posted
MightyCow, I'm am so tired of this "punishment" argument. It's intellectually myopic, in the sense that it's only punishment to people who already agree with your premises.
Look, there are people who think taking Plan B is wrong, and of a sufficient wrong that it ought not to be made easier by the government.
There is a difference between the natural consequences of an act, imposing additional consequences on the act, and preventing someone from alleviating the consequences of an act.
The second and third may be punishment. The third, however, may not be punishment. If the method of alleviation is one that somebody considers wrong, then it's almost foolish to say that that somebody is motivated by a desire to punish in preventing that alleviation from occurring.
I get that you don't think it's wrong. I'm not even sure I think it's wrong, nor do I know what I think of the OTC decision being only 18 or over.
Consider someone who wrecked their car. You wouldn't consider it punishment to prevent that person from stealing a car to replace theirs, would you? Why? Because you think it's wrong to steal a car. And I know stealing a car has an identifiable victim, and that's why you think it wrong. Once you think it's wrong, however, it's the fact that it is wrong that makes preventing someone from stealing a car a non-punitive act.
I see this "punishment" accusation brought up here time and again, especially in abortion threads. Those levying the accusation seem to not consider that nobody states "if they have sex, they should be prepared to raise the child" as the reason for banning abortion. The reason most have for banning abortion is that they think it results in the death of an innocent. The consequences are brought up in response to plaintive cries of "what about the person not ready to be a mother," not as a reason to ban abortion, but as a response to an argument against banning abortion.
It's a very subtle difference, but a critical one.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a question. Is Plan B still going to be available to teens anonymously through Planned Parenthood? Because if I were still under 18, that would be my first choice regardless of FDA approval. It's free, and they only ask that you take a giant bag full of condoms with you when you leave.
Posts: 308 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um - so what's the earliest delivery date at which a preemie can survive and go on to live to maturity with relatively good health? And let's define relatively good health broadly - like, at all humanly functional, eg. paralyzed but mentally intact, mentally impaired but capable of enjoying life, etc.
Because if I were going to assign a demarcation line for a shift between "chance at human life" (or fetus) and "human life" (or baby) I think that's where I'd put it.
And yes, I do think that taking the risk of terminating a chance at human life is worth serious moral consideration.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My big problem with that determination is that it defines human life based on human technological capability. A child in the exact same condition as a child we wouldn't consider alive now now would be considered alive 20 years from now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then the definition would shift - but to my understanding, once a birth is too premature, we just can't deliver nutrients, hormones, etc. the way the womb and a woman's body do. I doubt that we'll make much progress on that front; it's insanely complicated and body-specific. I'm sure people are working on it, though.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's serious hope for an artificial womb. That would make the definition pretty close to conception.
My objection to the shifting definition based on technology is philosophical in nature based on a belief that human life is a thing that exists outside our determinations.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Look, there are people who think taking Plan B is wrong, and of a sufficient wrong that it ought not to be made easier by the government.
And yet, in allowing Plan B to be available either OTC or by prescription, the government is in effect saying that either Plan B is not wrong, or at least it is a sufficiently necessary and/or useful wrong- or that it creates enough "right"- that it should be legal.
Which then puts it in the odd case of having legal hoops to be jump through not because there's anything in particular clinically wrong with the drug or its function, but to appease the portion of the population that believes it's morally wrong.
It's sort of the reverse of some of the rulings about tobacco- "We can't find that it's that dangerous, because if we did, we'd have to ban it."
quote:There is a difference between the natural consequences of an act, imposing additional consequences on the act, and preventing someone from alleviating the consequences of an act.
It is worth noting that to some points of view, there needn't be consequences. As to whether those consequences are "natural", the natural consequence of being in a head-on collision doesn't prevent me from wanting a car to have seat belts and air bags.
quote:The second and third may be punishment. The third, however, may not be punishment. If the method of alleviation is one that somebody considers wrong, then it's almost foolish to say that that somebody is motivated by a desire to punish in preventing that alleviation from occurring.
It well be true that the entirity of the motivation of those who frequent Hatrack and take an anti-abortion stance is to protect the life of children. And I sympathize.
However, on a national level- the level on which policies are made- a far from trivial portion of the contingent that opposes abortion does so on a platform that also opposes contraception and sex education. And some of the people who come from that platform also claim to be foremost interested in saving the lives of the unborn, though it's a tiny part of their rationale. Arguing that everyone should conform to their notions of family or morality doesn't play as well.
In short, it may be "foolish" to argue a punitive motivation for the arguer, yet not for the mass behind the argument.
quote:Consider someone who wrecked their car. You wouldn't consider it punishment to prevent that person from stealing a car to replace theirs, would you? Why? Because you think it's wrong to steal a car. And I know stealing a car has an identifiable victim, and that's why you think it wrong. Once you think it's wrong, however, it's the fact that it is wrong that makes preventing someone from stealing a car a non-punitive act.
I'm sure you realize the limitations of such an analogy.
Part of what makes what appears wrong to one person and acceptable to another is the steps in between. In the case of the wrecked car leading to car theft, different people would go through different steps:
"Why did they get into an accident in the first place?"
And then,
"Why didn't they have insurance? If they did, why didn't they use the insurance payment to get a new car?"
"Why didn't they purchase, rent, or borrow a new or used car before they went to steal one? Why didn't they give up the notion of car ownership and take a bus?"
...And if one wanted to get ridiculous, one could go all the way through to, "Why didn't they steal from a dealer, who has less to lose from any single car, then from an individual, for whom the loss would be as great as their own"... But at that point, you've lost most people.
Part of the frustration of those who support the availability of "Plan B", I suspect, is that it puts one more step between the extremes of delivery and abortion, and some people just want to forbid that step, leading the supporters to say "It prevents abortion- they said they wanted to prevent abortion- what do they want, anyway?!"
Posts: 3825 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Dagonee, I'm pulling my thoughts together, but I've been briefly sidetracked tonight by the actions of a third-year law student who was (IMO) harrassing and intimidating my mother-in-law in another province. Long story short: the young man confronted my MIL, saying that he knew the law and something she was doing was illegal (which it isn't), and accompanied by his mother, who called my MIL a "f------ b----." This is Not Okay, and I am currently researching the proper person to give legal advice and representation to my MIL. It's condo issues, so I'm trying to cross Elder Law with Real Estate.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:After all the discussions about this topic on this site? I see it as not positive because it could possibly destroy an unborn child.
I hope it sets your mind at ease somewhat to know that the MAP is simply a double-dose of regular birth control pills. MAP is not 100% effective because it does not do anything to a fertilized egg or to an implanted fetus. All it does is aggressively suppress ovulation.
The regular BCP works by suppressing ovulation. Some pills also have other effects as well, such as increasing the density of the mucous plug at the opening of the cervix (EWWW, MUCUS AND CERVICES!), or other hormonal changes that work together with the ovulation suppressant to trick the body into thinking it is already pregnant, and therefore, that there is no need to ovulate.
So, therefore, the MAP doesn't destroy an unborn child at all - it prevents a child from ever being conceived in the first place.
If ovulation has already occurred, or fertilization, then the MAP will not prevent pregnancy. Even the hormonal dose shouldn't have any negative impact on the fetus, since the hormones present in the MAP and BCPs are very similar to those already present in early pregnancy. (When you consider the fact that human ova can only be fertilized in a less-than-24-hour window of time, it's amazing anybody gets pregnant at all).
No worries over the MAP - unless you're Catholic.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
I thought the 'Morning After Pill' referred to RU-486; I didn't read the article until after the first part of my post.
Oh, okay. Never mind my last post. I'm glad you're clearer on how the MAP works, but I understand your concerns re: fertilized eggs.
For what it's worth, what I've read and heard from my friend who's a "lady doctor" points to there actually being VERY minimal evidence of the prevention of implantation - the evidence that has been observed clinically could be coincidental, as many more fertilized eggs naturally do not implant or are shed shortly after implantation than eggs that take root and grow.
However, I do understand your point of view on it. Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait - why would being Catholic mean concern over the MAP? Just because of the official ban on contraception?
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, if anyone else has any views on how hard it is to get the morning after pill in their area, I'd like to hear it.
I can't speak to recent times, since I'm now married to a man who's had a vasectomy (yay, I have no concerns about pregnancy anymore!), but a few years ago, it was not difficult in my area (Seattle). I went in to Planned Parenthood to get on the Pill, and I was told that if I ever needed the MAP, all I needed to do was make a "priority appointment," have a quick chat with the doctor, and I'd have the prescription in hand within 10 minutes of coming in. Getting on the Pill was very easy, too, although it did require a pelvic exam. No STD counseling, no sex counseling, just a quick ride in the stirrups and that was that.
Of course, my area is very liberal, too.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Very good article - I love Dr. Drew. He's a real champion for young people empowering and educating themselves.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is worth noting that to some points of view, there needn't be consequences. As to whether those consequences are "natural", the natural consequence of being in a head-on collision doesn't prevent me from wanting a car to have seat belts and air bags.
Why is it worth noting this in the context of my post. I haven't tried to convince anyone that plan B is bad. It's clear that I recognize that other people have this view.
As to the seat belt and air bags, that example leaves the distinct impression you didn't understand the point of my post. Unless someone thinks they are somehow morally wrong, the example is simply irrelevant.
quote:In short, it may be "foolish" to argue a punitive motivation for the arguer, yet not for the mass behind the argument.
Then perhaps the person who made such an accusation ought to make it against those other people. After all, I don't attribute "If I get some girl pregnant I don't want to have to pay for it for 18 years" to abortion supporters here.
Beyond that, though, I think it's simply easier to attribute that motivation to the "mass behind the argument" because they're not here. I've known thousands of pro-life activists. Not one wishes to "punish" anyone by making abortion or MAP unavailable.
quote:I'm sure you realize the limitations of such an analogy.
Part of what makes what appears wrong to one person and acceptable to another is the steps in between. In the case of the wrecked car leading to car theft, different people would go through different steps:
"Why did they get into an accident in the first place?"
And then,
"Why didn't they have insurance? If they did, why didn't they use the insurance payment to get a new car?"
"Why didn't they purchase, rent, or borrow a new or used car before they went to steal one? Why didn't they give up the notion of car ownership and take a bus?"
...And if one wanted to get ridiculous, one could go all the way through to, "Why didn't they steal from a dealer, who has less to lose from any single car, then from an individual, for whom the loss would be as great as their own"... But at that point, you've lost most people.
Part of the frustration of those who support the availability of "Plan B", I suspect, is that it puts one more step between the extremes of delivery and abortion, and some people just want to forbid that step, leading the supporters to say "It prevents abortion- they said they wanted to prevent abortion- what do they want, anyway?!"
The analogy was constructed precisely to make my point. Those questions are irrelevant. I can make easily some up for the pregnancy situation (multiple methods, alternative forms of sexual gratification, etc.) but I won't.
I'll try this one more time:
If people think action X is wrong, then their prevention of people from performing action X is not motivated by a desire to punish.
It's that simple, and, in the multiple times I've presented this argument here on Hatrack, not one person has ever dealt with this actual point. They've sidestepped it as you have done here.
quote:(Dagonee, I'm pulling my thoughts together, but I've been briefly sidetracked tonight by the actions of a third-year law student who was (IMO) harrassing and intimidating my mother-in-law in another province. Long story short: the young man confronted my MIL, saying that he knew the law and something she was doing was illegal (which it isn't), and accompanied by his mother, who called my MIL a "f------ b----." This is Not Okay, and I am currently researching the proper person to give legal advice and representation to my MIL. It's condo issues, so I'm trying to cross Elder Law with Real Estate.)
Get him, CT. Seriously, I hope you can help her put a stop to this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If people think action X is wrong, then their prevention of people from performing action X is not motivated by a desire to punish."
Just a quick thought, Dags, before I head out the door to work:
Many parents do exactly that with their kids on a variety of fronts. Action X is wrong, and they withhold, they reason, they coerce, they spank, they scold, they do whatever they feel they have to do to prevent the child from performing whatever action X might be. and sometimes, the motivation is based on "punishment" as a way of preventing said action. Whether taking away toys, spanking, scolding, etc.
Just a thought.
And a second "get him, CT --"
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That doesn't make preventing the acton a punishment. The punishment there is the spanking, not the preventing.
Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of the people who think the MAP is wrong, isn't it perfectly clear to you that there is plenty of room for honest, sincere seekers after the truth to disagree with you? Your statement that ensoulment occurs the moment of fertilization is quite problematic for many reasons. In the end you seem to agree that it's a matter of religion, that other religions disagree, and you admit the right of all people to practice religion according to their own consciences.
So I'm left understanding completely why you would never choose to use the MAP. But I'm still totally puzzled why you think it should be illegal. Jewish people don't eat pork, as a matter of religion, but they don't lobby trying to outlaw it for the rest of us. They don't cry loudly for forced circumcision of all male babies.
The question of where life begins is complicated and not intuitive. Clearly there can be a lot of different opinions. Why do you feel your particular view of that question should be allowed to dictate the reproductive decisions (surely some of the most personal and deeply felt decisions people make) of others? That's what boggles me!
I would never try to make those decisions for you. How can you feel justified making them for someone else? Someone you don't even know, and whose circumstances are so foreign to you as to be inconceivable?
Posts: 6245 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Of the people who think the MAP is wrong, isn't it perfectly clear to you that there is plenty of room for honest, sincere seekers after the truth to disagree with you? Your statement that ensoulment occurs the moment of fertilization is quite problematic for many reasons. In the end you seem to agree that it's a matter of religion, that other religions disagree, and you admit the right of all people to practice religion according to their own consciences.
So I'm left understanding completely why you would never choose to use the MAP. But I'm still totally puzzled why you think it should be illegal. Jewish people don't eat pork, as a matter of religion, but they don't lobby trying to outlaw it for the rest of us. They don't cry loudly for forced circumcision of all male babies.
The question of where life begins is complicated and not intuitive. Clearly there can be a lot of different opinions. Why do you feel your particular view of that question should be allowed to dictate the reproductive decisions (surely some of the most personal and deeply felt decisions people make) of others? That's what boggles me!
I would never try to make those decisions for you. How can you feel justified making them for someone else? Someone you don't even know, and whose circumstances are so foreign to you as to be inconceivable?
Because we're not in the business of saving their souls, or the lives of their unborn children, and they feel the reverse is true.*
*Generalization, but this was a serious attempt at understanding.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those examples don’t work, Tatiana, because Jewish people don’t believe that it’s wrong to eat pork or not circumcise – they observe those markers as signs of a special covenant. They are only required for members of that covenant. It would be wrong for me to never kiss my husband, but that doesn’t mean I think everyone should be kissing him.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question of where life begins is complicated and not intuitive.
I think you hit the nail on the head earlier in your post and then strayed from it here. The crux of the matter is what you called "ensoulment" rather than the more general "when life begins." If your definition of "human life" is not contingent on viability or sentience, then life does begin at conception. The question to be answered, then, is:
Is it morally acceptable to prevent a blastocyst, zygote, embryo, or fetus from reaching maturity -- that is, being born -- and if so, under what circumstances?
Insofar as I don't think it should be up to me, I do think there are circumstances under which at least some of those things are morally acceptable. I don't feel a strong drive to protect the existence of a blastocyst, for example, but then I don't believe in souls at all. Many people who believe strongly in ensoulment-at-conception do feel such a drive.
Added: I recognize that this isn't really related to the MAP discussion, but I thought it merited saying all the same.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
K, this is stretching back a little bit to an important point that I don't think has been addressed:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: And yet, in allowing Plan B to be available either OTC or by prescription, the government is in effect saying that either Plan B is not wrong, or at least it is a sufficiently necessary and/or useful wrong- or that it creates enough "right"- that it should be legal.
While I would say that our system of law is largely moral, and in a certain light based on some foundation of morality (assuming the constitution is a moral document) much of modern rulings on the law has little/nothing to do with morality.
I'm not necessarily saying that this law is objectively right or wrong, but I am saying that the fact it's a law is NOT enough to say that it is morally right. Look at any number of obviously immoral laws from the past or present (laws permitting slavery, laws prohibiting women to vote etc...) for examples on things that were legal, but at the same time wrong. Hell, The law says it's ok for my dad to own 100 guns... it's not necessarily immoral for him to do so, but neither is it moral, at best it's neutral and at worst it officially allows things that are immoral.
even without claiming the justice system corrupt or overly flawed, it's easy to find places where the law forces itself away from morality.
I've said it before, and I always come down to saying it again in every abortion discussion... The two sides of the issue are at odds at such a fundamental level that there's little point arguing between them. One side sees life forming much much earlier than the other, and sees this life as just as valuable as another life. The other side does not. The reason that pro-life proponents are often seen as more rabid than pro-choice is evident in the name choice: pro-life is arguing to save life, pro-choice is arguing to give someone more choice... they're not arguing on the same planes.
As for why a pro-life proponent would be against this (assuming it does in some way interfere with fertilized ova), it's directly comparable to why one might think it immoral to hand an angry parent a gun with which to shoot their child.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Those examples don’t work, Tatiana, because Jewish people don’t believe that it’s wrong to eat pork or not circumcise – they observe those markers as signs of a special covenant. They are only required for members of that covenant. It would be wrong for me to never kiss my husband, but that doesn’t mean I think everyone should be kissing him.
Thank you for making the point I was going to, only better and with a clever analogy. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: I'm not trying to push a pro-life agenda onto those that don't hold it. I'm trying to point out that each side's basic views relating to the issue are so far removed from each other that the subsequent arguments are all basically pointless.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you feel your particular view of that question should be allowed to dictate the reproductive decisions (surely some of the most personal and deeply felt decisions people make) of others? That's what boggles me!
I would never try to make those decisions for you. How can you feel justified making them for someone else? Someone you don't even know, and whose circumstances are so foreign to you as to be inconceivable?
I feel pretty comfortable making this decision because I believe that I'm helping to save children's lives.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a couple of ancillary questions, Scott:
(1) Are you convinced that the MAP prevents implantation, or,
(1a) Is the possibility that the MAP might prevent implantation enough for you to oppose it?
(2) Do you oppose normal prescription birth control pills?
I'm not planning to use your answers against you in some sort of sneaky trick, I'm just trying to develop my understanding of your position.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
1a) I don't know. I need to see more data on just how high/low the possibility is.
2) Not usually.
The full text of Tatiana's question might help to point what exactly what I was responding to:
quote:The question of where life begins is complicated and not intuitive. Clearly there can be a lot of different opinions. Why do you feel your particular view of that question should be allowed to dictate the reproductive decisions (surely some of the most personal and deeply felt decisions people make) of others? That's what boggles me!
I would never try to make those decisions for you. How can you feel justified making them for someone else? Someone you don't even know, and whose circumstances are so foreign to you as to be inconceivable?
quote:(Pssst. . . I think Scott already answered some of those questions to Storm on page 1.)
Not as precisely as he went on to answer them this time, though.
quote:1) No; I'm not convinced either way.
1a) I don't know. I need to see more data on just how high/low the possibility is.
That's basically what I was wondering -- whether any possibility was too great. Thanks for explaining.
quote:2) Not usually.
The full text of Tatiana's question might help to point what exactly what I was responding to:
That's why I noted that my questions were ancillary -- entirely for my own edification. That is, I saw what you were getting at, but was curious about some other tangential stuff. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does "not usually" mean? I mean, is it an opposition based on the type of birth control (like the IUD vs. the Pill), or the age of the person involved? What factors determine when is usually and when isn't?
posted
I don't like the idea of minors taking normal prescription birth control pills without their parents' knowledge.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not read the whole thread, but my gut reaction to this is a positive one.
I was date raped when I was 16, and of course it was totally unprotected. It was a Friday night and by the time I was able to think clearly enough to think about plan b, Planned Parenthood was already closed. I was so frustrated and scared.
I made an appointment early Monday morning and got the pill and did manage to aviod pregnancy, but during this whole ordeal I kept wondering why it was so hard to get. It is very available 9-5 Monday-Friday, but when emergencies do not always happen in a timely manner I think it is a great thing to be able to go to a 24-hour CVS and pick it up.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Allegra, did you not have the option of going to the police and having them take you to the hospital. And/or going to the hospital on your own?
<ps: please feel free to ignore if this is too raw a topic>
On another note: South Dakotans will soon be voting on the proposed most restrictive abortion law in the country. It would allow no exceptions for rape -- only for the health of the mother. The woman most credited for pushing this ballot item now (many pro-life advocates in the state actually advised against it figuring that it would simply be overturned by the Supreme Court anyway saying simply that the timing is wrong) did it because she underwent an abortion and immediately regreted it. In her words, she doesn't want any other woman to go through what she did.
See...now I have a HUGE problem with this kind of reasoning. She's not considering the fact that many women could have an abortion and not have anywhere near the regrets she did. She went through a 1 year depression. Also, if she chose to, she could counsel other women and share her experiences. But she feels compelled to get a law passed instead. I understand that's her right. But really, her statements sound much to much like she knows what's best for everyone else and she's going to make sure that we all realize it. Here's a Washington Post article on it. I'm trying to find a better source, closer to the action. Perhaps with a better sense of who is behind the bill and their motivations. I make no claim to WP's accuracy on this.
Posts: 22496 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee- While no one on this thread has said "You should have to keep the baby as punishment." Plenty of people have said "If you didn't want to risk getting pregnant, maybe you shouldn't have had sex in the first place." Which to me, at least, sounds pretty much the same. I understand the point being made, and in some ways agree with it. Reading it, though, it produces an instinctive feeling that the person making it is passing a value judgement on me. I know the personal views of many of the people making these statements. In fact, they are making (or have already made) a value judgement on people who have premarital sex. That's completely their right. But as someone who doesn't believe premarital sex is wrong, I don't understand why the law should prevent me from receiving medications which would enable me to have it free of worry. (I'm pro-life, so this applies only to the MAP and BC, although I know it applies to abortion as well for people who aren't pro-life)
I also have a question for the people who are against the MAP being dispensed to underage teenagers. This is not meant to be disrespectful, I'm just curious. Would you prefer that your child receive the morning after pill without your knowledge, or that they become pregnant? Assuming, of course, that you don't believe the MAP induces an abortion.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you prefer that your child receive the morning after pill without your knowledge, or that they become pregnant?
As long as we recognize those aren't the only two options, and that lots of teenagers make it through to young adulthood without ever engaging in sex...
Honestly, if my child were having sex, I'd feel I'd already lost the BIG battle. Pregnancy or parental deception-- meh. Those are...not tangential problems, but they're not THE problem.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That doesn't make preventing the acton a punishment. The punishment there is the spanking, not the preventing.
The point being -- my apologies for not being clear enough -- was that parents can, do, and will use punishment AS a prevention.
Ex) I try reasoning: "Hold my hand while we cross the street." I add explanation, "Cars drive fast and can hurt or kill you." Which has (at least in my case) escalated to a whop on the butt as said child continues to use every possible means available to dash away at a dangerous time. Child cries, and parent says: "Then next time, hold my hand." It's a punishment designed to prevent a behavior or bad consequences.
Anyway, Dags said no one ever answers the punishment line of reasoning, so I thought I'd give it a stab. Just my .02.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Allegra, did you not have the option of going to the police and having them take you to the hospital. And/or going to the hospital on your own?
<ps: please feel free to ignore if this is too raw a topic>
Both options were available, but I was too scared to go to the authorities. The only reason I was brave enough to try to get plan B was because I was so scared of getting pregnant.
Don't worry about it being too sore of a subject, I wouldn't have posted anything about it if I wasn't ok with talking about it.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your statement that ensoulment occurs the moment of fertilization is quite problematic for many reasons. In the end you seem to agree that it's a matter of religion, that other religions disagree, and you admit the right of all people to practice religion according to their own consciences.
No, I don't think it purely a matter of religion. The comments on ensoulment were recognized by at least one other person as ancillary to my main point and treated as such. That person then started what was essentially a new conversation about that. It was never central to an attempt to convince others of the truth of the proposition that life begins at fertilization. It was merely an attempt to demonstrate to you that your understanding of why others feel differently than you about life beginning at fertilization was incomplete and inaccurate.
quote:So I'm left understanding completely why you would never choose to use the MAP. But I'm still totally puzzled why you think it should be illegal.
I haven't decided whether MAB should be illegal.
However, if I do decide it should be illegal, it will be because I find the evidence to be very strong that it does kill human beings some of the time. Can you see why that's different than, say, condom use, which I also think is immoral but don't think kills a human being? How are you totally puzzled by this concept?
quote:Jewish people don't eat pork, as a matter of religion, but they don't lobby trying to outlaw it for the rest of us. They don't cry loudly for forced circumcision of all male babies.
Dana has answered this quite well. I'll add that my stance on gay marriage makes it quite clear that I do not attempt to codify my moral beliefs into law willy-nilly. I have a very complicated system for deciding which immoral things should be illegal.
quote:The question of where life begins is complicated and not intuitive. Clearly there can be a lot of different opinions. Why do you feel your particular view of that question should be allowed to dictate the reproductive decisions (surely some of the most personal and deeply felt decisions people make) of others? That's what boggles me!
Because I think that holding what I consider to be the incorrect view results in the killing of human beings with insufficient justification.
Honestly, how does this boggle you. I believe that close to a million human beings are killed each year with essentially no legal protection. It boggles you that I wish that to stop?
quote:I would never try to make those decisions for you. How can you feel justified making them for someone else?
If someone were trying to kill me, I'd like you to make the decision for the person trying to kill me that they can't do that. Please.
quote:Someone you don't even know, and whose circumstances are so foreign to you as to be inconceivable?
I have thought more than most about when killing is justified. It is inconceivable to me that a loved one be brutally murdered. But I consider it wrong for me to kill the culprit of such an act, even were he to be acquitted.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Allegra, did you not have the option of going to the police and having them take you to the hospital. And/or going to the hospital on your own?
<ps: please feel free to ignore if this is too raw a topic>
Both options were available, but I was too scared to go to the authorities. The only reason I was brave enough to try to get plan B was because I was so scared of getting pregnant.
Don't worry about it being too sore of a subject, I wouldn't have posted anything about it if I wasn't ok with talking about it.
Thanks Allegra.
I worry about this kind of scenario. Basically, the South Dakota ballot initiative is relevant to the kind of scenario you were in. And they justify the near-total ban on abortion by pointing to the availability of the MAP for cases of rape (and others, of course).
But not every rape victim is going to get her wits about her quickly enough. I'm sorry to say it, but it's true. Rape, especially date rape and incest, is a big problem in this country. It's precisely in those situations where a victim minght hesitate. There's more at stake than hoping to send some stranger to jail. What if she takes 4 days to figure out what to do? In South Dakota, if this law passes, she can't get an abortion. I think this scenario is not THAT unlikely. And I do think the cruelty of forcing a woman to carry her rapist's child to full term is bad enough to make the South Dakota law a bad one.
Now, if I had my way, every rape and act of incest would go reported. I'm of the opinion that there's not enough good in those situations to be "saved" by not reporting it. But I can't make that choice for the victim, and I won't.
Telling rape victims that they should've gone to the police may be the "right" thing, but it's also not completely realistic. Telling rape victims that they're "covered" in case of pregnancy because there was a 3-day window for them to access MAP is not realistic either.
We can hope that every crime gets reported and every victim gets the assistance they deserve. But realistically, we know that's not going to happen.
Posts: 22496 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I'm terribly sorry that you're tired of an argument that you disagree with. Perhaps if you could provide a reasonable counter, you wouldn't be so tired of it. Perhaps it wouldn't come up so often if it didn't hold quite a bit of truth.
quote: I see this "punishment" accusation brought up here time and again, especially in abortion threads. Those levying the accusation seem to not consider that nobody states "if they have sex, they should be prepared to raise the child" as the reason for banning abortion. The reason most have for banning abortion is that they think it results in the death of an innocent. The consequences are brought up in response to plaintive cries of "what about the person not ready to be a mother," not as a reason to ban abortion, but as a response to an argument against banning abortion.
It's a very subtle difference, but a critical one.
I disagree. Some of the people are indeed stating that minors should not be able to get the morning after pill because they have no business having sex.
The whole abortion/contraception debate is steeped in the puritanic values which consider sex for non-procreation sinful. I don't deny that many of the people against abortions and against the morning after pill feel that way because they believe that these actions end a life and are wrong.
I do believe though, that the issue is complex, and that many people cannot or will not separate their ideas of sex as sinful from the rest of the debate. These people tend to want to deny contraception, including Plan B, and deny sex education except abstinence, and I believe that they're shooting themselves in the foot.
I respect people who believe that abortion is killing an unborn child, and so oppose it on those grounds, even though I disagree with them.
I am very frustrated with people who wish to legislate their morality about sex and contraception.
Plan B is contraception, not abortion. People who treat it like abortion seem to me to be either misunderstanding the issue, or intentionally obscuring it to further their moral views on sex.
Those who want to withhold it as a way to force pregnancy upon those who do not want it are tyrants in my opinion.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree. Some of the people are indeed stating that minors should not be able to get the morning after pill because they have no business having sex.
Really? I haven't seen anyone say this here. I know people who do say this, but I haven't seen anyone here make this argument.
Posts: 22496 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, I'm terribly sorry that you're tired of an argument that you disagree with. Perhaps if you could provide a reasonable counter, you wouldn't be so tired of it.
Since no one has ever responded to my counter, instead responding to something else, I wonder how you can even comment on its reasonableness. There's no evidence you've even read it.
quote:I disagree. Some of the people are indeed stating that minors should not be able to get the morning after pill because they have no business having sex.
Find one who did so here and quote them for me, please. Your initial response was aimed at this thread, not some amorphous group.
quote:Plan B is contraception, not abortion. People who treat it like abortion seem to me to be either misunderstanding the issue, or intentionally obscuring it to further their moral views on sex.
Good grief. Could you at least pretend to have read the several pages on this. I've already had one person simply declare that people who believe the pill-maker's claim that MBA stops implantation are simply ignorant of biology, ask for clarification, and then basically ignore that clarification. Do we need another person to do it, too?
quote:Those who want to withhold it as a way to force pregnancy upon those who do not want it are tyrants in my opinion.
Yes, those mythical people are tyrants.
What the hell is wrong with Hatrack that people feel the need to misstate the viewpoints they disagree with in such a transparent manner.
That's three times in this thread, now. Only one of the three who made the accusation has bothered to address the response.
The other two have simply reiterated the same tired point without even the courtesy of addressing the points raised in opposition.
Oh, yeah. You said, "I disagree."
Still no evidence, though.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the teenagers I'm discussing are only putting themselves in a position where they have to get an abortion if someone refuses them Plan B and they become pregnant.
No, the teenagers are in this position because they had sex. The fact that an option that might alleviate the consequences of having sex isn't available to them is something faced by a lot of people facing a lot of different consequences for a lot of different acts.
This reads to me as "you made your bed, now lie in it." How else should I understand your assertion that if a woman can't get Plan B because her pharmacist doesn't give it to her, it's really her responsibility, because she should have though about that before having sex?
It's also very nearly a quote of what I said, so yes, I was indeed referring to this discussion, but it also does apply to the discussion on the whole.
As far as reading, I've read the entire thread, and as far as the Biology goes, Plan B is nothing more than birth control pills concentrated. If birth control pills aren't abortion, neither is Plan B.
Do you have any other points you'd like me to make so you can side-step them?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just thought you all should know that while waiting at the Planned Parenthood to get a new Nuvaring prescription, I read all about Plan B, and it said in REALLY BIG LETTERS that it does not harm unborn children.
Here is what I think about them saying that it might possibly prevent implantation:
Perhaps it's much like a pharmacist telling me that a certain antibiotic MAY interfere with my birth control. My doctor explained it to me this way: I don't use oral birth control, so it's much less likely that there would be interference, since the hormones go directly into my bloodstream. In addition, the antibiotic in question concentrates itself in the urine and is at a very low dose. Taking all of this into consideration, it is extremely unliikely that this particular antibiotic will interfere. In fact, it's my understanding that the studies concerning antibiotics interfering with birth control focused on CERTAIN antiboitics and ORAL birth control. But they give me the warning every time because legally, they can't say "We know for sure that this will absolutely not interfere with your particular birth control."
In other words, the chances of Plan B preventing implantation are likely incredibly small, but they haven't done enough studies about it to absolutely say, "This medicine will not interfere with implantation." Much like regular birth control.
quote:This reads to me as "you made your bed, now lie in it." How else should I understand your assertion that if a woman can't get Plan B because her pharmacist doesn't give it to her, it's really her responsibility, because she should have though about that before having sex?
Even your deliberately crude reading of it doesn't amount to punishment. "Consequence" does not equal "punishment."
Moreover, there's no "should" in my statement. You added that. You obviously somehow think it's important.
With respect to the specific situation addressed, the distance between your reading is even greater. If you want to rephrase the original quote to be more accurate, you could do so like this:
quote:And the teenagers I'm discussing are only putting themselves in a position where they have to get an abortion if they can't compel someone to dispense Plan B to them and they become pregnant.
In this case, you're equating the inability to compel someone else to do something with punishment.
It's getting beyond ridiculous.
quote:As far as reading, I've read the entire thread, and as far as the Biology goes, Plan B is nothing more than birth control pills concentrated. If birth control pills aren't abortion, neither is Plan B.
The most that's been said about the anti-implantation effects of either is that the evidence of the effect is weak.
Again, the manufacturers made this claim. I have - repeatedly now, but maybe you'll notice it this time - stated that I don't have an opinion on it yet. Some people feel this evidence strong enough to avoid taking the risk.
The manufacturers are to blame for this. They talked about the implantation effect to market their pills. Now that it's not useful, they backpedal.
quote:Do you have any other points you'd like me to make so you can side-step them?
I'd like you, just once, to discuss the difference between consequences and punishment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think part of the problem is that in some parenting philosophies (popular when some of our younger members were growing up) the word "consequences" was/is used instead of "punishment" even when the second would have been more acurate.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
