posted
Seno, My Beloved was travelling for work at the time, a LOT. The month we decided to try, we weren't even in the same city at my supposed "fertile time" and by the time he was home, I was late.
"First try" basically meant the one day we had together that month, not to put to fine a point on it.
Edit: Crap! New page!
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But your phrasing is what implies that immoral behavior is how people get STDs, when that is not necessarily true.
It wasn't my phrasing, I was just jumping in.
But if you want to get all Venn-diagram about it, you're right, not all people who get STDs were particularly careless in the process of getting them. But on the flip side, people who are incredibly careless in their pursuit of sex do incur a preventably high risk of catching an STD.
Which I think is what the original poster is referring to. If someone can link to research that shows that careless sexual behavior does not lead to a higher risk of STDs, please put this piece of common wisdom to rest.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I have a great deal of faith in the ability of the Great Wide Middle to set debates aside (not necessarily forever, but at least put them on the back burner) once a compromise solution is reached. That has definitely been the way things work on my side of the Canada-U.S. border, anyway; I'm not sure to what extent that extends south.
For some reason I keep thinking of the 'Missouri Compromise' in the 1800s, and other measures instituted to maintain a balance between slave & free states in the expanding U.S. I'm sure abolitionists were happy to get whatever concessions they could in such circumstances, but the nature of the issue was such that they were not going to give up pushing for more. I do think such compromises are temporary. It's unrealistic to expect those who regard elective abortion as murder to settle on an acceptable rate of it.
Quite so, but as an example: there is a pro-life movement here in Canada, and yet the issue of abortion, politically, is not even on the table. It may come back in the future, since the pro-life movement will certainly continue to work toward that, but for the time being we can focus our national energy on other things.
However, in this case, that wasn't done by reaching a compromise. I don't really know what happened.
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: I didn't specify bad character as the only option; I also allowed that some may have good character but lack the inclination or ability to accurately evaluate issues independently (critical thinking).
I don't see how that isn't just as insulting, particularly given the implication you make that anyone who doesn't agree with you about this issue has not evaluated the issue critically and/or is incapable of doing so.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"please put this piece of common wisdom to rest."
No need to be snippy. People do get STDs without engaging in risk behaviors, and people do engage in risk behaviors and still not get STDs. Of COURSE it doesn't disprove statiscal information.
I was just jumping in because of outside issues that you can't know about. I tend to be protective if my friends, and even moreso of younger people that I care about, and I know that you wouldn't take such a superior tone if you had any idea what said person has been through in the past year. At least, I hope you wouldn't.
So it wasn't simple facts that I was reacting to (as opposed to reponding to), it was tone. Knowing what I know (that you couldn't possibly be aware of) I just wish you could be a little gentler. *shrug* Apples and trees.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I have read it more than once, and it still seems to be flippant about the avalibility of abortions.
I have already said I may have misinterpeted you, although if I did I was hardly the only one.
Puppy, a lot of people DO make those very arguments, or arguments based in thinking like that. Pregnancy doesn't HAVE to be the logical outcome of sex these days, and a lot of women do get pregnant despite taking percautions. To use the very poor "fatness" anology, preventing abortion would be like telling a person with a thyroid disorder that they weren't allowed to have a gastric bypass, because that would be against the natural order of things...they were "obviously" intended to get fat, so they should just deal with it. I know this doesn't address their belif in the humanity of a fetus, but it IS one other position I have heard more than once from some pro-life people.
Dag, no one forced those kids to steal my pool cue. The pool cue doesn't have any rights, so even if they claimed the cue WANTED to go with them it wouldn't matter. However, i DID buy it, and they didn't, so they don't have a right to force their view (that my pool cue was better off with them( upon me...as I was the victem.
I was making a specific point about reproductive rights; you are the one trying (unsucessfully) to extrapolate my views in relation to other crimes. One of my main objections to the pro-life stance if it interferes with another persons right to decide what is best for themselves and their families. Thar right of self determination trumps the vague, nebulous possibility of rights a fetus has in some peoples mind, hands down...at least for me. It is not that pro-life people are wrong to me, but that I value the rights of the mother more than the potential rights of the unborn.
My wife would never have an abortion unless her life was threatened (we talkied about that before we ever had sex) because TO US the very potential of life is far too valuable to me to extinguish . I just don't think my beliefs should be forced on other people, particularily since they may not have the same values as I do.
Puppy, a lot of people get very judgmental when sexuality is mentioned, and a lot of those same people are very, very pro-life. I don't think that that is a coincidence....do you? I think that the same morality that looks down on a person based on how many sexual partners they have had is very, very similar to the morality that allows many people to think they know what is better for a womans life than she herself does. Both stances are passing judgement on provate matters that really are none of their business, IMO.
Many, many reasons pro-life people give for opposing abortions boil down to this: religious objections and a feeling of moral superiority that they feel gives them the right so enforce their own beliefs and morality on others. i don't think their morality is any better of more valid than anyone elses, nor do I feel their religious views should be forced upon others.
So even though my personal beliefs (about religion AND abortion) are closer to the pro-life camp than you would think, I am staunchly pro-choice.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Many, many reasons pro-life people give for opposing abortions boil down to this: religious objections and a feeling of moral superiority that they feel gives them the right so enforce their own beliefs and morality on others.
Again, Kwea, I *never* have. I don't believe Dag or Rakeesh has either. When we make arguments and you bring in "other people say x", it doesn't address what we are saying. There's absolutely no reason to keep bringing it up except to associate our arguments with those invalid ones.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: No need to be snippy. People do get STDs without engaging in risk behaviors, and people do engage in risk behaviors and still not get STDs. Of COURSE it doesn't disprove statiscal information.
To be truly accurate, to get an STD someone has to be engaging in risk behaviors. Totally monogamous couples have absolutely no risk of STD...
/takes off public health hat.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was making a specific point about reproductive rights; you are the one trying (unsucessfully) to extrapolate my views in relation to other crimes.
Actually, my extrapolation was very successful. I didn't say that your views about the pool cue mean that you must support banning abortion to be consistent. I said that you clearly support the coercive use of the state's power to limit people's options. And you do.
I was trying to narrow your statement down from the incorrect general way you stated it to the distinguishing principle you are using to apply the same principle to reach different results in pool cue theft and abortion. Considering your explanation about why you support the law prohibiting pool cue theft can be exactly summarized by my previous post on the subject, I'd say I did so accurately.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I was just jumping in because of outside issues that you can't know about. I tend to be protective if my friends, and even moreso of younger people that I care about, and I know that you wouldn't take such a superior tone if you had any idea what said person has been through in the past year. At least, I hope you wouldn't.
So it wasn't simple facts that I was reacting to (as opposed to reponding to), it was tone. Knowing what I know (that you couldn't possibly be aware of) I just wish you could be a little gentler. *shrug* Apples and trees.
I'm sorry, I really wasn't trying to tread in an area that would hurt anyone.
I've just been in a similar discussion with pH before, and this has turned into a pet peeve for me. Honestly, I'm not sure how to discuss the fact that some actions carry a stronger risk of negative consequences than others (which seems to be a pretty neutral truism from my perspective) without her saying, "You think people should be punished for sex!"
I don't think that. I don't think that the comments that tend to elicit that reaction from pH even begin to suggest that. So when she reacts that way, I'm bewildered.
I also don't generally assume that a broad statistical statement should be directly applied to individual cases, ever, and so I didn't realize that my response could have done any harm to anyone. Sorry about that again. I'll drop it now, since I really don't know what you're talking about, and pretty much anything I say could be wrong at this point
But ... I mean ... dang it, how do we talk about things like this under these conditions? I wasn't verbally abusing someone, flaming someone, or even stating anything that was controversial. I thought I was just going on with the discussion as usual, and suddenly, I'm hurting someone and need to stop? Would it be possible for people with secret problems to realize that other people are unaware of them, and are not trying to offend them by bringing up sensitive subjects?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: No need to be snippy. People do get STDs without engaging in risk behaviors, and people do engage in risk behaviors and still not get STDs. Of COURSE it doesn't disprove statiscal information.
To be truly accurate, to get an STD someone has to be engaging in risk behaviors. Totally monogamous couples have absolutely no risk of STD...
/takes off public health hat.
In sex ed, I was told that if your monogamous partner has a cold sore in his mouth and you have oral sex, it can become genital herpes. I don't know if this is an urban legend or not, but if true, it would disprove the claim of no risk.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, it's an urban legend. The virus that causes cold sores is related to Herpes Simplex II which causes genital herpes, but is not the same.
There are some genital infections that are sometimes caused by "innocent" events and can also be spread by sexual contact (gardnerella comes to mind off the top of my head), but true STDs (syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, HSII) are not contracted any other way. If you have syphilis, either you or your partner has had sex with someone else somewhere along the line.
I do a limited number of STD investigations, and it's amazing what people will try to tell their partners to explain how they got infected. And even more amazing is what people are willing to believe. But that doesn't change the facts.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, that was probably harsher than it needed to be. It's true that you can pass HSII on through oral sex, but it's NOT just a "cold sore"... it's a completely different virus and originally came from some other sexual contact.
So, again, SOMEBODY is fooling around somewhere down the line.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by maui babe: Yep, it's an urban legend. The virus that causes cold sores is related to Herpes Simplex II which causes genital herpes, but is not the same.
maui babe, herpes simplex I and II can both infect either or both of the mouth and genitals. In fact, the version traditionally associated with the oral form has become the most common cause of genital cases of herpes simplex at my current site, the University of Wisconsin.
quote:Genital herpes is a common sexually transmitted infection throughout the world. The majority of new infections occur in adolescents and young adults, although prevalence rates generally increase with age and cumulative sexual experience. In young adults, herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) infection is becoming a more common cause of genital herpes. Reasons for this trend include changing sexual practices, notably oral-genital exposure and the use of condoms for intercourse. Important implications of having genital herpes include the risk of transmission to sexual partners and the increased risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV. Genital herpes infections are often unrecognized, and transmission to uninfected partners is likely to occur during asymptomatic shedding. A diagnosis of herpes may also affect psychosexual development, particularly in adolescents. Such factors contribute to the growing global HSV prevalence and suggest a need to implement better screening programmes in young adults. Recognizing and treating HSV early offers benefits to patients and their sexual partners by reducing the frequency and severity of outbreaks, limiting the likelihood of disease transmission, and preventing new infections.
--------
I'll return tomorrow to address the follow-up comments to the posts I made earlier. Thanks for such fascinating reading, everyone. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by maui babe: Okay, that was probably harsher than it needed to be. It's true that you can pass HSII on through oral sex, but it's NOT just a "cold sore"... it's a completely different virus and originally came from some other sexual contact.
So, again, SOMEBODY is fooling around somewhere down the line.
But both herpes simplex I and II can be essentially asymptomatically shed, no? If I recall correctly, there is some considerable variability in the original prodrome, so someone might shed the virus who hadn't realized that he or she had contracted it years ago.
posted
But an individual WHO DOES NOT engage in risk behaviors CAN get an STD, THAT is what I was saying. One cannot control whether one's partner is monogamous (absent extensive use of padlocks and restraints...).
*shoves public health hat up...* (love ya, babe! I'm just waaay cranky today)
Puppy, I get it. I shouldn't have jumped in like that. pH is basically doing the same thing that I am, which arguing from the POV of people we care about who have been through stuff and experienced things that large portions of the population just don't understand.
I do believe, however, that it is possible to discuss things without being insensitive (probably not if you can't tell when you're being insensitive, which is a large part of the problem, I'm sure).
That issue aside, though, I think we are of very similar views on the subject at hand (in that we would both like to live in a world where abortion was extremely rare).
That said, School is out and family fun time is much more precious to me than argue-about-crap-I-can't-change on the internet time, so I wish you all well.
But both herpes simplex I and II can be essentially asymptomatically shed, no? If I recall correctly, there is some considerable variability in the original prodrome, so someone might shed the virus who hadn't realized that he or she had contracted it years ago.
That really doesn't change what I'm saying here. I'm not trying to make a value judgement or a moral point. Just trying to be accurate in the way that I am at work. If two people are totally monogamous for life, there is NO chance of STD. I know that's not reality for most people (including myself by the way - I've been married twice, and my first husband was quite the philanderer), but I'm convinced it is an ideal to strive for.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I can see what you're getting at. When I said that STDs are "a natural consequence of careless behavior", I was thinking only of the literal logic of the statement. That if you engage in careless sexual behavior, X is one possible consequence.
I forgot that it is easy to read that sentence as saying that careless sexual behavior is the ONLY thing that leads to consequence X, which is by no means what I meant to suggest. So, sorry if that came across wrong or made anyone uncomfortable. What I should have said was this:
"The fact that an STD is a possible consequence of careless sexual behavior doesn't make it a punishment. Lots of things have consequences that have no moral implications whatsoever. If I leave my shoelaces untied, I stand a greater risk of falling down the stairs. But is stair-falling a punishment for not tying my shoes? No, it's just something that happens as one possible result. But I should be aware of that possible result, and let it inform my decisions about whether or not to tie my shoes.
"Certainly, if I were to talk about the causal connection between untied shoes and stair-falling, people would be overreacting if they took offense and accused me of wanting to punish people, or make them FEEL punished, for not tying their shoes. As difficult a subject as it can be to talk about, if we don't talk about it, all we're doing is setting more people up for some nasty falls. Falling down is hard enough to avoid as it is. The last thing we need to do is make it harder by shoving these issues under a rug."
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
But both herpes simplex I and II can be essentially asymptomatically shed, no? If I recall correctly, there is some considerable variability in the original prodrome, so someone might shed the virus who hadn't realized that he or she had contracted it years ago.
That really doesn't change what I'm saying here. I'm not trying to make a value judgement or a moral point. Just trying to be accurate in the way that I am at work. If two people are totally monogamous for life, there is NO chance of STD. I know that's not reality for most people (including myself by the way - I've been married twice, and my first husband was quite the philanderer), but I'm convinced it is an ideal to strive for.
I take it, though, that one could contract genital herpes from oral sex with a partner who had contracted oral herpes at a very young age (as most young children do test positive for antibodies to HSV-I), even if both were lifetime monogamous.
I'm not sure the distinction between HSV-I and HSV-II as only the latter being an STD makes much sense any more, as HSV-I is a disease that also can be transmitted sexually. I think the current epidemiology supports this as a distinction without much of a difference anymore (with relation to the STD discussion, that is). And I bet Olivet was referring to this in her above post, as it's something I've mentioned before in threads she participated in.
[Edited to add: Not that this is much more than a tangent, of course. i was feeling somewhat responsible for that part of the information, though, and I thought I should clarify.]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I have to eat some crow here. I just talked to a co-worker who works with STDs and HSV-I (oral herpes) can be transmitted to the genital area and cause infection through oral sex. It is distinguishable by lab from HSV-II, and HSV-I generally causes a milder infection with less chance of recurrance. This is new research since I was in school, and I don't work directly with STDs so I'm not as up on this as I am on other communicable disease.
posted
I have my dental dam right here to protect me like the good little epidemiologist that I am... Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I learned about it myself only through the research done here at U Wisconsin. I just -happened- to be doing a rotation through the University Health Services right as they were submitting the article, and I found it fascinating.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Okay, I can see what you're getting at. When I said that STDs are "a natural consequence of careless behavior", I was thinking only of the literal logic of the statement. That if you engage in careless sexual behavior, X is one possible consequence.
I forgot that it is easy to read that sentence as saying that careless sexual behavior is the ONLY thing that leads to consequence X, which is by no means what I meant to suggest. So, sorry if that came across wrong or made anyone uncomfortable. What I should have said was this:
"The fact that an STD is a possible consequence of careless sexual behavior doesn't make it a punishment. Lots of things have consequences that have no moral implications whatsoever. If I leave my shoelaces untied, I stand a greater risk of falling down the stairs. But is stair-falling a punishment for not tying my shoes? No, it's just something that happens as one possible result. But I should be aware of that possible result, and let it inform my decisions about whether or not to tie my shoes.
"Certainly, if I were to talk about the causal connection between untied shoes and stair-falling, people would be overreacting if they took offense and accused me of wanting to punish people, or make them FEEL punished, for not tying their shoes. As difficult a subject as it can be to talk about, if we don't talk about it, all we're doing is setting more people up for some nasty falls. Falling down is hard enough to avoid as it is. The last thing we need to do is make it harder by shoving these issues under a rug."
Puppy-
You're a cool guy, I like reading your posts. You attempt to be sensitive, you apologize when you hurt someone's feelings that you wouldn't even know that you hurt or how you would have hurt them, and then you try a different method of explaining your point. Thank you.
posted
CT, while you're around I'd love to hear your thoughts on Gastru-whatever as a waypoint in the "when is this thing a human individual" debate...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Either way, if the fatness had the potential to seriously hurt someone else...
Again, as I said much earlier in this thread, that's really the meat of the issue. Whether or not there's "someone else" to be hurt in this scenario is exactly the point on which people are unable to compromise.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a medic,nor am I prone to fall for urban legends of the medical variety.
Both types of Herpes CAN be transmitted by more than one method, and herpes CAN be transmitted to the mouth via sexual organs the other way around as well.
They were monogomous at that point in their life (I knew them both well), but one of them had contracted Herpes when he was younger and was unaware of it, and passed it to her genital area during oral sex.
(sorry, just noticed you posted a correction. )
Not that I know everyhting about medicine, not even close, but I had persoanl experience with people who had this happen to them years ago so I knew it was possible.
Wait...perhaps the phrase "personal experience" is a little misleading.
posted
Just to clarify, I made the STD comment. It was a while ago, and I'm not widely known, so I'm putting that forward now.
Here's what I was saying.
I didn't mean to draw the connection that lots of people are drawing--that STDs are "punishment" for sex.
What I was saying, clumsily, I guess, is that you can have sex and get all the consequent enjoyment and/or suffering you want out of it, and neither I or any other pro-lifers will try to interfere.
I understand you are making a choice, and we stand by your right to make that choice. I won't tell you not to have sex so you don't get Aids or STDs. There might be people who do that, but they're a little different from the pro-life crowd, kind of like PETA is different from Greenpeace.
The consequences, good or bad, that affect you, personally, aren't important to me. I care, but I recognize that ultimately it's your choice.
I only start to care--or feel inclined to tell you what to do--once what I feel is an independent life becomes involved.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Which brings us to Tom's repeated statement--how to decide when the fetus is "alive" and "human."
The problem is, even this is decided by what stance you're coming from.
People who are thinking in terms of "life" obviously look for the earliest point at which anything that consitutes life is present--and since egg and sperm combined meet the Sesame Street requirements for life (moves, grows, needs nourishment) we draw the line there.
This is, again, because respect for life rules the day for them, and anything less would be compromising on what constitues "valid" life. There's no need for discussion about when that life becomes human--a human has begun its life, which to them is synonymous with existance. It is inherently human already. Everything they're doing is about proving the value of all human life, so they're not interested in hashing out the fine points of when a checklist of "humanity requirements" might be fulfilled.
For pro-choicers, it's different. Their ability to be in control rules the day. They're interested in not having to be subject to what they perceive to be an outside circumstance (eg pregancy is like a thyroid condition). So they're interested in finding ways to parce the defition of humanity so they can treat what they perceive as all but a form of illness the woman has "aquired." And to parse out the different phases of human existance the way we do with seed vs. sprout vs. sapling vs. tree, and assign relative worths to each.
So I submit that it is impossible for science to provide us an answer to this. The question is entirely philosophical, and can only be answered once we come to an agreement about what has moral value.
In other words, we would first need to agree on what was most important to us before we could agree on how to solve this issue.
As long as the "values" are different--what we feel is most important--we will be hard pressed to agree on this issue.
Which, of course, we all knew already, making this a fairly pointless post.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:For pro-choicers, it's different. Their ability to be in control rules the day.
Speaking as a former pro-choicer to someone who was clearly never a pro-choicer, I feel compelled to recommend that you not attempt to speak for people who hold an opinion you don't share. While it's perfectly fair for you to say that, for you, the value of human life "rules the day," it's not fair for you to make a similar generalization about someone you don't understand.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems like a valid point to me, although not an all inclusive point to be sure.
It was a simplified explanation to be sure, but it was valid as far as it went. I would say that it it just as important to prevent OTHERS from gaining control of their bodies/reproductive systems as well, though.
My family may never (God willing) have/need an abortion, but I dislike anyone else trying to force their morality on us, or removing any viable option from our consideration. Quite frankly, if this isn't a private decision, between by wife and I, then what is?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For pro-choicers, it's different. Their ability to be in control rules the day. They're interested in not having to be subject to what they perceive to be an outside circumstance (eg pregancy is like a thyroid condition). So they're interested in finding ways to parce the defition of humanity so they can treat what they perceive as all but a form of illness the woman has "aquired." And to parse out the different phases of human existance the way we do with seed vs. sprout vs. sapling vs. tree, and assign relative worths to each.
...most pro-choicers are not trying to "justify" a position that they some how, deep down, "know" is wrong, which is what the thought process you're describing seems to imply.
posted
Look, here's the easiest way I can think of to say what I'm trying to say:
When a pro-choicer argues that it feels like someone else is trying to control their sexuality, it is exactly the same as a pro-lifer saying that they feel like someone is trying to murder babies. It might be what it feels like, because of where they stand as opposed to you, but it ultimately is not what is in their hearts.
And Tom, you didn't feel the need to leap to stop people from assigning motivations to pro-lifers. So my asserting to understand the other sides position is not, in and of itself, wrong.
However, please elaborate on where pro-choice values lie, especially if you think it will help find a genuine common basis of values on the topic.
Also, everyone, please try to see that I am not arguing anything that I am not, in fact, actually arguing. I truly believe that pro-choicers feel that what they are doing is not wrong. I'm even explaining why they feel that way.
It's different from what I believe, and some of my feelings on it shows in my wording, but again, you could just as easily say that I'm arguing pro-lifers are the obsitnate ones, because they won't even consider the idea that life might begin at a later point, that a fetus may be no more a human than a seed is yet a tree.
I am suggesting that something is being held as so important to each that it guides thier judgement on all other parts of the discussion.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
About the abortion debate, I have this to say: Slavery was a heavily debated topic in the States a century or so ago. Compromises were proposed, but eventually, slavery was banned. We look back and say it was a good thing. Unfortunately, people are still enslaved nowadays.
Compare this to abortion. Abortion is currently being debated. Compromises are being proposed. Let's assume that abortion is eventually banned, just for the sake of this point. In a century or so, it will still be practiced. But what will people's views on it be? After all, it'll be illegal. So, is the law right? Or is it wrong? And if you're the sort to start saying, "Well, it's the law; it must be right!" I ask you, what side of the fence are you on right now? If you're a pro-lifer, do you realise that it isn't illegal right now? Is that law right? If you're pro-choice, would you give up so easily?
The point I'm trying to make is this: Many (and I'm not pointing fingers at any Hatrackers; I don't know y'all well enough to make this judgement) people base their morality off of the law. If it is legal, it is good. If it is illegal, it is bad. Sure, there are exceptions. Speeding comes to mind. But Big Issues like abortion will be determined by the morality. Pro-choicers, I want you to take a good look at your stance and see if it derives from legality, what people have said about it, or if it is your own moral opinion. Pro-lifers, the same. Is it your God's law, or is it your belief?
Now, I'm not about to argue for or against abortion. It's a topic that people argue without any conversions to either side. I just wanted to make sure everyone arguing the topic was doing so because THEY believe in it, not their pastor. Again, I'm not pointing any fingers. Let the blame fall on you only if it fits.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'm pro-choice and I base my stance on the benefits to women and society.
Most of the people I know who are religious would not see much of a distinction between God's law and their belief.
This:
quote:Now, I'm not about to argue for or against abortion. It's a topic that people argue without any conversions to either side. I just wanted to make sure everyone arguing the topic was doing so because THEY believe in it, not their pastor.
Implies that, in particular with the pro-life folks, they are being led around by their noses by a bunch of manipulative clergy, rather than being able to think for themselves.
My only response to this is to suggest you read this thread from the begining. Accusing Hatrack's pro-life contingent of being unthinking -- even if you trying to say "I don't know any of YOU well enough to know if this applies" is just displaying a profound ignorance of your current audience.
This group here has spent a lot of time and a lot of internal (and external) debate on this issue and there isn't a person here I would call gullible or unthinking.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
docmagic, for what it's worth, Tom has in the past been very vocal about stopping people from assigning motives (especially religious ones) to people are pro-life. He is personally pro-life and is not a religious person.
there's a LOT of history on this issue here at Hatrack, most of which I've forgotten, but a post by Tom in reply to something I said back probably in 2000 or 2001 has stuck with me for years.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:With abortion, people are 'ruining their lives' by erring on the side of caution.
I know it's probably pointless to nit pick on something posted a page ago, but this drives me crazy. The idea that a baby "ruins" people's lives and therefore it's okay to get rid of it.
My mom lives with me now. She works and is still active, but what if she has a stroke tomorrow and needs my full time care? Then I would be spending every day here taking care of her instead of pursuing my dreams to finish college and start a new career. I would be severly burdened financially, emotionally, even physically if she requires me to lift her and help her move around.
Would it be okay then, for me to shoot her between the eyes because, after all, she's "ruining my life?"
If the fetus is human (and I know we can't prove that) the "it's ruining my life" argument doesn't hold. Sorry. But you don't get to eliminate people just because they're a burden to you. Besides, we have other options like adoption so that once you've given birth, your life need never be burdened or "ruined" at all.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kind of wonder how much of people's ideas on abortion come from their view of society in general. I have a great respect for feminism, for example, mainly because I saw it unfold during a period where the movement really starting having huge effects on our society and social norms in practically every facet of life in our society.
We're on the verge of accepting a woman President in the US -- I fully expect to see that happen in my lifetime. I remember when we got our first female Supreme Court justice and how rare it was for women to be in the House or the Senate -- not unheard of in my early years, but certainly rare.
Equal pay for equal work wasn't just a slogan, it was a real social issue that people debated. And much of the debate centered around the perception that paying men more meant that they could "support their families" whereas women's income was viewed as "temporary, used for the "extras" and would stop once she decided to stay home and raise the kids." Truly, one of the reasons given for opposing equal pay was that women didn't need it -- if they were working, it meant they didn't have children to raise. If they started work and were of child-bearing years, the company would "lose its investment" once she started having babies because she would naturally want to quit and stay home.
I remember this stuff. My mother certainly faced it and she was in a "traditional" woman's job -- teaching. Thing is, she was among the shocking group of women in the late 50's and 60's who kept working even after the kids were born. She took a lot of heat for that from the women in the neighborhood where we lived. Some of them even said stuff to my brother and I -- the @#$@# shrews!
Anyway, in that context, the sexual revoluation wasn't about "free love...baby!" but about women taking control of their own destiny -- no longer being viewed as a adjunct to their husband's destiny. I still firmly believe that this society needed to go through that shift in attitude.
Some say it happened because women had entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers during the war years, and it took about a 1/2 generation for the girls who saw that growing up to rebel against going back to a more traditional set of norms. The 40's and 50's were the birthplace of the 60's and 70's.
I also think that legalized abortion had a role to play in that social shift. I don't know that I would say that the shift wouldn't have happened without the increased availability of abortion, and removal of some of the social stigma attached to it. But I think having abortion available definitely speeded up the social change. Among other things, it meant that a woman who wanted to return to work (against the wishes of a more traditionally-minded husband) had an option. Sure, maybe by today's standards we would prefer that a couple in that situation talk it through, decide on a mutually acceptable plan, and figure out how to deal with child-care needs, etc. But back then all this stuff really wasn't in place.
A married woman who didn't want to have children and stay home was considered anomalous. If she wanted to use birth control to avoid pregnancy, and her husband didn't, she was the one who was going to be the pariah. Today at least a good part of the population would chide the husband for not considering his wife's desires...Back then the entire weight of society would've been on the man's side. IMO, having abortion available to women in such a situation was important, and even necessary if our society was going to integrate women into the full experience of having control over their own lives.
As I lived more years and started dating and searching for a mate myself, I noticed something truly bizarre about our society. Judging from the admittedly limited sample to that point, I was reaching the conclusion that the proportion of women who had experienced sexual assault in this country was pretty darn close to 1.0. The incidence of actual rape was lower, but still quite high -- again from limited sample of women I knew well enough to talk about the subject, it was well over 50% of the population.
I knew enough not to generalize to the US as a whole, but that kind of thing gave me pause. It speaks to a ugly and unacknowledged flaw in our society (at least at that time) and made me think that much of what the feminist writers were saying about control issues was absolutely true. Not just a philosophical thing, but a practical reaction to some serious maladjustment in the world we had created.
Sadly, as I learned more about child abuse and sexual abuse in this country, I don't believe we've really turned the corner on these issues yet. I don't know that the incidence of them is as high as I would've concluded from my limited sample, but even the incidence of reported crimes is shocking, and every study I've read says uncategorically that the number of unreported cases dwarfs the number of reported cases.
Looking at that, I land firmly on the side of feminist thinkers who still assert that we aren't there yet. That children, and especially girl children, growing up in this society are statistically prone to be victimized, often by relatives or friends of the family -- people in power relationships with them.
I still see it happening in every community I have lived in.
And, yes, I see it happening to boys too -- not as frequently, but absolutely happening more than is generally believed by most of the people who don't bother to check the data.
I look upon this stuff as inherently and unquestionably evil. And I look at women's control of their own bodies as a necessary precondition for fixing this evil in our society.
That is why I remain pro-choice even thought in the depths of my soul I believe that abortion at any stage of development is the taking of a human life. It is because I have known so many women who were abused as girls (and as women) that I think there is an evil in this society that we should address first.
Now, the obvious counter to this is abortion statistics that show women are using the treatment as a convenience. It is why, even though I remain pro-choice, I am more and more willing to support restrictions.
I also note that our society HAS changed somewhat. There are ways for women to get out of abusive relationships. Divorce is not uncommmon and in most segments of our population it bears little or no social stigma. Not like it did back in the 50's and 60's. There are shelters. There are emergency shelters. There are laws in place. And women can get reliable birth control without a lot of hassle.
So, corresponding to the changes in society, I see abortion as less of a necessary "escape method" for women who may find themselves in those situations where they can't practice birth control.
Again, my readiness to support restrictions on abortion is directly correlated to the changes I perceive in society and societal norms.
Before this goes too far, I would like to state that I haven't gone through and edited this post for precision or shown any data. If people have a problem with what I'm saying, that's okay, but realize that mostly I'm arguing from personal experience and from growing up in an environment where I experienced the downsides of the kind of society where women weren't in power, or had to buck a LOT of social pressure in order to have what young women today take for granted.
If I thought for an instant that supporting a ban on abortion would return us to the kind of society where women couldn't choose to pursue a career or if in doing so would face a sort of monolithic social structure that barred their path, then I would drop my support for that ban in an instant.
I do NOT want any child of mine to grow up in a society where every child can't pursue their dreams of accomplishment in any realm they have an aptitude for. Including child rearing, I hasten to add.
I've spent too much space and time relating this. But I think it's important and it hasn't really been coming out in our Hatrack debates on this issue, IMO, probably because only a few of us here are old enough to recall the society of the late 50's and early 60's, and maybe only some of us who lived through it really WANTED the social upheaval to occur.
quote:Would it be okay then, for me to shoot her between the eyes because, after all, she's "ruining my life?"
Belle, I don't think this analogy holds up well. You could, for example, simply have chosen not to let your mom live with you. Or, if she does become a problem you can choose to ship her off to a nursing home. You could have that solution in place in a day -- a week at the most.
I'm not saying this to excuse abortion, but to say only that this particular argument by analogy doesn't really contain enough similarity to be compelling.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You could, for example, simply have chosen not to let your mom live with you.
Except in a very few cases - even accepting a 50% rape victim statistic, the percentage of pregnancies caused by rape is far, far, far lower - a woman could have chosen not to have sex.
quote:You could have that solution in place in a day -- a week at the most.
So the problem is somewhere between one week and nine months?
I don't say this to be glib. It's a deadly serious question. If Belle let her mother die by not feeding her in that situation (prior to finding a new solution) she would be convicted of murder in most states.
Also, you are seriously, seriously underestimating the problems with finding and paying for hospice care. It's far more difficult to find and far more expensive than it is to make arrangements to give a child up for adoption.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I think it's important and it hasn't really been coming out in our Hatrack debates on this issue, IMO, probably because only a few of us here are old enough to recall the society of the late 50's and early 60's, and maybe only some of us who lived through it really WANTED the social upheaval to occur.
Accepting your statement of the situation prior to widespread availability of abortion as fact for purposes of this discussion only, I can tell you why a large number of people haven't discussed it: because it's not as directly relevant as you state.
First, the area of analysis that's lacking in your post is causation: was the change in attitudes caused by increased availability of abortion, was increased availability of abortion caused by the change in attitudes, were they both cased by other factors, or are they unrelated?
The fourth option can probably be dismissed, but I don't think the second and third can.
One thing I've often wondered about is if abortion is to the feminism movement what slavery was to our founding as a democracy: a poison wrapped up by and intermingled with a largely good movement. The acceptance of slavery by those who knew it to be evil in order to allow for the Constitution created an injustice which haunts us to this day. It nearly destroyed the country and was a clear affront to the principles upon which this nation was founded.
The only time I have ever been threatened with an honor violation (and also threatened with a lawsuit by the western Va director of Planned Parenthood) was when I advertised a speaker whose primary contention was that the ideals of feminism are incompatible with support for legalized abortion. The essence of the honor charge - voiced in an open student council meeting but never filed - was that by calling the speech "a feminist perspective on abortion" I was lying, because a feminist perspective must be pro-choice.
The key area of disagreement, of course, was between your idea that abortion is necessary for progress on these issues and the idea that it hinders progress on these issues.
Beyond all that, it is this statement I have a huge problem with:
quote:That is why I remain pro-choice even thought in the depths of my soul I believe that abortion at any stage of development is the taking of a human life. It is because I have known so many women who were abused as girls (and as women) that I think there is an evil in this society that we should address first.
If we could eliminate rape, sexual abuse, and domestic violence in society for the price of the sacrifice of 1,000,000 infants a year, we wouldn't do it.
I also think that abortion is not as necessary to decreasing those ills as this statement seems to assume. My opposition to abortion is wrapped up intensely with my opposition to the exploitation of women and children. I'm quite frankly at a loss to see how allowing someone to (as you have accepted) kill a human being makes it easier or harder to implement better domestic abuse and anti-rape programs.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, you are seriously, seriously underestimating the problems with finding and paying for hospice care. It's far more difficult to find and far more expensive than it is to make arrangements to give a child up for adoption.]
I've been through this. You're wrong.
[quote]One thing I've often wondered about is if abortion is to the feminism movement what slavery was to our founding as a democracy: a poison wrapped up by and intermingled with a largely good movement. The acceptance of slavery by those who knew it to be evil in order to allow for the Constitution created an injustice which haunts us to this day. It nearly destroyed the country and was a clear affront to the principles upon which this nation was founded.
I started to agree with you, but then I had to pull back because the analogy falls apart for me. Legalized abortion was in some ways a reaction to years of oppression and minority status for women. I think the analogy is better to things that went too far in the aftermath of the civil rights movement -- things that allowed for reverse discrimination and race-based "points" granted remedially. It was there for a reason that made sense to some at the time, but had unforseen consequences.
quote:also think that abortion is not as necessary to decreasing those ills as this statement seems to assume. My opposition to abortion is wrapped up intensely with my opposition to the exploitation of women and children. I'm quite frankly at a loss to see how allowing someone to (as you have accepted) kill a human being makes it easier or harder to implement better domestic abuse and anti-rape programs
You assume too much, Dag. I never said that abortion was a necessary condition to women gaining even the partial measure of equality they hae today. What I said explicitly (earlier in the post) was that abortion probably made the social change come faster. I think it did. You may disagree. I can't think of a very good way to prove my assertion, so I can't really argue the point.
But I never once said that I thought abortion was a necessary precondition for women's equality.
Back in the 60's, it probably did feel like it was to a lot of people, myself included. In retrospect, I think it probably isn't.
My point in the segment you are objecting to was a bit different though. The point was that if I felt like as part of banning abortion (even partially) was a rollback in women's rights, then I'd be against that ban.
Until fairly recently, I would've rejected such a ban without even reading it because I was fairly convinced that some women's rights would've been jeopardized by any law that restricted their access to abortion.
Ultimately, I can't say how I would vote if a ballot measure came up today. If I felt as if there were still women for whom abortion was their sole way out of bad situations, then, I'd probably vote against it. If I felt like we've progressed enough that women have the ability to choose their reproductive future without needing abortion as an option, then I'd be more inclined to vote in favor of a ban.
We'll see when/if that ever comes up for a vote.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Been through which, adoption or arranging hospice care? Because I can tell you flat out that it can take as long as two years to arrange for permanent care of the type you told Belle she could arrange in a week. Assuming, of course, she doesn't have the money to pay for the care herself. This assumes that hospitalization isn't required to treat the medical condition, but rather "only" daily care is. Meanwhile, she'd have a duty to care for her mother omission of which would subject her to murder charges.
quote:I started to agree with you, but then I had to pull back because the analogy falls apart for me. Legalized abortion was in some ways a reaction to years of oppression and minority status for women. I think the analogy is better to things that went too far in the aftermath of the civil rights movement -- things that allowed for reverse discrimination and race-based "points" granted remedially. It was there for a reason that made sense to some at the time, but had unforseen consequences.
Your analogy dies on the incredible distance between the worst possible consequences of reverse discrimination and the consequence of abortion as you have defined it - the taking of a human life.
quote:You assume too much, Dag. I never said that abortion was a necessary condition to women gaining even the partial measure of equality they hae today. What I said explicitly (earlier in the post) was that abortion probably made the social change come faster. I think it did. You may disagree. I can't think of a very good way to prove my assertion, so I can't really argue the point.
But I never once said that I thought abortion was a necessary precondition for women's equality.
I'm sorry. I assumed that, recognizing abortion as the killing of a human being, you would consider it to be necessary to the achievement of the goals you consider worth the human cost.
Your clarification makes me disagree with you even more vehemently, of course. You are advocating the permitting of the taking of human life to speed up a societal change which could occur absent the life-taking.
quote:My point in the segment you are objecting to was a bit different though. The point was that if I felt like as part of banning abortion (even partially) was a rollback in women's rights, then I'd be against that ban.
I see your appreciation of those consequences - you've acknowledged that they are among the most severe consequences going. What I don't get is any sense of weighing the consequences of the abortion against the possible. Traditionally, when choosing between two policies which will both lead to bad outcomes, the bad outcomes are weighed against each other to see which policy is rejected.
Assuming you've done that, then you seem to be saying that the removal of a mechanism allowing some women to leave a bad situation* produces greater harm than a greater number** of intentionally-caused human deaths. I can't wrap my head around that conclusion, at least on the premises you've supplied so far.
*Please believe that I can fully appreciate how bad those situations can be.
**Assuming that not all abortions performed are to allow a woman to leave a bad situation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still acknowledge the special nature of the gestational period, while acknowledging that the life ended is human life.
I think there's reason to consider the gestational period as a special case and thus not ascribe the word "murder" to abortion.
Sorry. I know we aren't going to agree on this. You aren't convincing me at all, and I'm not convincing you at all.
I think you put too little stock in things I care a great deal about. You think I haven't put enough weight on the consequences.
All this does is highlight the gulf between our understandings of the situation and what we each think are the important considerations and what ultimately needs to be done.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you put too little stock in things I care a great deal about.
I don't think you have any basis to say this. I have assigned the harm caused by abortion a much higher quantity than you have. The fact that such assignment results in a decision to ban abortion gives you no information about how I value the other side of that comparison.
Edit: Assuming you would not allow the killing of an already born baby to help women escape that situation, it's clear that someone can both put a lot of stock into the things you care about and still not allow an action that could further those things, based on the cost of the proposed action.
I'm assuming, again, that you draw the line at outright murder. Therefore, the fact that I consider abortion to be morally equivalent to murder means that it's possible that I put as much or more stock into those things than you do.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
However, i DID buy it, and they didn't, so they don't have a right to force their view (that my pool cue was better off with them( upon me...as I was the victem.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
to maui babe, completely without mucosa-to-mucosa contact *grin )
