mind I did not direct those statements toward anyone here or to pro-choice people in general. If that was the effect, I appologize. It was not my intent. I am simply trying to determine if an objective definition is possible and to point out why an objective definition is necessary.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
I don’t doubt that. Highly progressive taxation (which of course has bad side effects too: It is hard to really get rich by salary income, no matter the education/amount of work you do. Thus, motivation for those things is mainly provided by protestant work ethics and social/cultural benefits, not economic incentives. Getting rich requires business-owning, investment and/or luck).
However, it is misleading to simply state: “You’ll pay 60 % taxes”, majority of Swedes do not pay even close to that. And they get government child-care, health care, quality education (all the way) and more provided by those taxes.
But no system or a country is perfect and without flaws/trade-offs, if that’s what you mean.
Better than many, yes, but I’ll probably stay in Finland for all my life. Barring tourism (and hanging out at foreign blogs), of course.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
But what relevance could that possibly have if you weren’t trying to imply that pro-choicers do the same thing to the people of fetus–and, thus, comparing us to both of the above.
We use subjective and philosophical definitions to “dehumanize” cysts, corpses, and gorillas. What’s your point? Every definition of human excludes certain groups as non-human. Every definition of person excludes certain groups as non-persons. The difference between the pro-choice definition and the pro-slavery definition is the criteria, but that doesn’t mean that defining “human” and “person” means you’re comparable to every other group that’s ever defined “human” and “person.”
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Well, this isn’t really a thread about the scandinavian welfare state. Just had to jump at some (IMO) common misconceptions, if you all don’t mind. I will bow off from those subjects now.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
“Accidental homocide is justifiable. If you had been negligent, depending on the state you live in, you might have been in trouble. ”
If this is how you want to view the world, I would like to know if we can also hold the men who didn’t use birth control negligent for the death of a fetus. Based on your highly subjective view of a woman’s relationship to her uterus, I would think there would be plenty of grounds for male liability in regards to not ensuring that their sperm were implanted in a trustworthy incubator.
Criminal negligence if you cum in the wrong vagina. I kinda like it.
You want to define objectivity so that it fits a male viewpoint on pregnancy, sort of a male defined bodily relationship between a woman and her uterus. Which tends to make your objectivity highly subjective. Furthermore, you fail to explore those instances of death/murder of a fully developed human which are socially condoned, andthat most often come about through the hands of men. To ignore this is, again, highly subjective. Your objectivity towards defining human beings is strongly and subjectively tied to what women do and don’t do, i.e, the choices that women make, and hence your comment above that I quoted. You’re asking for a double standard and berating *us* for being subjective. Strange times indeed.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
>>. In general in our society, right to life trumps privacy and “bodily integrity” (short of life and death) rights>>
No, it does not. If you need a kidney to live, even if you’re my child, the law does not force me to have one of mine removed to give you. My bodily integrity trumps your need for a kidney. The same is true for blood, bone marrow, corneal lenses, etc. etc…..nowhere in this country is anyone forced to risk their health or life for the benefit of another person, and the only place it’s under discussion is when it comes to pregnant women.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
*Jake, piny, Q Grrl, Broce write. Gengwall beats head against wall while holding hand over mouth*
Back to the point of the thread. I would like to follow up on this a little more:
OK - let me put on my “fundie” hat (I don’t mind that term BTW which is why use it liberally). I think we have two fears although personally I don’t have so much of a problem with this.
Fear 1 - It is very easy for teens to translate “policies which push birth control” into adult acceptance and even encouragement of sexual activity. Since this would go against our moral code, we would have a hard time buying on. My take (a minority view at present), is that it at least could succeed in what we both want, reducing abortions. I am willing to accept the lessor evil. Personally, I have had no problem with my girls despite blatant contraception education at schools. But, I have never expected the schools to be morality teachers.
Fear 2 - Even more than allowing encouragement of promiscuity, we fear we will tacitly be endorsing the same. We seem hypocrytical to our kids if we don’t take a “no budging” stance against teen sex. I realise what a bad position this puts us in. And isn’t comfortable. But that is the fear. Personally, again, I don’t have a problem with the presumed paradox. I am perfectly comfortable accepting the reality that teens have sex and I am perfectly happy, despite my moral objection, if they take measures to prevent even greater damage to their lives.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Gengwall,
What percentage of your fellow fundies do you believe have never had extramarital sex? I’m willing to bet that the percentage is very, very low. Hell, I’m the least sexually active person that I have known & I have had sex outside of marriage. My problem with your fears #1 & #2 is that those are essentially hypocritical positions for the overwhelming majority of US adults. A, “do as we say, not as we do,” position. Not to mention that neither of those positions actually work in the real world. Kids have been having sex, promiscuously, even in the strictest, most sexually moral upright societies in our historical record. Sometimes we have irrational or unproductive fears. It is our job to recognize that in ourselves and to find the right thing to do despite those fears.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Hey, thanks, gengwall! Why don’t you make a few more careless comments about dehumanization and killing and see if that makes the conversation a bit more productive, huh?
The hell with this.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
I was hoping for another obnoxious use of “hysterical,” myself… :/
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
As has already been pointed out, the flip side of this is that it’s very easy for teens to translate “sex outside of marriage is bad and you shouldn’t even think of doing such a thing” into “if I don’t think about it beforehand it’s not as bad” — which of course eliminates all possibility of using birth control.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
I think you’re hysterical in the good way, Alsis.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Absolutely true. I make no claim otherwise. I stated some time earlier that I am under the same “do as we say…” burden. But, again as I said earlier, having two teenage daughters changes ones perspective. I have no problem explaining to them the (in my view) mistakes I have made in my past and helping them so that they don’t make the same mistakes. It is precisely because of this open relationship with my girls that I don’t hold the same fear as many of my friends about sex education in schools.
Of course. I don’t think I said otherwise.
Acknowledging that kids have sex is not the same as resigning ourselves to the fact they will. There are certainly plenty of people in this country who did not have sex in their teens and there are many more who waited until marriage. Although I would agree that it is not a majority even in the church, it is higher than you probably think. Moreover, don’t we want our teens to wait? I mean, that isn’t necessarily a religiously motivated desire. I know plenty of non-religious parents who have the same “do as we say…” situation.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Lu - very good point. Sometimes (maybe most of the time) our methods of conveying our morality to our teens backfires. Sometimes they could care less what our morality is. And sometimes, even if they agree they lose control. In any case, the less fuel for the fire the better. All of those things may be going on in a kid’s mind but if their teacher also conveys the message that “it’s ok for teens to have sex” (a moral position I would say) or “it’s too hard for teens to avoid having sex” (a social position, maybe?) it can look like adult approval of their behavior. That is what we fear.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
But, again as I said earlier, having two teenage daughters changes ones perspective.
Yes, that it was okay for us but not for them. I wonder if having two teenaged sons would change ones perspective in the same way.
Moreover, don’t we want our teens to wait?
Do we? Wait for what? is the real question. I want our teens (and our pre-teens and our adults) to wait until they have a good working knowledge of contraception, tranmissible diseases, no means no, peer pressure, consequences etc. related to sex. If a 14 year old understands these things and feels mature enough, go ahead (w/ a peer, not w/ an adult). What do you want teens to wait for? (I mean that as: for what do you want teens to wait? not as why do you want teens to wait).
I waited until I was 21 for a variety of reasons. I don’t think that I was any more mature (sexually) or knowledgeable than many folks that I knew when I was 16.
I know plenty of non-religious parents who have the same “do as we say…” situation.
That doesn’t make it right or even a viable strategy.
Acknowledging that kids have sex is not the same as resigning ourselves to the fact they will.
Really? What is your strategy to end this everyday occurrence? I haven’t seen one that works yet. Although, generation after generation, we are shocked, shocked! at how and how much kids are screwing around. Is it any more or less prevelant than it was in the 1940’s? Or 1930’s or 1880’s? I’d be surprised if there was much of a percentage change between then & now. I really don’t think that shaming and keeping kids ignorant about sex has done much to reduce teen sexual activity. It can only cause an increase in harm, though.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Understood. I have a preteen daughter btw, so, despite being on the other side of just about all the fences you’ve enumerated, I know where you’re coming from.
But, as has also been pointed out, it’s possible to say “there are all kinds of reasons [and you can enumerate them and cast them as practical or moral or both, depending on your philosophy] why it’s a good idea to wait to have sex, but if you don’t, for pity’s sake use birth control.”
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Two little notes from Glaivester, the Guardian of Clarity:
What percentage of your fellow fundies do you believe have never had extramarital sex? I’m willing to bet that the percentage is very, very low.
It might be better to say “non-marital sex,” unless you are saying that the vast majority of fundies cheat on their spouses. (I’ve always interpreted “extramarital” to mean sex with someone other than your spouse while you are married).
One question about Scandinavia: When you say pay 60% of your income in taxes, do you mean 60% of your pre-tax income or 60% of your post-tax income?
E.g., if you are paid $100,000 a year before taxes and pay taxes at a 60% rate, does that mean you pay $60,000 in taxes (60% of $100,000) or that you pay $37,500 in taxes (i.e. so that you pay 60% of the amount you are allowed to take home, i.e. $62,500). In the U.S. we think in terms of the former, but I was under the impression that in sme European countries they evaluae tax percentages in the latter way, which would make taxes seem higher than they are.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Jake - I hear where you are coming from. We certainly would raise our kids differently. That’s OK. Let me just jump on one point
Why not with an adult? What you just described was a 14 year old with an adult’s perspective and maturity level. So why would you not allow this type of interaction?
I think this is the slippery slope those with your perspective find themselves on. There is nothing in your criteria - “have a good working knowledge of contraception, tranmissible diseases, no means no, peer pressure, consequences etc. related to sex” - that changes just because the partner is an adult. So why not?
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Jake Squid wrote:
Seems to me that it’s always been an accepted thing in this culture for men and boys to “educate” themselves about sex. That is, a man should not go to his marriage bed a virgin, though his bride most definitely should.
I often suspect that when the average Fundie is talking about “kids knowing too much,” they really mean that “girls know too much.” In the worldview that creates the Fundie ideal of marriage, the stability of the marriage is based upon experienced male/inexperienced female. The male always should have power-over in matters of sex just as he should in everything else. Anything else would threaten the marriage/the ideal of marriage.
Personally, I don’t see why we should assume that either A) Marriage must be the ultimate goal of all who desire sexual activity or B) Men must have power over women for the marriage to be the right kind of marriage. Also, like Jake Squid, I’m one of those evil secular humanists who waited until she was in her twenties. Make of that what you will.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
It might be better to say “non-marital sex,”…
Very true. Thanks for understanding what I meant.
Why not with an adult?
Because the power dynamics make it almost impossible for it to be an equal relationship. This level of power imbalance doesn’t just enter the equation for a 14yr old and a 25 yr old. You can find that same imbalance w/ a 19yr old and a 50 yr old or any of a large number of other examples that have nothing to do with age. It’s just that you can be 99.9999999% sure of that imbalance of power between an adult and a 14 yr old.
I think this is the slippery slope those with your perspective find themselves on.
I think that you would need to know a lot more about my perspective (and those w/ similar views) before you can talk about any “slippery slope,” as my answer above should indicate. And gaining knowledge of my philosophy, morals, etc. will take a lot more than some fairly short exchanges on a blog.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Glaivester:
The former. However, I did check what the tax percentage would be for 100,000 dollars (about 81,000 euros), for a single childless person, and got 38,5%, which is awfully close to the what it would be with latter method 60%.
Coincidence perhaps, or you are on to something.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Arg. Sorry folks. Mr. Thread Drift stroke again (that is me).
Point being, awfully few scandinavians ever pay as much taxes as gengwall’s brother-in-law did. Altough (IIRC) Sweden had higher taxes during the early 90’s. Economic depression and unwillingness to cut public spending.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
gengwall-
Why is it different when it comes to your daughters?
I don’t understand why someone can think choice is ok for everyone except their loved ones. Is it that uncomfortable a thought that they would make a choice that is not the one you want them to make? Why is ‘my daughter is having sex’ such a jump from ‘girls are having sex’. From ‘I had sex when I was that age, with a girl who was that age’. And, even more extreme, why is ‘my daughter might choose to have sex’ so frightening that the existence of any viewpoint not completely antithetical to having sex must be blotted out? Awkward transition- sorry, gengwall, I know you aren’t someone who homeschooled out of fear of sex ed, and this part isn’t directed specifically at you.
Going on to choices- why are parents so afraid of schools corrupting their children? Are people so insecure about their influence after raising a kid for 18 years that they would shut out anything a school has to say about biology because it might lead to a kid getting ideas? Does this come down to parents being afraid of choices being made by the kid that aren’t what the parent wants to kid to make? Should no mention of medicine be made because it might lead to children of certain religious groups choosing to have insulin injections? And, yes, that’s a valid comparison. AIDS is usually contracted via risky acts- so is adult onset diabetes.
I don’t say ‘choices the parent would not make’ because often they are choices the parent made, and which do not bother them until the kid hits puberty and suddenly they fear him/her doing the same thing. Fear it so much that they will attack policies to lower AIDs transmission rates because of ‘moral’ reasons(where is the morality in making sex a death sentence?). Fears that lead to an attorney general being hounded because of mentioning masturbation- something that never comes up in talk of abstinence.
Sex education, indeed. Fear seems to be the overwhelming emotion when it comes to sex and teens, and overwhelming fear is never the good thing to make decisions with.
This comment was written by Kerlyssa.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 12:56 am
gengwall writes:
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that an unborn fetus is ‘not’ a person to begin with. I’ll also say that a desire to enforce Christian (mostly fundamentalist) morality on the whole US population is by far the strongest motivation behind all attempts to define a fetus as a person. (and Christianity is a patriarchal religion.) Said morality also aims to limit access to sex education and contraception as well as abortion. The outcome would be ignorant girls and women on sexual matters, who are therefore more likely to get pregnant, (not to mention other dangers) since there is nothing to suggest they will stop having sex. Poor women will inevitably suffer most, as usual. Millions of women -ignorant, shamed, barefoot and pregnant, and having to raise unwanted children. That is the outcome of the overall agenda, and the only possible way for a woman to happily reconcile herself to these enforced realities of life is to accept wholeheartedly the full hand of Christian teachings on morality. (whether her high profile male teachers adhere to them or not…but that’s another issue….) Correct me if I’m wrong.
That’s right. A fetus is not considered to be a person in Sweden. It is obvious to people there that women who have abortions are not committing any kind of homicide. I would not mind paying high taxes in order to fund social welfare, free healthcare, free education etc. I believe that if a nation values the safety, freedom, potential, health and dignity of all of its citizens, i.e. status as equal and worthwhile persons above the accumulation of individual personal wealth (while not completely eradicating some financial reward for work, initiative or innovation) it is a better nation to live in than one that doesn’t. However, if I was an American I might prefer to stay and work towards those ideals rather than abandon my home country to the forces that work against them, your ‘my way or the highway’ type comment notwithstanding.
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 8:42 am
I can understand a parent not wanting his or her children to make the sort of choices that they now regret. That’s not necessarily “do as I say, not as I do” so much as it is “learn from my mistakes.” But in the end, we all still have to make our own decisions as best we can, and though we don’t always make the decisions our parents would like us to - or, indeed, the best decisions - but more often than not, we learn from it and generally turn out all right anyway. Have I learned from some of the things my parents have told me? Heck yes. Have I ignored some of the things they’ve told me? That too, sometimes to my regret, sometimes to discover, hey, they weren’t always right after all! (I am speaking here from the perspective of a 23-year-old woman, a year out of college, with generally supportive parents with plenty of stories about their youthful mistakes.)
Personally, I think of sexual intimacy not so much as a moral issue as a matter of trust. I don’t want someone I don’t trust completely having that sort of intimacy with my body, with the potential to do harm to it through sexually transmitted disease, chance of pregnancy, chance of the relationship becoming abusive, etc. That’s just my view, and what has worked for me. When I have children, I think that’s something I can pass on to them without feeling like a hypocrite.
This comment was written by Rebecca E.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Well said, Rebecca E. I would add that denial, rationalization and self-delusion are human nature; we tell ourselves we are acting from the best and purest of motives, and we lie ourselves into all kinds of bad decisions. Teenagers, being less experienced, are less able to recognize when this is happening. I speak as a former teenager.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Jake - I, of course, understand the “power dynamics” and agree that is the reason. But for the very reason the 14 year old is not mature enough to handle the power dynamics I say they are not mature enough to handle the relational dynamics of a sexual relationship.
Kerlyssa - As far as the first part - if I get you right, it was more thinking out loud. I didn’t quite follow what response you were trying to get from me.
Going on to choices- why are parents so afraid of schools corrupting their children?
Because it happens.
Are people so insecure about their influence after raising a kid for 18 years that they would shut out anything a school has to say about biology because it might lead to a kid getting ideas?
Certainly some are. It is not an unsubstantiated fear for parents to worry that their kids won’t listen to them.
As far as the rest, I think we are on the same side. But some parents are worried enough that they would advocate the things you raise questions about. I’m not one of them.
I don’t say ‘choices the parent would not make’ because often they are choices the parent made, and which do not bother them until the kid hits puberty and suddenly they fear him/her doing the same thing.
This should not surprise you. People change a lot of perspectives between adolesence and parenthood…and I should hope so. I know a few parents still living out their adolesence and it isn’t pretty.
Fear seems to be the overwhelming emotion when it comes to sex and teens, and overwhelming fear is never the good thing to make decisions with.
I would agree. I simply try to point out the fear that exists (even if it is irrational) that prevents many religious parents from jumping on board to a more aggressive “pregnancy prevention” agenda.
Cicely - your points about the “personhood agenda”, if you will, may all be true. Religious fundimentalism may be the driving force but it won’t be the legal reasoning which means that all you protestation not withstanding, it may happen. What I’m trying to say is that there is a perfectly legitimate, non-religious, non-moralistic avenue for this personhood to be recognized. You may not believe it, but John Kerry and all of the opponents of UVVA do and they are scared to death.
Rebecca - points well taken. Thanks for sharing.
Lu - “I speak as a former teenager.” LOL
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
But for the very reason the 14 year old is not mature enough to handle the power dynamics I say they are not mature enough to handle the relational dynamics of a sexual relationship.
But I’m not saying that a 14 yr old isn’t mature enough to handle the power dynamics. I’m saying that the power imbalance inherent in a relationship between a 14 yr old & an adult make it impossible to have an egalitarian relationship and, by extension, make the chances of a consensual sexual relationship minimal at best. That power imbalance is exactly the same as you might find (to take a stereotypical example), in some circumstances, between an impoverished 39 yr old woman and a wealthy 42 yr old man. The problem w/ the power dynamic (power imbalance) I am describing has nothing to do with maturity. I knew many people when I was 16 who were mature enough to handle the “relational dynamics of a sexual relationship,” but it still would have been inappropriate for them to have a 35 yr old sexual partner. Maturity is really not the issue here, power imbalance is.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
OK Jake, fair enough. I see your point. I’m confident though that the possibility of finding two 14 year olds with the maturity you require in the same community that actually like each other is relatively nill. On the other hand, I think the possibility of finding scores of 14 year olds who think they have the maturity highly probable. In light of the unlikelyhodd of scenario 1 and the almost certainty of scenario 2, I go back to my original question:
Don’t we want our teens to wait?
Or maybe a bit more specific:
Don’t we all think there is far less potential for emotional and even physical damage if our teens wait and therefore generally support the idea?
Maybe I’m just an old prude. I’m comfortable with that.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
From the original post:
Hold on: Who says that an increase in abortions would make the birth rate go down? That isn’t necessarily true at all.
Say there are 1,000,000 pregnancies a year in 1972, and 500,000 result in abortion. (Using round numbers to make the math easier on me.) Number of births: Also 500,000. Then abortion becomes legal in 1973, and there are still 500,000 births. From that fact, you’re deducing that the number of abortions stayed around 500,000 as well.
This is a non sequitur. It’s been pointed out before, but the legalization of abortion changes the way that people think about sex and birth control. After Roe, the rate of STDs went up, for example, because people weren’t as careful about using condoms. (See the work of Jonathan Klick on this.) And as Steven Levitt points out, the rate of conceptions went up substantially after Roe, even while the birth rate went slightly down.
So maybe the real numbers would be something more like this: After Roe, 1,300,000 women get pregnant (an extra 300,000, compared to pre-Roe). The same 500,000 give birth (thus, the same birth rate). But there are 800,000 abortions — meaning that the abortion rate ROSE even while the birth rate stayed the same.
Now those are made-up figures, but they show how it is perfectly possible for the birth rate to stay the same while abortions rise — if more women are getting pregnant because they (or their partners) aren’t as careful about using birth control.
Thus, Amp is clearly wrong in claiming that a steady birthrate PROVES that abortions didn’t go up.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Don’t we want our teens to wait?
Or maybe a bit more specific:
Don’t we all think there is far less potential for emotional and even physical damage if our teens wait and therefore generally support the idea?
Let me ask again, for what do we want our teens to wait?
I don’t think that there is less potential for emotional or physical damage if teens wait until they are 21 or are married. Part of the reason that sexual relationships tend to be more physically & emotionally fulfilling when we are adults is our experience with sex & sexual relationships.
Look, my first sexual relationship was a truly fucked up thing, physically & emotionally. In retrospect, I can see that my lack of experience with all things sexual was why I couldn’t see it. If I’d had several emotionally jarring or hurtful experiences as well as one or more good and fulfulling relationships between the ages of 14 or 15 or 16 and 21 I might have known better than to stick around for a decade of abuse. My second sexual relationship, OTOH, has been wonderful - in large part due to my experience. Although admittedly anectodal, I’ve known several other people who didn’t have a sexual relationship until their 20’s describe the same thing - lack of experience was a large component in miserable sexual relationships.
As long as I knew the physical risks and the precautions available and honest information on what prevents what with what percentage certainty, it may have been better if I hadn’t waited until I was 21.
Given that nothing has prevented kids from having sex in the past, wouldn’t it be better to give them all of the information about it that we can? Or do you have a new strategy that hasn’t been tried before that you think will greatly reduce teenage sexual activity?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
alsis39 - Sorry, I missed your post.
Seems to me that it’s always been an accepted thing in this culture for men and boys to “educate” themselves about sex. That is, a man should not go to his marriage bed a virgin, though his bride most definitely should…
I often suspect that when the average Fundie is talking about “kids knowing too much,” they really mean that “girls know too much.” In the worldview that creates the Fundie ideal of marriage, the stability of the marriage is based upon experienced male/inexperienced female.
Although I agree to a point about the culture as a whole I would strongly disagree within the fundie sub-culture. The fundamentalist Christian philosophy with which I am familiar calls for virginity in both sexes. Although it may not always play out that way, that is the expectation even amongst the males. It is harder for fundie males to adhere to this philosophy because of the contrast in the culture as a whole that they live in. But that doesn’t change the underlying belief.
Don’t get me wrong, the church has got plenty of problems regarding sexuality. Those problems occur in both sexes and across generations. But when your average fundie talks about “kids knowing too much”, they really do mean both boys and girls.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
I certainly acknowledge your personal experience and those of others you know. I can tell other’s stories who had the opposite experience. That doesn’t change the reality of either. So I’ll skip to the end
Given that nothing has prevented kids from having sex in the past, wouldn’t it be better to give them all of the information about it that we can? Or do you have a new strategy that hasn’t been tried before that you think will greatly reduce teenage sexual activity?
I have a completely different (and probably foreign to you) perspective on the purpose for sex. So, any strategy I would have would probably sound either silly or impossible to you. I’m ok with that; I don’t expect you to subscribe or agree with my philosophies. My only issue is this presumption that “it is inevitable that kids will have sex, so why not help them along”. Even if it is inevitable that some kids will have sex doesn’t mean I think it is a good idea and therefore I don’t want to help it along. As a matter of fact, I want to get in the way as much as I can. The younger they are, the more I want to put up road blocks and the more I think it is a mistake. (seriously Jake, 14 year olds?) That in no way means I think we should keep them ignorant (something I was accused of on another thread here at Alas). I don’t think I have indicated at all that I am against sex education. But that doesn’t mean I accept that it is a good idea for 14 year olds to be sexually active.
Now I willingly admit that fundamentalist Christians are in a horrible bind here. What we advocate goes not only against culture but also against biology. To illustrate I will share something a speaker shared with our Jr. High kids at church. I don’t remember the exact statistics but this is close enough:
100 (or 200 or 500?) years ago the average age for the onset of puberty was 15 and the average age of marriage was 18. So, the most the average kid had to put with raging hormones was about 3 years. Now, the average age for the onset of puberty is 12 and the average age of marriage is well into the twenties. Obviously, the burden on young people now is much greater.
So, I know there is a problem out there, but the underpinning for my morality, the biblical principals for sex and marriage, have not changed. And across the fundie spectrum, those underpinnigs make us suspicious and resistent to anything that would make this difficult challenge (keeping our kids virgins) even more problematic.
I hope that makes sense. I mean, I’m trying to convince you to subscribe to this philosophy. I just want you to understand where we are coming from and why it is so hard for us to get behind any, let alone a more aggressive contraception pushing, sex ed policy. Do I think we are being smart about it? No. Do I think teens should wait? Yes. Do I think I’ll convince you? No. Am I done now? Yes. :-)
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Crap - Jake - I meant in the last paragraph that I am NOT trying to get you to subscribe to this philosophy. Gee I wish we could edit comments.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Gengwall,
I appreciate your position and your goal. My question really comes down to:
What are your strategies for dealing with teenage sexuality? (I may have missed it or forgotten it)
Are your strategies effective in meeting your goal?
Do your strategies for dealing with teenage sexuality do more good than harm or the other way around?
I mean, when you write:
…and why it is so hard for us to get behind any, let alone a more aggressive contraception pushing, sex ed policy.
I don’t see how you (in the general sense) are doing anything to achieve your goal as you have clearly stated that you don’t want to keep kids ignorant. In fact, this seems antithetical to the desire to educate kids about sex.
The younger they are, the more I want to put up road blocks and the more I think it is a mistake.
What kind of roadblocks? My impression is that the roadblocks you refer to are a combination of shaming, lack of access to contraception and, although you profess to the opposite belief, ignorance. Have those things ever kept kids from having sex? Why would it be any different now?
I think that you can see by my questions that I just don’t understand what you are advocating. Well, I understand the generalities. I just don’t understand what policies you would wish to put in place to achieve your goals.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Jake - Oooooh *light bulb goes on over head*.
OK - I guess the best way to realte this is to talk about my kids - something I like to do anyway.
We have always been very open with our daughters on two fronts: sexuality, and the bible’s (and therefore, our) view on it (or at least our interpretation of it which I think is pretty mainstream fundie-wise).
So, we have said that we do not believe God blesses or desires sex before marriage, and we point ou t our basis in the bible for those beliefs. But we recognize that many people either defy that (those who believe it) or do not adhere to it. We have shared with them our stories of sex before marriage and have related how those experiences actually did much to damage our intimacy within marriage (that’s our story at least). We have also told them it is our belief that younger people (I am not comfortable necessarily with an arbitrary line) are almost always not prepared for intimate relationships. We have shown them, and they know personally of friends, where the consequences of sex at a young age have been life changing, not for the good (the number of teen pregnancies in the church continues to astound me but goes very much to your earlier points about teens always are going to do it).
Considering these beliefs, therefore, while they were not adults we put rules and policies in place to help protect them from getting themselves “in too deep”. We did not prevent them from dating, but the knowledge of their Christian home life and our beliefs steered most boys away from them. That is to say, they didn’t date much. But had they, we would have had very specific rules about when and in what environments they could be together with their dates. Again, this was to protect them from “getting in trouble”. It was also so they could get to know the boys without having the added sexual tension which seems to be prevelant all around them.
From a personal perspective, I was open about how boys work. I told them about the effects on a boy of flirting, especially very physical flirting. We discussed clothing with them and I shared the effects certain clothes can have on boys. And I explained how dangerous and, actually, mean sexual teasing can be.
Now, my girls turned out pretty “good” (they are virgins and share, at least now, our perspective on sexuality. They are 18 and 20 right now). Some times it amazes me. I asked them not too long ago how it is they turned out so good when so many other kids we know in the church who have these really conservative wholesome parents seem to turn out so “bad”. There answer was quite instructive.
They said there were four keys (none had anything to do with our “morality”, curiously enough).
1) we were always open with them and we didn’t stick our head in the sand when it came to the realities of life. We answered any questions they had and made them look at the world (and boys in particular) in a way that nobody else (especially their peers and church people) had. Moreover, they observed that what we said was true. Through observation they saw that what we were sharing about boys and girls and how they act toward each other and are affected by each other was true.
2) We never made them feel like they needed to have a boyfriend to be complete. They always felt accepted just the way they were (they were very active in many things). This is especially significant considering our generic 14 year old. They recognized, instinctively then and explicitely now, how our culture has shaped junior high girls perspective on life so that they do not feel self worth unless they have a boyfriend. Since those boyfriends ultimately make sex a condition of continued dating (a whole different peer problem), they are forced into sexual activity to maintain their feeling of self worth. Our daughters never fell into this trap.
3 ) Our rules seemed sensible. Our kids had a lot of freedom. But they knew specifically where the boundaries were. They appreciated that and even though they would have liked to have no boundaries, they now acknowledge that they were essential and they recognize that they were in place for their protection. They also have acknowledged that they were not mature enough to handle some of the things that they would have been confronted with had those rules and boundaries not been in place.
4) They knew we loved them unconditionally and that love would not change if they made a mistake.
None of this gaurenteed they would share the same moral convictions we do. None of it gaurentees that they will continue on this way now that they are adults. But it got them through the teen years relatively unscathed, and, I believe, well prepared for what lies ahead.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Gengwall,
What you have written is great on a family level. I have no quibbles with how you chose to raise your children & I’m glad that it worked out well for your family.
However (and you knew that was coming), I don’t see how that family history relates to public policy as you would like to see it. What do you think sex ed. should be like in public schools? How accessible or inaccessible should contraception be? How do you translate your interactions/guidance to your children regarding dating and sex into the wider world of public institutions & public policy? I mean, according to you, even within your church pre-adult, pre-marriage sex is happening. What policies is your church advocating or practicing that have helped to reduce the problem?
I think that we are talking past each other. I am talking about public policy and you are talking about private parenting. I have no objections to your private parenting as you have related it. But I don’t see what that has to do with public policy towards sex education and teenage sexuality nor do I understand what public policy you are advocating. What am I missing?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
gengwall wrote:
Well, the important part to me, gengwall, is watching how people act, not how they discuss their actions in relation to the fantasy world of the Bible or their own ideals and aspirations. In terms of action, it’s obvious that men are simply not scrutinized and punished for their supposed sexual transgressions in the same manner that women are.
Just one example: Why are Fundies so obsessed with forcing wives to notify husbands if they plan on aborting ? Why aren’t they all fired up about forcing husbands to notify wives if they plan to get vasectomies, for example ? For that matter, why is it only important for women to notify men of an impending abortion if the couple is married ? Is it somehow more exusable to abort a fetus conceived out of wedlock because it’s less valuable without the umbrella of marriage ? Is the soul of the “murderous” unmarried woman less important than that of her married sister in the grand scheme of things because the former’s already a damned/doomed Jezebel, anyway ?
I don’t know if you see what I’m driving at here, so I’ll be even blunter: This particular folly on behalf of Fundies and their enablers/apologists makes it clear that they consider women to be no more capable of governing our own sexuality than is an animal in a zoo, and the proper role for men is to govern the sexuality of women. Meanwhile, a man’s own sexuality, whether thoroughly depraved or aglow with Biblical virtue, is above questioning or condemnation in the public arena. Such attempts at law reinforce a fantasy –one transparent to anyone with common sense– that men, left to their own devices and Godly guidance, will behave morally –but that women, left to their own devices and Godly guidance, will behave immorally.
What a great advertisement for atheism. :p
I also reiterate my belief that there is less contrast than you might think between how secular and conservative religious societies view men, women, and attendent double standards. Secular soceity grew out of religious society, after all. Think of the old saying about how some portion of good or evil will inevitably travel with people like so much baggage no matter how far across the frontier they might go to make a new home.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Economics will have no impact on this situation. Opinions on abortion relate to a feeling of right or wrong which ignores economics and last time I checked statistics showed opinions to be fairly evenly divided on the issue. Legalization or not will not change people’s minds. Prediction: it will alway remain legal with the same tired arguments continuing.
This comment was written by Jen.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 1:48 am
‘Avenue’ is the key word here, gengwall. Political strategies inolving lawyers, sympathetic politicians, sympathetic social commentators and so on. I have recently watched on Australian teleision the US documentary “The Last Abortion Clinic” and seen these processes work to eliminate all but one abortion clinic in Mississippi, and at the time, legal requirements had been set up to upgrade that last remaining facility to meet possibly unreachable or unaffordable standards, and certainly unnecessary ones for the safety of the women in need of the facility. It was sheer strategy and pretence to claim that the womens health and safety was the motivation. The goal, as with many other requirements, is to make abortion as difficult to impossible to obtain in practical terms, particularly for poor women, the easiest targets, regardless of its Federal ‘legality’ as per Roe v Wade. (Does anyone know whether the Mississippi clinic is still operating?)
The same would be true of the ‘fetus as person’ issue. It’s a question of strategy, political power and position. Finally, the people with the power make the rules, and this has very little to do with what is real and true. I submit again that however it may come about, any legal declaration that a fetus is a person will reflect a Christian standard which would be being imposed on a population which includes many non-christians as well as, I imagine, some christians who are pro-choice on the abortion issue. It would not reflect the reality that most women have never, and ‘will’ never regard abortion as homicide of any description. I respect your right to your own views, gengwall, but where they have political power to place severe limitations on the choices that people who don’t share them can make, I see intolerance, repression and oppression. I don’t see how you could argue otherwise.
alsis 39 writes:
Broadly speaking I agree with this. Patriarchy is a whole raft of double standards keeping women at a disadvantage almost everywhere you look, because secular society did grow out of religious society. The abortion issue is just at the very pointy end of patriarchal power - it’s about the most fundamental of human rights - bodily integrity. If society wasn’t patriarchal this issue wouldn’t even be on the table. However, in the developed world, the less influence religion has in governance, the greater the freedoms of women appear to be.
Jen writes:
As above - unortunately it’s easy to see how abortion could remain technically legal but practically impossible to obtain. (fetus as person or not…) For example, in the case in Mississipi, it is a requirement that women visit the clinic more times than necessary to have the procedure performed with knowledge of options, safety etc all considered. A poor woman rang in with an enquiry but hung up the phone as the time off work and transport problems she’d need to overcome to go through the whole process overwhelmed her. She will no doubt be joining the growing number of young women in Mississippi who have been forced, because of a lack of financial resources, into single parenthood.
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 2:06 am
From a personal perspective, I was open about how boys work. I told them about the effects on a boy of flirting, especially very physical flirting. We discussed clothing with them and I shared the effects certain clothes can have on boys. And I explained how dangerous and, actually, mean sexual teasing can be.
And this prepared them for the way their own bodies work, the effects on them of flirting, especially physical flirting, the effects certain clothes can have on them, and how dangerous and mean sexual teasing can be to them - how, exactly? Or did you perhaps have enough empathy to understand that girls have eyes and physical bodies, just like boys do, and that therefore you might try to talk to them about how sex makes them feel, not about how they make boys feel? Because the way you tell it, it doesn’t sound like you understand them to be sexual subjects at all, only objects of the desire of others.
It honestly sounds like you told them how to resist male physical urges without a word about their own.
This comment was written by sophonisba.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Good points all. A couple of responses
Jake - OK - public policy. I don’t think it is good public policy for teachers or other public service communicators to say sex is “bad”. I think that is what some others have been getting at (another light bulb went on). I also don’t think it is good policy to say sex is ineveitable. I would prefer a public policy that stresses that sexual relationships carry a lot of potential dangers and responsibilities and so they are not for everyone at every time in their life. They especially are not for young people who, quite frankly, have a lot better things to do with their life at that age than have sex. Of course I don’t think they should word that exactly that way but that should be the message - it’s ok to wait. Then, the message should continue by saying that “never-the-less, some of you will choose to engage in sexual activity”. In that case, we take Amps approach and “push birth control on them until they get bruised”.
Now I have to say that family dynamics still are an important part of public policy. Parents have to wise up a lot more as well. which brings me to:
Sad but true. But overall I don’t think it is as lopsided as you do. Most Christian men I know (certainly not all) view their wives as equal partners in their relationship and a good number (not nearly enough) do not promote the male dominant philosophy you describe onto their sons. But, you and I move in different circles so our experiences are certain to be different. I also acknowledge that my experiences are far from reflective of the world in general. What you describe certainly is prevelant out there and, since I have daughters, is something I try to make them acutely aware of. But the sub-culture of fundies which you describe is completely foreign to me. It certainly does not reflect the fundie world I live in.
I would contest this notion though:
I personally have no problem with either scenario. I absolutely think a husband should inform his wife before getting a vasectomy. Most people I am aquainted with would say the same. I would be curious to see any studies that back up your contention.
cicely - your unmasking of the “strategy, political power, and position” approach is valid, but not uniquely pro-life. Both sides play this game.
My bottom line is that I consider the unborn to be a person. I don’t think that because of any strategic, political position. I think it because, as I read it, biology and the bible tell me so. With that perspective, it is not “intolerance, repression and oppression” for me to consider abortion wrong because the unjustified killing of a person is wrong. There are a number of points where you could disagree with my perspective, and I respect those also. I do not think that you are being any of the things you think I am being even though I think your postition is incorrect. Put bluntly, I don’t think you are a bad person.
But, a lot of pro-lifers might think you are a bad person. I think they are narrow minded and illogical. I also think they are arguing out of the wrong side of their mouth. They are on my side regarding outcome, but not on my side regarding strategy and argument to achieve that outcome.
Let me put it this way. If we all can determine that the founders and civil war amendment writers did not consider the unborn to be a person (Roe left that door open), even if biology and the bible do, I have no problem with Roe. On the other hand, if we all can determine that the founders et al did mean to include the unborn in their definition of persons, whether or not biology and the bible do, then we all should be against abortion. I think that is a great debate to have, but it is off topic again. Here, we are trying to figure out if there is common ground so that we could eliminate unwanted pregnancy through public policy, not abortion through legislation.
sophonisba - you sound like a “sameness” advocate. I simply don’t want to even get into a debate with you because we would never agree on the underlying premiss. Specifically, you have no idea what goes on in my home. I write way too much as it is and in my previous post I tried to write just enough to get my point across. But, to set your mind at ease, my daughters are well informed about their bodies and their sexuality.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 9:26 am
I’m not sure about the biology, gengwall, but I would imagine that in all countries where abortion is legal, fetuses can’t possibly be considered persons on biological grounds. So biology is open to interpretation? I have to go back and read the other thread on this one…and it’s getting late…
Can I ask you to respond to something else I’ve been saying? Women get pregnant; women give birth or have abortions; women have been having abortions or attempting to have abortions under whatever conditions existed since the year dot. And women do not consider our sex to be mass murderers. Do you concede that if it were up to women to make laws around abortion, it would be legal and safe almost if not actually everywhere in the world? If not, why not, and if so, can you explain how is it not raw patriarchal power to forbid it?
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 9:30 am
how it is not - raw patriarchal power - is of course what I meant to write…
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 9:56 am
cicely
Well, I’m not sure. A lot of women think the way I do, after all. But I suppose you would argue that that is because they are under this patriarchal influence. If we assume that to be correct, and they were subsequently freed from this influence, I might agree. But I don’t agree with the premise. Specifically - “women do not consider our sex to be mass murderers.” I’m certain the women that you know do not. I assure you the women I know do. You, again, would claim that is because the men I know are all patriarchal power mongers. I, again, would disagree with that claim. So, I think we are at an impass on this point. Or at least, in your world you are absolutely right and in my world you are most assuredly wrong.
For the very reasons I’ve been giving. There is nothing patriarchal about God’s love for and knowledge of us even in the womb. I consider that a recognition of personhood. It is debateable, admitedly, but it is what I believe and that belief has nothing to do with patriarchy.
There is also nothing patriarchal about my biological arguments. Again, we can have that debate, but my reasoning does not reflect any kind of male dominance over women. The biological arguments for personhood of the unborn are gender neutral.
I would admit that the end result by and large can be considered patriarchal. In other words, in the end analysis, women are being subjected a gender specific prohibition (if abortion is banned) while men can go merily along jumping whoever they please. One response would be - “blame Eve”. But that’s pretty patriarchal in itself, even if it is biblical. Another response would be - “its all circumstantial”. After all, it is only women that can get pregnant. But that seems to absolve men of the equal responsibility they share in the circumstance. Again, the patriarchy persists. My response is, killing is killing. There are many homocides that are more “justified”, or at least, more understandable, than others, but they still are criminal. There are a few that are so justified that they are not criminal. So, I would say that if you can make a convincing argument that abortion (other than self defense which is already justified) is so justified that it should not be criminal, I would accept that. I have not heard such an argument to my satisfaction yet. You may say I never will because of an inherent patriarchal disposition. I would say, you don’t know me well enough to come to that conclusion.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Jake - Here, I think I said it much better in a post on christianity.com where we are debating the exact same thing in the Current Events forum.
I think we could do a much better job (both parents and schools) of encouraging kids not to “do it” and a much better job of promoting contraception use if they still choose to ignore us.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 11:51 am
gengwall: The justifiable homicide idea has been addressed before. Even if a fetus had status as a fullperson, no human being has the right to the body of another, and a person is fully justified in this country(usa) with killing someone who tries to infringe that right.
This comment was written by Kerlyssa.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Kerlyssa - Maybe settled in your mind but not in the law. UVVA and even Justice Blackmun in the Roe opinion disagree.
But let’s talk about policies that would make abortions rare without making them illegal.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
gengwall wrote:
But you know that I’m not talking about beliefs in and of themselves. I’m talking about beliefs that some people –usually Fundamentalist Christians– seem obsessed with transmuting into actual laws. Anyone who reads a newspaper once a week somewhere in the U.S. has probably heard of Anti-Choice Parental Notification Laws. I have never heard of any law coming down the pike in any state called the Vasectomy Notification Law. Have you ?
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
alsis - well, that has been brought up a number of times on the Alito threads. So far, only anecdotal evidence has been given to indicate that some states require spousal notification for sterilization procedures. Try as I might, (and I haven’t tried that hard) I can’t find any statutory support. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any state laws. I do know that the actual providers often insist on spousal notification as a matter of practice, even if the law doesn’t require it. When my wife had her tubes tied, they would not proceed until I confirmed that I had been notified.
But that wasn’t the point I was responding to. You asserted that fundies would object to spousal notification for sterilization and I disagree with that. Not only would I not object, but no one I know (and we do talk about this stuff) would either. So, state laws or not, your characterization of us is false. So, do you have any evidence that fundimentalist Christians are against spousal notification for sterilization?
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
My evidence, gengwall, is that the punitive laws in various states regarding control of reproduction operate on the assumption that women and girls knock ourselves up. Only our anatomy is to come under Church/State scrutiny. Not male anatomy. Ours.
If any laws are coming down the plank that would, say, confine husbands in giant electrical chastity belts until their wives said their sperm was free to roam and be fruitful, I have not heard of them.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
“There is nothing patriarchal about God’s love for and knowledge of us even in the womb. I consider that a recognition of personhood. It is debateable, admitedly, but it is what I believe and that belief has nothing to do with patriarchy.”
To translate your personal beliefs into laws forced upon others who disagree with you, and the primary victims of which are women, has everything to do with patriarchy.
The double standards in balancing “bodily integrity” with “right to life” also has a lot to do with patriarchy. “Bodily integrity” trumps “right to life” when it is men’s bodily integrity on the line, and the other way around when it is women’s bodily integrity on the line. Which is why courts have ruled that it is a violation of a man’s human rights to be forced to donate bone marrow for a cousin whose body would not accept anyone else’s bone marrow. But courts have been relatively comfortable in tying down pregnant women for forced c-sections, with no repurcussions even for killing the woman in the process. It boils down to beliefs about how violable women’s vs. men’s bodies are - very patriarchal beliefs about women as property, despite the attempt to put a face of religious piety and concern for the fetus on it.
This comment was written by Kali.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Kali - I would absolutely not want my personal beliefs translated into law and I’m quite certain the founders felt the same. I simply offer them up to indicate why my stance is not patriarchal.
A little background please. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Certainly, the bone marrow thing is gender specific. A female would be no more required to provide the bone marrow than a male.
Alsis - LOL on your comment.
I’ve been through about have of the state statutes so far and do not find anything remotely close to a notification requirement for sterilization. I did find this interesting statute in LA though.
RS 40:4.2 Jambalaya; preparation in traditional manner
It doesn’t apply, but I thought it would also add a little levity to the discussion.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
photos of George Bush with Jack Abramoff. The EPA is drawing up rules for human testing where unintentional exposure of children and pregnant women to pesticides is not ok (but unintentional might be?).Amp has a well-thought about post on economics, abortion, and birth rate. Via the Stealth Badger a link to the Dark Wraith (for whom I have econ geek love to rival the poli sci dork admiration I have for Lemieux) who pulls back the curtain on the Bush
This comment was written by Bloodless Coup.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 1:45 am
I’ll rephrase. The ‘great majority’ of women do not consider our sex to be mass murderers on the basis of the decision women have made and do make to terminate unwanted pregnancies. This is because the great majority of women do not consider a fetus to be a person. They understand that a fetus merely has the potential to become a person should a woman decide to give birth, and the great majority of women believe that that decision, or ‘choice’, should be hers and hers alone. This means that where abortion is illegal or unobtainable, that situation is supported by a comparatively small number of women. Therefore, if reproduction issues were decided ‘by’ women, democratically and without reference to men, abortion would be safe, legal, accessible and affordable for all women. The only possible explanation for this not being the case, in my opinion, is male-supremacy, or patriarchy. Your belief, gengwall, arises out of your male-centred and male- dominated i.e patriarchal religion and would remain, (I just strongly suspect) in the face of all secular biological arguments or ‘proofs’ that refute it.
We are, as you say, at an impasse. But then you say this:
Maybe I’ve been concentrating on our exchanges and have missed something, but can you offer me anything that would suggest to me that you are uncomfortable with or in any way resisting the imposition of a minority view among women (and perhaps the whole population) - upon ‘all’ women in your country - a view that happens to correspond with your own beliefs?
Ok, looking back over what I’ve written I realise I’m assuming that in the US, an anti-choice stance is definitely a minority one among women. I would not hesitate re ‘women of the world’, but from where I sit Christianity, particularly fundamentalist Christianity, has a (to me) frightening level of appeal and influence in your country. Perhaps someone has some accurate statistics?
I wonder, gengwall, if your imagination can stretch to history having unfolded without men ever having achieved power over ‘women’s business’? By which I mean sexual and re-productive matters, which are the basis of patriarchy still (and rather obviously) today. In that case women would always truly ‘give’ birth, and not ever have it forced upon them. Imagine. I find it difficult to understand how you, or anyone, can’t appreciate how this is simply a matter of who has the power.
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 1:54 am
Bother! There’s a mistake I hope I won’t make twice. I begin at ‘I’ll re-phrase….and again at ‘Maybe I’ve been concentrating…’ I apologise for the unexpected gear shift that was required to read my previous post.
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 3:05 am
Is it my mistake? Testing. Is the line still there? Can anyone tell me what I may have done and how to undo it? The word ‘blockquote’ (except for this) hasn’t been typed in the last two posts…..and on checking - no line in the post preview…..
[The way to undo it is pretty much to post pointing the problem out, and eventually me or Nick will fix it! :-) Amp]
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 9:07 am
cicely - Apparently everything got fixed because I have no prob reading the post :-)
I’m not sure really how to proceed but I’ll try.
First, I still think our world views are quite different. I can reflect on my own experience in marriage, and know that it is representative of many people who believe as I do. It is not the type of patriarchal dominance that you describe. So I can’t relate to your fears very well because the women I know don’t share them. I readily admit that my experience is only one sub-culture. I am quite aware that there are many sub-sultures, especially religious ones and even some Christian ones, that do pratice a patriarchal dominance when it comes to sexual and re-productive matters. I am not so naive or isolated not to not recognize that. But, it is not mine. I can also assure you that despite what some may practice, Christianity is not a patriarchal religion in these matters. Jesus was very gender neutral in his teaching and Paul, who had the most to say about marriage and intermarital sexual relations, was adamant that sexual realtionships were to be equal (take a look at 1 Corinthians 7:1-6. This outlines the Christian perspective on sexual relations, and intimacy as a whole, in the marriage. It is supposed to be completely equal)
But I’ll put that aside for now. Let me see if I can tackle the political side of your questions. First, I am not convinced, certainly here in America at least, that a “great majority of women do not consider a fetus to be a person”. I don’t have any polls to back that up and I may very well be wrong. I also don’t doubt the assertion worldwide although I still have no evidence to substantiate it. But I’ll take your word for it for the sake of argument. I would say then, in a democratic society, if women were the only ones with a vote (which I know you are not suggesting) that I would support what the majority decided. I would want to be sure that they heard all of the pertinent arguments on both sides, but I can abide by such a decision.
And that is actually my stance right now. I support Roe from the perspective that it is the law of the land. I resist calling abortion murder because legally it is not. I would not be in favor of overturning Roe unless new and rational arguments were presented. I happen to think those arguments are out there - arguments that could not be made back when Roe was decided. I happen to think that the anti-choice camp is building those arguments incrementaly and biding their time until they can bring those arguments to bear against Roe. And I happen to think that those arguments are objective and gender neutral and therefore will be compelling to everyone including many if not most women. I could be wrong. Are you willing to take that chance?
And let me reassure also, again, I try to work within the framework of the law and objective reasoning in developing my position. I will repeat, I am not against abortion because I think God is against abortion (which IMO He is). The framers were uninterested in anyone’s idea of what God wanted because they had seen too often how people invoked God to do horrible things. They set up a framework where reason, justice, and representation would decide what people can and can’t do. I subscribe to that philosophy. So, I can separate my opinions and interpretations about what God wants when dealing with political matters. I AM against abortion because I think the unborn are people and therefore are constitutionaly protected. That may have a patriarchal “feel” to it but it is a gender neutral position because its focus is on the unborn, not the sex of the person who gives birth.
So, what are we all to do? Here is what I think the reality is. Anti-choicers are winning and will continue to. They have no motivation to compromise on abortion and are, regardless of reasons, determined to eliminate it. (They are naive, of course, because outlawing abortion will not eliminate it and in many cases will make matters worse. But they are so ingrossed in the battle and are so going in for the kill that they “can’t see the forest for the trees”.) The irony is that if there were to be a compromise, it is anti-choicers that would have to move the furthest. They would have to abandon their positions, as we have been talking about, on abortion in general and contraceptive education in particular. These are very entrenched positions, as I have tried to explain. Pro-choicers need to understand that this is not a painless move for them.
On the other hand, pro-choicers are on the ropes. I really think the political leadership sees the writing on the wall. They are starting to make overtures of compromise to the right. It is a tough sell, but I applaud the effort. There are a few of us who are listening and hopefully we can convince the majority of our friends that a compromise is really in the best interest of all, including the unborn.
Amps last 4 paragraphs to open this post are so true, and saddening. As someone who is pro-life (using my definition of life) I find equally incomprehensible the blindness of those on my “side” who do not understand how really ineffective the outlawing of abortion would be. I am much more in favor of attacking the “demand side” of the equation.
BTW - I have looked over about 3/4 of the state laws and have found no evidence that spousal consent or notification for sterilization is mandated by law anywhere. My eyes got crossed and I got a big headache and I stopped. It is clear to me that not only are states not interested in forcing us to communicate well in our marriages, they probably have no constitutional bases for sticking in their noses in the first place. Although I would have no problem on this issue, I think this protection of privacy is for the best. I also see no way to differentiate this from the husband consent for abortions. So, I officially renounce any support I once held for any kind of spousal consent or notification in sexual or reproductive matters. Chalk up one fundie converted on this issue.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 10:43 am
geng, the passage you cite is interesting, because while it does talk about the duties of both wife and husband, it speaks primarily to marriage as an antidote to sexual temptation pending the shortly expected parousia. You can’t say it prescribes equality between husband and wife unless you can show that the duties mentioned are equal. I would also be interested in your interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:34 and Eph. 5:23. (In fact I’d love to get into a whole Scriptural wrangle with you, but it would be OT and I suspect most everyone else here would be bored silly.)
I don’t believe even most right-wing Christians (of whom btw you are the most reasonable I have yet experienced, but that may be damning with faint praise) really think embryos or even some fetuses are persons. (Medically an embryo becomes a fetus after the first trimester.) If they did they would hold a full funeral service for every known miscarriage, and possibly a police investigation as well. This is not to belittle the parents’ grief over a miscarriage (I have had several), but to point out that a six- or eight- or twelve-week embryo is not usually thought of in the same way as an eight-month fetus or a born child.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Lu - you may be correct about how most Christians feel about the Zygote/Embryo/Fetus deep down inside but I doubt it. Certainly, again, not the ones I know. It doesn’t really matter though because that certainly is not the mantra from the pro-life movement. I think you have to deal with what we say - “it’s a person from conception on” - not what you or I might speculate we actually feel. I also think that these personal feelings are quite subjective. Justice Blackmun went through quite a recitation of the religious “feelings” about the unborn in the Roe decision. It is clear “religious” people are not of one voice. That is why I try to focus on a biological argument, one I think is more objective.
Very good point. Of course, we are not any less prone to hypocrisy than anyone else. I personally find the huge emotional outcry over “the victims of abortion” to be a little two faced.
I’ll take any nice words I can get. Thank you.
Bible stuff from here down - read if interested. I don’t intend to continue this train of discussion from this point on.
Regarding the verse - I don’t think the “duties” differ between sexes. I consider the “duties” of intimacy to be the same - need meeting. The needs differ and the actions appropriate to meet those needs differ from person to person but they are not wholly gender specific. That’s my take.
Also 1 Cor 14:34 was a specific circumstance. Paul clearly recognized and condoned female leadership in the church in other passages. Eph - this deals specifically with spiritual leadership. Men are supposed to be the spiritual leaders of the home. Incidentally, we suck at it. We have abdicated this role throughout history. Never-the-less that is what’s expected. This has nothing to do with any household duties and certainly has nothing to do with the bedroom. Actually, the 1950’s style “typical” “dad works and mom stays at home to raise the babies” picture is never laid out in the bible. It is indeed, a patriarchal cultural paradigm, just not a scriptural one. Just my take. And I do acknowledge that these are very controversial verses in the church.
If you are really interested in this type of discussion, drop on by the christianity.com forums some time. I think you will be amazed at the variety of opinion there but I find a great deal of agreement once the discussion moves “into the marriage bed”, especially when “roles” and “power position” is being discussed.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
>Pro-choicers need to understand that this is not a painless move for them.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Gengwall said : Pro-choicers need to understand that this is not a painless move for them.
Ask me if I care. It isn’t painless to be forced to risk your life to give birth to an unwanted child, either…and it’s a helluva lot more risky for a woman to go through that than it is for an anti choice person to mind their own damned business.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
If you want to talk biology, on the order of half of all zygotes never make it, and the woman never knows she was pregnant. Between 25 and 50 percent (or more, depending on maternal age) of all known pregnancies that are not aborted end in miscarriage or stillbirth.
In my view, a zygote/embryo/fetus can’t be considered a person in any meaningful sense until the development of the cerebral cortex, which as I understand it occurs sometime after the sixth month. Before that time there are nerve endings sending signals but nothing receiving them.
As for the Bible — I’ve heard those explanations before, but I don’t buy them. Over and out on that subject, in this forum at least.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
“A little background please. I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
Here are some excerpts from http://www.alternet.org/story/18493/
————
In 1978 Robert McFall, suffering from a rare bone marrow disease sought a court order to force his cousin David Shimp, the only compatible donor, to submit to a transplant. The court declined explaining: “For our law to compel the Defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits.” Forcibly restraining someone to make them submit to surgery for the benefit of another would “raise the specter of the swastika and the Inquisition, reminiscent of the horrors this portends.”
In the name of fetal rights however, pregnant women are being forcibly restrained. In 1984, for example, a Nigerian woman pregnant and hospitalized in Chicago was forced to have a C-section. She refused the surgery because she planned to return to Nigeria where she would be unable to access C-sections for future births. The hospital obtained a court order and forced her to undergo the procedure. Hospital staff tied her down with leather wrist and ankle cuffs while she screamed for help.
Another hospital obtained a court order to force a pregnant woman to undergo a blood transfusion. Doctors “yelled at and forcibly restrained, overpowered and sedated” the woman in order to carry out the order.
In Washington, DC, doctors sought a court order to force Ayesha Madyun to have a C-section. The doctors asserted that the fetus faced a 50-75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically. The court, apparently viewing the pregnant woman as having no more rights than a slab of meat, said, “[a]ll that stood between the Madyun fetus and its independent existence, separate from its mother, was put simply, a doctor’s scalpel.” With that, the court granted the order and the scalpel sliced through Ms. Madyun’s flesh, the muscles of her abdominal wall, and her uterus. When the procedure was done, there was no evidence of infection.
All of these women were denied the right to bodily integrity and physical liberty and their fetuses were granted more rights than any legal person under law.
Angela Carder at 27 years old and 25 weeks pregnant became critically ill. She, her family and her attending physicians all agreed on treatment designed to keep her alive for as long as possible. The hospital however called an emergency hearing to determine the rights of the fetus. Despite testimony that a Cesarean section could kill Ms. Carder, the court ordered the surgery because the fetus had independent legal rights. As a result, Ms. Carder not only lost her right to informed consent and bodily integrity; she lost her life. The surgery resulted in the death of both Angela and her fetus.
————-
” Certainly, the bone marrow thing is gender specific. A female would be no more required to provide the bone marrow than a male.”
That is an intellectually and morally bankrupt argument. If one standard applies to situations which affect men and women equally, and another to situations which affect women only/primarily, that is a gender-based double standard, much as you would like to obfuscate by stating that the former applies to both men and women, so everything is OK.
This comment was written by Kali.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
[...] Amp takes on the very basic economics of abortion, arguing for its necessary legality in a fabulous post. [...]
This comment was written by Feministe » Links, etc..Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Ampersand has agood post, complete with statistics, pointing out what should be the obvious fact that criminalizing abortion has very little effect on abortion rates. Among other things, he points out that the abortion and birth rates in the years before
This comment was written by Bradford Plumer.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2006 at 1:11 am
Saudi blogger Farah’s Sowaleef takes on 99 Traits A Man Would Love to Find in His Wife. The Countess on Breaking the Silence and child custody. Super Babymama reminds us: Anyone can be poor. Amp takes onthe very basic economics of abortion, arguing for its necessary legality in a fabulous post. If you haven’t read this poem at blacademic yet (second item down), go, now. Our Word details stories of abortions before Roe. Thank goodness
This comment was written by Feministe's Journal.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2006 at 2:43 am
Last word on this subject in this forum for me too. Quite apart from the issue of patriarchal control, this is what I see. Anti-choice campaigners will do whatever it takes to impose their beliefs on as many women as they possibly can, as soon as they possibly can. This may inolve overturning Roe v Wade, or putting so many obstacles between women and the accessibilty of abortion that it becomes impossible to obtain and ultimately possibly charging women who procure illegal abortions with murder.
They will do all of this is knowing that it shows an absolute lack of respect for the deeply held beliefs of many, many other Americans. Knowing that others will not believe they are doing wrong by either providing or having an abortion. Pro-choice is not necessarily pro-abortion. It is respecting other peoples right to choose their own beliefs and actions on a controversial matter of life-changing significance. Gengwall, you say you respect the law. You are also saying that you will respect a law that outlaws actions that arise from beliefs other than your own. That’s the bottom line despite your having said that you have no desire to see your own beliefs written into law. Today, you and I can disagree on this issue. Tomorrow, if you have the victory you seem to be expecting, I could be imprisoned for acting from my own beliefs. That is not the situation in any modern society that aspires to be tolerant and civilised.
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Kali - Thank you very much for the info. I certainly am disturbed by those stories as well. I would not be in favor of forcing a woman to have a c-section any more than I would be in favor of forcing her to have an abortion. I’ll read the link. I’m curious how those ended up when appealled or civil suit.
cicely - Tomorrow, if you have the victory you seem to be expecting, I could be imprisoned for acting from my own beliefs. That is not the situation in any modern society that aspires to be tolerant and civilised.
This comment was written by gengwall.All the more reason for all of us to find common ground. Maybe I haven’t been clear enough. I think this is what will happen if we keep up the trench warfare. Legally and biologically I don’t struggle with this outcome. I would like to say morally I don’t either, but realistically I know what a shallow victory it would be. The unborn would still die and so would more pregnant women so what would have really been accomplished? So I outline these things and make these predictions to try and get us out of the trenches. That is what I think this post is all about.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2006 at 11:25 am
I actually meant that would be all I would say about the Bible only (I am willing to continue the main discussion), but I need to clarify something: geng, when I said I didn’t buy your explanation of those verses, I did not mean that I didn’t believe you interpreted them that way, and I apologize, because reading again it definitely sounds like that’s what I meant.
I meant that I don’t think the church at most times and in most places has interpreted them that way, and in general hasn’t promoted equality between the sexes. Certainly Roman Catholicism, the only church for most of Christian history and still by far the largest denomination, is about as patriarchal as an institution can get.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
>All the more reason for all of us to find common ground.
What common ground can there be, when you think my right to bodily integrity is trumped by the right of something you think of as a person, and I know is not?
What common ground, when you are not calling for people to be mandatory organ donors or blood donors or marrow donors…when the only bodily integrity you’re willing to violate is that of a pregnant woman?
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
January 29th, 2006 at 5:22 am
>>For instance, policies which push birth control on teenagers (including the importance of always using two types at once) so hard the teens get bruised. Countries like Belgium have used this sort of policy to have the lowest abortion rates in the world. I don’t understand why pro-lifers have so little interest in imitating that.
They are not interested in eliminating abortion per se. The fundies are hell bent on reducing all sex to a purely procreative function, and eliminating abortion is just one more mechanism to “punish” those who have sex and are unfortunate enough to end up with an unwanted pregnancy. Therefore, advocating any contraceptive use is an anathema in their eyes (and thus, their abhorrence of “Plan B”). These are the same morons that promote Abstinence Only as a viable sex education curriculum.
It will not be long before we see them calling for the banning of the sale of condoms to minors, and it would nto surprise me at all to find them pushing for an outright ban on the sale of contraceptives of all forms to anyone other than married couples.
This comment was written by StripGoddess.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Lu - I meant that I don’t think the church at most times and in most places has interpreted them that way, and in general hasn’t promoted equality between the sexes.
You are very correct, historically. I see great improvement in the position of most denominations now. More importantly, I do not see any major commentators in the church advocating the old male dominating positions.
I also did not take it the wrong way. This is the meaning I presumed. Maybe there will be an opportunity to discuss in more depth later. I would like that.
Broce - There is plenty of common ground if we are both willing to compromise. It sounds like many on the pro-choice side are not even willing to look at abortion as a tragedy (personhood of the unborn or not). I think that is short sighted. StripGoddess’ post above may well be true, but the anger behind it belies the fact that she is not interested in finding a combined solution. It’s a lot easier to hate your enemy than it is to find common ground and combine forces for the good of all.
This hatred, of course, goes both ways. The problem is that anti-choicers have absolutely no reason to change tactics. They are winning.
This is a really tricky situation. What I have been saying here is that the pro-choicers have to make the first move (I think they are - did you hear about Sen. Clinton’s speech on the Roe aniversary), but the anti-choicers have to make the bigger move in terms of their position because they have to accept leaving abortion legal.
Pro-choicers have to make the pitch for increased and better sex ed and they have to do it in a way that does not back abstinence believers in a corner or demonize them. Railing away against patriarchy and belittling Christian sexuality is not the way to do it. StripGoddess would not be your best salesperson. Of course, Jerry Falwell is not the best person to try and sell this to. What you need to do is sell it to the rank and file. They are the ones who vote and make up the grass roots anti-abortion movement anyway. They are also the most likely to see the forest for the trees and realize that there is a reasonable scenario here that will give everyone most of what they want.
BTW StripGoddess, you are dead wrong about one thing.
The fundies are hell bent on reducing all sex to a purely procreative function
This comment was written by gengwall.I have heard this a lot and it simply is not true. What these fundies want to do is reduce all sex to a purely intra-marital function. Fundies like sex and do it for enjoyment just as much as you all. If your accusation were correct, no fundies would have sex after menopause, no fundies would have sex after one of them was voluntarily sterilized, no fundies would have sex during a pregnancy, no fundies would have sex if they were infertile, and all those fundies who use contraception would be living in a constant paradox since the very use of the contraception to prevent procreation during sex would cause them to not have sex because it would not be procreative! I would hope the ridiculousness of such an assertion is apparent.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 8:32 am
>There is plenty of common ground if we are both willing to compromise. It sounds like many on the pro-choice side are not even willing to look at abortion as a tragedy
My abortion was *not* a tragedy, Gengwall. It just flat out wasn’t. A zygote isn’t a person, and I did not *kill* anyone by terminating an unwanted pregnancy.
What compromise can I possibly make with you?
>Pro-choicers have to make the pitch for increased and better sex ed and they have to do it in a way that does not back abstinence believers in a corner or demonize them
I always have favored comprehensive sex ed. What you are missing, Gengwall, is that if your contraception fails, it does not matter. What you are also missing is that some women are simply more fertile than others. When I turned up unwantedly pregnant, I’d used a condom which broke. I also used the morning after pill, which failed.
If you are suggesting that a woman needs to “prove” she’s used contraception and it failed in order to have an abortion, then you’re right back to using pregnancy as a punishment for sex. If you’re suggesting the unlucky woman who is more fertile, or whose contracpetion fails, should be forced to risk her life against her will, you’re back to the bodily integrity issue.
You haven’t suggested people be forced to donate a kidney against their will, as I noted, it’s just the bodily integrity of pregnant women which you seem to think should be up for grabs.
>What these fundies want to do is reduce all sex to a purely intra-marital function.
And that’s NONE of their business. We’re right back to imposing someone else’s religious beliefs on everyone.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 9:07 am
This past weekend my wife and younger daughter were gone so I got to spend some time with my older daughter where we could talk about some things in depth. Since this whole topic is heavily on my mind, I asked for her observations in the teen culture about abstinence, contraception, and sex education. The conversation was, as always, enlightening.
First, I should give a little background. My kids go/went to a very large (3k students) high school in a Minneapolis suburb. Although the majority of students come from white middle class homes there really is a lot of diversity both socio-economically and racially. We have students from “near-urban”, solidly suburban, and rural communities attending. Moreover, my daughters, although not part of the “popular” crowd, intersect that and other cliques and therefore hear from many different perspectives. They have friends (not acquaintances but real friends) who range from star athletes and cheerleaders to band kids; valedictorians to special ed and ESL students. The have African American, Latin, Asian, etc friends. They have friends who are gay, straight, fundie and completely secular. Oh yes, and they have an equal number of guy and girl friends.
I asked my daughter what sex ed at this school was like and what kids thought about contraception. First, the school has a predominantly abstinence based program. Contraception is mentioned almost in passing. My daughter’s take on it was that it was a joke and most kids blow through it without paying any attention. Moreover, the teachers are frustrated because they know the kids don’t take it seriously. The only ones truly affected are the ones who were most likely to remain abstinent anyway.
Asked what kids would think about more “aggressive” sex education on contraception, she said that there is always going to be a group that will ignore it because they think they are invincible and that the potential health problems associated with sexual activity will never happen to them. At the same time, a large majority of sexually active teens at her school have STD’s and, although she doesn’t know the numbers, she knows anecdotally that there are a fair number of abortions every year. For the most part, kids don’t use any contraception. I wonder how we get through to these kids. I wonder what Belgium has done to make the message one that teens will listen to. These are the types of things we should all be talking about.
I also asked her about the societal double standard we have talked about here where boys who have sex are considered cool and girls who have sex are considered tramps. She said, amongst the teens themselves, it doesn’t seem to exist. The girls who are sexually active are not looked down upon as much as the double standard theory suggests and the boys are not viewed with as much admiration. In general, she said, kids are evaluated by their peers on a case by case basis. Individual kids are either thought of as cool or “slutty” based on their attitude and actual behavior, not their gender. She agreed that the double standard is alive and well amongst the parents though. Most boys think their parents would have a “boys will be boys” attitude about their sexual activity while most girls are afraid of their parents finding out because their parents will think they are a tramp.
Overall, most of her friends, at the very least, view their parents as being uninterested in what goes on in their life. For many, the perception is also the reality. If I have believed anything in all of these discussions, it is that parents, (and this is across the “pro-whatever” spectrum), have got to get more involved in the process. To place this burden completely on the schools is completely irresponsible.
To answer the accusation against fundies that we are uninterested in sex education and will accept nothing but a total ban on abortions and chastity belts for everyone who is not married, I will only offer this. My older daughter is a deeply religious young lady. She is a missionary, returning to Australia in Feb. to join the staff at a very fundamentalist missions organization. She is radically abstinent, swearing off all sexual activity (even “making out”) until she gets married. Yet, the first thing she brought up in our conversation was how poor the sex ed at her school was. Do you get that? This is a program that promotes her beliefs but she was against it because it did not succeed in the even more important areas of kids’ health. She would have welcomed a program that ensured that kids who were sexual active were protecting their health. She sees the promulgation of STD’s and unwanted pregnancies as a far greater tragedy than the reality that kids are going to have sex. My daughter is the quintessential fundie that you so often deride, demonize, and lash out against and yet SHE GETS IT. I have good news - there are far more like her than you realize.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Broce - It saddens me when people are so filled with anger and so convinced their opponent has evil intent that they completely read past what is being said and jump to the wildest, and worst, possible conclusions. Did you only read the parts of my post that you love to hate and completely miss when I said this: “anti-choicers have to make the bigger move in terms of their position because they have to accept leaving abortion legal“? It’s like that classic comedy bit where someone is asking for something and the other person grants their request but they keep blathering on with justification under the false assumption that their request won’t be granted.
Your final comment again illustrates that you are not hearing anything I say:
I was not arguing which belief system was correct or which should be employed in society, so you need not rebute me. I was simply pointing out that StripGoddess’ characterization of fundies belief system was mistaken. I’m not looking for a fight on our different views of sexuality; why are you so intent on finding one?
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 10:29 am
>Broce - It saddens me when people are so filled with anger and so convinced their opponent has evil intent that they completely read past what is being said and jump to the wildest, and worst, possible conclusions.
It saddens me when people make assumptions about my being “filled with anger” because I do not agree with them. It seems very counterproductive. I’m not angry with you Gengwall. I simply think my reproductive choice are none of your business.
> “anti-choicers have to make the bigger move in terms of their position because they have to accept leaving abortion legal”
Where is the compromise, Gengwall, if you support leaving things in place as they are?
You suggested I need to view abortion as a tragedy. But for me, and for many women who choose to terminate a pregnancy, it simply flat out is not a tragedy, and a zygote is not a person.
> I’m not looking for a fight on our different views of sexuality; why are you so intent on finding one?
I’m not looking for a fight, Gengwall, I’m simply suggesting that compromise on this issue is going to be hard to find. Either we leave abortion legal, or we don’t. Asking me to view it as a tragedy is not going to happen either. The overwhelming majority of women who choose abortion describe their feelings after as those of relief, not tragedy. Are you suggesting the correct course of action is for them to be allowed to abort, but that they need to feel guilty about it? They need to see it as a horrible tragedy and feel pain and sadness? That’s back to the punishment perspective again.
What compromise are you suggesting?
BTW, my son’s experiences in high school are quite different from those of your children. The double standard is not only alive and well, but compounded by the fact that sex is seen as something girls do for boys, not a mutually satisfying experience. His friends thought he was nuts when he told them they were missing half the fun seeing it that way. His friends are more likely than your children’s to use contraception, especially condoms. The sex ed in his school was more balanced than that your children were exposed to, and perhaps that is the key…that a de-emphasis on abstinence somehow translated to the kids taking the information on contraception more seriously?
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Broce - OK, since we are just talking past eachother, let me try another approach. Do you agree with the premise of this post that the best strategy for everyone is that we reduce the demand side of the equation? If so, how do you suggest we do that if you see no way for us to compromise?
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 11:00 am
I’m sorry - I guess you asked first about compromise. OK - to leave abortion legal is a compromise from my side. To get behind really agressive sex ed, especially in the area of contraception is a compromise from my side. The compromise I am asking for from your side is a recognition that…well I’ll use Sen. Clinton’s words since my don’t typically have the effect I intend:
Do you see - it is not fundies now who are calling abortion a tragedy but the core of your movement. This is the recognition anti-abortion proponents are looking for. Even more so, we are calling for firm stand from everyone behind abstinence in teens. We can make the moral arguments but we need you to make the psychological and physical health arguments.
In addition, she said:
This sounds like James Dobson. Anti-abortion advocates can get behind aggresive sex education if pro-choicers make this compromise and appeal to our fundimental beliefs.
These are the compromises I would support and think have the best chance of achieving everyone’s goals. There are many many anti-abortionists who could enthusiastically get behind this kind of agenda. Are you willing to take up the call from your own Sen. Clinton and join us? Or do you still want to sit there with your head in the stand making outrageous claims about our beliefs and morality while the rights you do have are slowly whittled down to nothing?
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
>Do you see - it is not fundies now who are calling abortion a tragedy but the core of your movement.
First off, I’d hardly call Hillary Clinton “the core of my movement.” She’s pandering to the religious right. Most telling in that quote is the utter absence of a *word* about abstention for young men. I would also point out that she did not make a blanket statement calling all abortion a tragedy.
As for abstinence in teenagers - it’s utterly unrealistic. I told my son all the reasons I thought it was a healthy choice for him to wait until he was an adult. But ultimately, whatever choices he made were *his*, not mine. And the fact of the matter is that most kids will NOT wait until marriage, and many will not wait for legal adulthood. That’s just the reality, and in my opinion, we need to deal with that reality, not just ignore it. That means not only solid information on contraception and disease prevention, but also solid information about making emotionally healthy decisions about sex. That does not mean saying “the only emotionally healthy decision is to wait until marriage or adulthood.” It means teaching kids good decision making skills, how to treat themselves and others with respect and care.
As to reducing the number of abortions being a worthy goal, my reasons for wanting to do so are very different from yours. I think the financial cost is a burden to many women. I think that having to undergo any invasive medical procedure (including childbirth) is a risk, and prefer to reduce medical risk of all kinds where I can. Abortion is not a pleasant experience physically (though certainly no where near as grueling as childbirth is for most women) and I prefer that women not *need* to have an abortion. There is no moral issue here for me. It’s simply practical.
But reducing the number of abortions would IMHO require not only better access to contraception, but better contraceptive choices than we currently have. Many women cannot take hormonal contraceptives, or choose not to put those chemicals in their bodies. Barrier methods are all limited. There are no effective male methods of contraception beyond vasectomy and condoms. Getting men to use condoms can be problematical. Hell, getting men with multiple children to consider vasectomy can be problematical.
A lot of people have difficulty accessing safe, effective, affordable, consistent contraception, and that too needs to be addressed.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Broce - there you go. I think we’ve found some common ground. Although my personal views on dealing with teen sexuality differ from yours, I think the reality you see does need to be faced. I don’t have all the answers on how to face it and your appraoch may be better. And since you didn’t condem or attack me or my beliefs in any way in your post I can get on board.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
gengwall wrote:
I just found something I can agree with. Thanks gengwall. This is (IMO) problem: A public policy that says “teens will have sex”, combined with peer pressure and hypersexualized commercial culture makes teens who choose (or lack the opportunity) to not have sex seem like some fringe freak group. That is wrong too.
I didn’t have sex at the age average teens are “supposed” to have sex (took longer), and looking back it wasn’t a bad thing (altough I certainly felt like a big loser). Emotional maturity developed later (and hey, it still develops).
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
>Although my personal views on dealing with teen sexuality differ from yours, I think the reality you see does need to be faced.
How would you face it? If I remember correctly, earlier in this thread you said that you chose not to wait. I chose not to wait. A lot of teens will chose not to wait whether we approve or not. Kid do not often “learn from our mistakes” (assuming you think not waiting was a mistake on your part - for my part it was the right choice not to wait - I was raped a few months after my first sexual experience, and I think it’s a good thing the rape was not my first exposure to sexual intercourse). Since we know from our own experiences of adolescence that kids often do *not* learn from other people’s choices and mistakes, but best from their own, how do you face that reality if your views on teen sexuality differ from mine?
BTW…not sure you understand my views, which are that it’s better for kids to be mature before they embark on sexual activity, but recognizing that ultimately mom and dad are not in control of the choices the teens will make.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Well, I wrote a big long reply and it didn’t “take”. Must be the Blog god’s way of telling me to be brief.
Broce - I do understand your view and have no problem with it. My approach is different, not necessarily better or worse. The approach we took with our kids was outlined in some detail above. It worked for us. It won’t work for everyone.
I agree teens often will not listen or learn from our mistakes. That’s why we need to attack the issue on a variety of fronts (sex ed, etc.) The most important thing, and I think you are saying this too, is that the parents need to be involved in their teens lives. Ignoring the realities don’t make them go away.
For clarification - I chose not to wait but I did not become sexually active until college. I also was not a Christian and so had a different philosophy back then. Incidentally, we never used protection in college unless the girl was on the pill. Even then, I could not to this day tell you who was and who wasn’t. We never talked about it. We were so stupid. Of course, Aids really hadn’t hit the radar at that point so pregnancy was our only concern.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
> I also was not a Christian and so had a different philosophy back then. Incidentally, we never used protection in college unless the girl was on the pill. Even then, I could not to this day tell you who was and who wasn’t. We never talked about it.
Wow. I guess we grew up differently. I was a teen in the seventies, graduated high school in 1976, and we *did* talk about it. In fact, an older male friend sat my first serious boyfriend down and explained to him that if we were going to be sexually active, it was not only necessary to use contraception, but since I was the one who had to take pill, it should be *his* responsibility to pay for my prescription. And he did.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
I graduated in ‘77!?! LOL. We should compare life stories some time.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 31st, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Since this one seems to be wrapping up, let me just address some of Amps questions/comments directed at pro-lifers. This is from a perspective of someone who understands and subscribes to what pro-lifers believe, but is probably in a minority regarding actual policy. But I am not the only one, and we are not without influence.
Primarily because we feel to do so would make us hypocritical and would deny our beliefs. Not necessarily defensible or logical positions, but those are the reasons.
Even the very few pro-lifers who would think to view the problem this way would probably deny the reality. I’m afraid we need a crane to pull our heads out of the sand. Of course, overexagerating this claim doesn’t help (not saying you are, just that it has been). Unfortunately, this is where the “pro-life” argument becomes contradictory - outlawing abortion won’t stop abortion. Admitedly, we need to do some self-reflection in this area.
Welfare - another area that is a hard move for us. The thinking is a variation on what you dealt with in “Men’s Rights Myth: Women Trick Men Into Fatherhood So They Can Collect Child Support.” Just insert “welfare” for “Child Support”. I think your argument works never-the-less. But it is a tough sell to pro-lifers who can site examples and mentally exagerate them into epidemic proportions. Plus, we just hate the government spending our money on people we believe are behaving badly.
Yes, we should be willing to consider trade-offs. “What good is…?” Answer - no good at all.
1 - yes, we can be hypocritical just as good as anyone. 2 - there is a lot of incrementalism in our strategy. 3 - doesn’t mean we don’t think it’s murder anyway.
The answer is obvious but I don’t know if anyone from the pro-choice side (blogs not withstanding) is selling it this way. So, most pro-lifers have never been asked the question.
it is.
it isn’t.
yes, it does.
I’m out. Thanks for listening. I hope this fosters a better understanding of our side.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 31st, 2006 at 2:19 pm
>Plus, we just hate the government spending our money on people we believe are behaving badly.
The problem, of course, is that we all have different views on what constitutes behaving badly. Personally, I hate that the government subsidizes corporations I believe are behaving badly…but somehow all the invective of the religious right seems not to come down on all the things that Christ is supposed to have talked about, but only about the sex lives of people. I rarely hear the prolife contingent or the religious right in general berating corporations for pollution that causes birth defects, or othe ways in which both people and corporations are “bad citzens”….instead, it seems only pruriently interested in the sex lives of single women.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
January 31st, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Long ago in Eden there was man and there was woman,
And nothing but a fig betwixt their shame,
And now that we have bullets and a glove to hide our britches in,
We think that Seth and Abel are to blame,
Glorying in confusion, cursed by man the woman,
Cursed by woman the man, fighting like Cain is not but human,
Counting all our pennies, calling children dimes,
Spending all our money on a Saturday of crime,
Wasting our pleasure on what should have been a treasure.
When I am gone do not see me as just the price for leisure:
Eve was S-T-R-O-N-G.
To the memory of Rev. Coretta Scott King, Religious Peacemaker
This comment was written by Fielder's Choice.Report this comment to the moderators
February 6th, 2006 at 5:30 am
A Look at the Economics of Abortion
This comment was written by Blogging My Life.Report this comment to the moderators
February 7th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
Glad this blog died - it is an awful subject :). You can try to justify it all you want but 50% believe this and 50% believe that - which means to me a pretty good indicator that there is something not very settled in this situation and no decision is the absolute correct one.
This comment was written by Jen.Report this comment to the moderators
February 9th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
I am re-visiting this thread with an update. Yesterday, in a conscience vote (meaning government members are permitted to vote according to their conscience and not along party lines), the Australian Senate voted on a private member’s bill to take the decision about whether the RU486 ‘morning after’ abortion pill should be made available to women in Australia out of the hands of the conservative Health Minister and put into the hands of the Therapeutic Goods Authority. This would allow the decision to rest on issues of safety rather than religiously informed morality. (Incidentally, Australia’s Health Minister once seriously considered entering a Catholic Seminary and becoming a priest…)
The bill passed (hooray!) by 45 votes to 28. Female Senators from *all* parties co-sponsored the bill and of the 26 women who voted, 23 supported it. Being such a sensitive issue, there was no whooping and hollering etc, but a quiet ‘Well done, girls, well done’, was heard after the result was announced.
I am not generally a supporter of the party or politics of this country’s immigration minister, Amanda Vanstone, but I did enjoy this illustrative comment she made:
“One of the men said…he doesn’t want abortion to be any easier and a pill would necessarily be easier. Well, hello. Clearly he has never had the mindset of it ever happening to him. It is not going to happen to him. It is not going to happen to him because he is a boy.”
I offer this in support of my arguement that if only women were permitted to vote on the abortion issue, there would virtually be no issue. Therefore, this is about raw patriarchal power - men’s power over women. Again, this *may* not be the case in the US where support for Christian fundamentalist beliefs is so widespread (and alternative worldviews appear to be being denied your youth wherever possible) that your country is in danger of becoming a theocracy if it isn’t already. That is where you get your ‘bargaining’ strength from, gengwall. You make yourself sound like a reasonable man, and I believe you believe yourself to be one, but from my perspective, I’m sorry, but you are not. You are participating in an abuse of power.
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2006 at 2:56 am
Furthur reading in The Australian newspaper revealed this…
‘Democrats leader Lyn Allison, who kickstarted the debate with a private members bill last year and revealed on the eve of the debate she had undergone a termination as a teenager in rural Victoria, said she simply felt “relief”.
“In my first speech in this place I said I hoped one day to see a time when women would cross the floor in solidarity on women’s issues and that’s what happened today…”
Brilliant. Spread the word!
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2006 at 4:43 am
I will step in with something that most of the posters here lack- a direct experience of living in a country who banned abortion.
I am Romanian. From 1969 to 1989, abortion was illegal in Romania.
Women could get abortion for health reasons of them or the foetus.
1. Abortion rates did not go down. A lotof women had backstreet abortions, which ended in infections and bleedings. They would be taken to the hospital, where they would be refused treatment if the did not denounced the abortionist.
A lot of women ( maybe 5000/year for a 22million peoplepopulation) died like that. Look up the term “septic ward”.
2. A lot of abbandoned children in hospitals/on streets, etc.
Does anyone remember the grimmovies about teh Romanian orphans that flooded the TV in 90-92?? The numbers of some 50,000 children living on the streets/ in the sewers or in abject conditions in orphanages( Romania is a poor country)??
That is the result of illegal abortion. NO, it did not stop teens having sex. The numbersare missing, but I am willing to put money on teh rate of abortions not going down. Women’s mortality rates werepretty high though.
This is what illegal abortion will inflict on a country.
This comment was written by soopermouse.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Perhaps by now you’ve all heard of the analogy of comparing mandatory uterus donation to mandatory organ donation?
Here’s my take on it:
All adults over 21 must undergo mandatory testing, and be required by law to give one kidney to whoever needs it, if there’s a match. If it is reasonable to demand a woman sacrifice her body for the life of a foetus, then it is equally reasonable to demand citizens sacrifice a kidney to anyone who will die without it.
Of course, we shall test all members of congress first, so they can set an example of patriotism to the nation.
This analogy is inspired, and I for one hope you all write your congressional representatives requesting a law like this.
http://www.firstgov.gov/Contact.shtml
This comment was written by Jeepers.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:51 am
Hate to say I told you so, but…
From the AP today:
S.D. Closer to Strict Abortion Limits
Most importantly in the bill, the unborn are explicitely declared human beings that have constitutional protection within the SD constitution. Some significant portions:
Of course, SD is far from the mecca of abortion. But that certainly isn’t the point. If this law can stand up to scrutiny then other states will follow. More importantly, is this law stands up then it’s principals, which establish that the unborn are human beings with equal protection rights, stand as well. Roe avoided this issue. Now it very likely could be confronted head on by it. If 14th ammendment rights are extended to the unborn…well, you know where I’m going, we’ve been through this before.
I must admit this is happeneing even sooner than I expected. The time for compromise and action to limit abortions voluntarily is now, before abortions are outlawed nation wide.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2006 at 9:51 am
It’s not about whether this law can stand up to scrutiny, gengwall. It’s about who’s doing the scrutinising.
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
The problem isn’t only what becomes of women’s rights around their own bodily integrity in the US, as the civilised secular world watches on in horror and offers it’s deepest sympathy along with expressions of outrage, it’s that the religiously informed US government exports it’s view and abuses its power over women in other countries too. As always, the poorest and weakest suffer the most. The article this is an excerpt from appeared in The Guardian Feb 10 - 16.
‘The British government has this week defied the United States by giving money for safe abortion services in developing countries to organisations that have been cut off ffrom American funding.
Nearly 70,000 women and girls died last year because they went to back-street abortionists. Hundreds of thousands of others suffered serious injuries. Critics of America’s aid policy say some might have lived if the US had not withdrawn funding from clinics that provide safe services - or that simply tell women where to find them.
The ‘global gag’ rule, as it has become known, was imposed by President George Bush in 2001. It requires any organisation applying for US funds to sign an undertaking not to counsel women on abortion - other than advising against it - or to provide abortion services.
On Tuesday the UK became the founder donor of a fund set up specifically to attempt to replace the lost dollars and increase safe abortion serices.’
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
into a pragmatic solution (abortion is banned is South Dakota), because there is no provision made for any of the practical results (the affects on women’s bodies, the lives of women and children, the rise of illegal abortion) of this solution.Ampersand had an excellent post on abortion and economics last month that touched on some of these points and argued that criminalizing abortion won’t have the intended practical effect: Do you believe in the marketplace or not? If you do, then you have to
This comment was written by Crossroads.Report this comment to the moderators
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:54 am
[...] I have wanted to write about this for a while, now, ever since I read through the thread called (Very) Basic Economics and Abortion over at Alas, A Blog. Since then, though, a number of things have happened: the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning so-called “partial-birth abortions,” South Dakota has passed the most restrictive law in the country against rape, Utah has a proposed law that would eliminate incest exceptions in its parental notification law, and I have been in another conversation, What If Your Mother Was Pro-Choice, on Alas, the initial post of which concerned a common strategy used by people who are anti-choice to try to silence those of us who are pro-choice: what would have happened if your mother had chosen to have an abortion instead of giving birth to you? At one point the thread became a conversation about whether the immaculate conception was an instance of divine rape or not (start reading here). This was relevant because it went to the question of what it means for women to have real choice in terms of pregnancy and childbirth…which also means in terms of when and whether and under what conditions to have sex…and, though I don’t remember that this point was brought out explicitly, to the question of what we model our understanding of women’s reproductive choice on. (I have italicized this because it will become important later on, towards the end of what I want to say.) What I want to do here is to try to tie all these various things together under the title I have given this post because I think it goes to the heart of understanding a rarely articulated aspect of what is at stake in the anti-choice position, whether it is articulated in explicitly religious terms or not, and because, under the general strategy of “know thine enemy,” I think this is an important understanding to reach. It’s going to take a while, and I’m going to have to make a number of leaps, to get where I want to go in this, so I hope you will bear with me. [...]
This comment was written by It’s All Connected… » Blog Archive » Know Thine Enemy: Fetal Personhood as Metaphorical Thinking.Report this comment to the moderators
March 11th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
My portion on abortion
April over at “for better or for worse” podcasted on South Dakota’s ban on abortions. I’m pro-life, but I don’t try to change people’s view on it. But I do however love to say what is on my mind.
This comment was written by fybix.net ...it could be worse....Abortions will alway…
Report this comment to the moderators
June 21st, 2006 at 2:37 pm
cicely and gengwall,
Why do you have to discuss this? I believe abortions should be legal, even encouraged to people who are actually considering it. Why?
First, if my parents had any doubts about having me, I would have adviced them NOT to have me at all. No body needs an “obligatory birth”. No thanks!
Second, if you have doubts about having children and you still engaged in behaviour that could lead into having some, you are irresponsible. It places a doubt on your abilities to be a parent. Maybe you should be sterlized, permanently after the abortion.
How is that for a pro-choice position?
This comment was written by Curious.Report this comment to the moderators
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:10 am
I think a big part of the probIem that you are seeing with most pro Iifers is that they aIso think that birth controI is wrong. perhaps not as wrong as an abortion, but they woud never suggest it as a soIution. I have to agree with you though, it is a suppIy and demand issue, and we need to reduce the demand.
(sorry about the capitaI Is in pIace of that Ietter that comes between k and m. broken keyboard
This comment was written by Tree.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
[...] Imagine that future technology made it possible to safely remove a foetus from a pregnant woman, and incubate it in an artifial womb. Women would then be able to walk away from a living foetus like men can now. Would they then be willing to give up abortion? Not without rights equivalent to C4M!. [...]
This comment was written by Creative Destruction » My Blacklog.Report this comment to the moderators
October 31st, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Doable men and boy panties
A while ago, I mentioned to Thagmano and Rachel that I would probably post my “I’m not sorry” story.
This comment was written by Bitch | Lab.I had an abortion last January. I wasn’t exactly pleased about that. In my dotage, I’m just fertile goddamned myrtle. I …
Report this comment to the moderators
February 6th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Ampersand takes some issue with my view that abortion should be illegal, regardless of the lack of deterring effects such a move might have, because it is a form of unjustified killing:”There are three questions this brings up, in my view.
This comment was written by Post Tenebras Lux.Report this comment to the moderators
May 21st, 2007 at 4:52 am
[...] Cited from: Alas, a blog [...]
This comment was written by My portion on abortion.Report this comment to the moderators
March 6th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
[...] have wanted to write about this for a while, now, ever since I read through the thread called (Very) Basic Economics and Abortion over at Alas. Since then, though, a number of things have happened: the Supreme Court has agreed to [...]
This comment was written by Know Thine Enemy: Fetal Personhood as Metaphorical Thinking (Repost) « It’s All Connected….Report this comment to the moderators
March 6th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
[...] have wanted to write about this for a while, now, ever since I read through the thread called (Very) Basic Economics and Abortion over at Alas. Since then, though, a number of things have happened: the Supreme Court has agreed to [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Know Thine Enemy: Fetal Personhood as Metaphorical Thinking (Repost).Report this comment to the moderators
March 8th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
[...] calculation, that if the US’s abortion rates were as low as Belgium’s, that would mean 700,000 fewer abortions a year.) This is truly an issue where both sides could get what they want. But this grand compromise [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Pro-lifers tried to force 9-year-old rape victim to give birth to twins.Report this comment to the moderators