posted
I'm a little perplexed by some of the reactions here.
I submit that fundamental agreement may be found on the following 4 things:
1) If you don't want to get pregnant, the most effective way to accomplish that is to avoid sexual intercourse. Barring rape (for which practically every place in the country has effective victim assistance) you have zero chance of becoming pregnant.
2) If you don't want to get pregnant and yet can't find other ways short of sexual intercourse to satisfy the sexual urge, effective birth control, used properly is a good, but not perfect solution. The failure rate of condoms and/or BCP is very low, for example.
3) If you don't want to get pregnant and you make a mistake, or are concerned that you MIGHT have made a mistake, the MAP is available as emergency contraception. It is NOT a good idea to use it as a frequent method of birth control, and we don't know everything about its effects or its side effects, but it looks to be a reasonably safe alternative when things are in panic mode. In general, panic mode is to be avoided, however, and the level of concern should rise dramatically if you find yourself needing to get MAP more than once or twice in a lifetime (see #2 and #1). That would be an indication of you not taking birth control seriously enough, or that your birth control method is ineffective for you, or that you might be in an abusive relationship (or several).
4) If you don't want children, but if you make a mistake and you don't/can't use MAP in time, you have a decision to make. In this country, you can choose to have the baby and keep it, have the baby and give it up for adoption, or have an abortion. It is not by external decree, but by facts of life and human psychology that each of these options has downsides for most people. Having children when you don't want them or don't feel ready has some obvious drawbacks. Adoption means you carry the child to full term, and then you have a child out there "somewhere" that you can't be with (and you may wish you could be), also, you go through all the embarrassment and have nothing to show for it since you didn't keep the child. Abortion avoids the social embarrassment, but it is a source of some anguish for some people. Sometimes immediately, sometimes later. It's never really a forgotten thing, from past experiences of people who have had them. If nothing else, you should be up front with your medical providers so you have to kind of keep track of how many you've had...
NOW: In saying that rational beings who don't want children would try to avoid #4, and even #3, I'm stating what to me are obvious conclusions. There's pain (physical and/or psychological) associated with the higher-numbered options.
We ALL know that there will be teens who get to #3 and #4. The older folks on this forum know that. We also know that the "crisis" can seem a lot bigger when the discovery first hits and that sometimes what teens lack most is perspective. So, when they hit #4 and start making decisions, at least some of them are acting of out panic and mistaken perceptions of things rather than a cool rational assessment of their short and long-term best interests. Even adults are not immune from this decision-making in panic mode, but teens are more susceptible to it, less well prepared to handle it, and have less experience with long term thinking. Plus, they have legal representatives who are responsible for them in most serious situations (usually parents, but sometimes guardians, etc.).
When an underage teen demands anonymity, and unfettered access to things like MAP, it DOES set off some alarm bells for people who worry about the exploitation of teens, and about the general lack of fully formed decision-making skills among teens. In essence, what some of us hear is that anonymity is of primary importance. We don't hear "I'm an adult, treat me like one" because we know that in most things, that teen is not an adult. What we hear is "I don't want anyone to know I might be pregnant because that means they'll know I'm having sex, and that I can't manage an effective birth control regimen, despite the education I've had on the issue." And that proves (to some of us, at least) that teens ARE irresponsible when it comes to sex and really don't have any business engaging in it. They don't want kids and aren't prepared for the consequences.
NOW...some of us (myself included) think that part of the reason for this situation is that our education of teens on the topic is lacking...big time. Some of us (myself also included) think that, barring rape, most of the teens who get pregnant but who don't want children (i.e., aren't actively HOPING to get pregnant) got that way because they did something that is a lot less effective as a method of birth control than what they are telling us. The incidences of "the condom broke" are really very rare. The instances of "we were just fooling around and we put the condom on later" are not rare.
AND FINALLY, there is NOTHING in this that suggests I would want teens to suffer punishment for getting pregnant. But I do want teens to grow up. And sometimes, sadly, teens have to grow up too fast. One of those times is when you are faced with the decision of what to do now that you are pregnant.
You don't know how hard it is to NOT say something about what you'll do re: abstinence or birth control NEXT TIME. But that's not helpful to the teen or their decision-making now. So...really, nobody is saying that if they are involved in counseling teens -- the get around to that, but first and foremost there's a lot of help and counseling about how to make the decision NOW about what to do.
And really, nobody is EVER saying that we want teens to be punished once they are pregnant. Face the consequences...yes. You have to anyway. And...for those who AREN'T pregnant, face the consequences early, before you really have to face them. And then act according to your own best interests. Stick to #1 if you can. If you REALLY can't abstain from sexual intercourse as a way of satisfying the sexual urge (and I submit that shows a certain lack of creativity on your part), then for crying out loud get yourself educated about birth control and do it right, every time. Because the consequences ARE serious.
There are life and death decisions involved here. Debates about the instant of personhood are just scrimmaging over legal boundaries. It's what you truly believe that matters, and will matter later on too, and perhaps your beliefs will change in the future too.
What kind of people would we be if we didn't warn you about that?
Cut us some slack, you youngsters. We've all been through this. Many of us DID abstain. We KNOW it's possible. Many of us didn't. A few of us went through the decisions at #4 (#3 wasn't available then, but really, #3 doesn't change things a whole heck of a lot if you are acting rationally to begin with).
posted
Dagonee, just so I'm clear on this point, your opinion wouldn't be affected if souls were removed from the equation, right? That's how it reads to me.
(1) It is wrong to bring about the end of a human life.
(2) When the sperm and egg combine and become at least one new individual with unique DNA (identical twins excepted), a human life has begun.
From these, any intervention that causes the termination of a pregnancy is wrong. Am I reading you correctly?
I also have a tangential question. The way I'm reading you it sounds like you view all pregnancy control as immoral. If that's so, does that also extend to surgical methods? For example, if I were to have a vasectomy, would it be immoral of me to have sex with someone who knew that, assuming no STDs on either side? What I'm trying to understand is the why of it. One possibility is that you think taking measures to reduce the chance of conception is immoral, but it's only one possibility and I'm not sure what the others are.
Could you explain? Email would be fine if you'd rather not talk about it here for whatever reason. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'd also agree, that was an excellent post by Bob.
As for the dag/Cow argument here's a few thoughts:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: 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.
I'm sorry, but this statement is just silly... consider some similar issues:
Alcohol in small quantities can be good for the health, reduce risk of heart disease, calm nerves, encourage sound sleep etc... a few too many shots can induce impaired judgement, impaired motor skills, upset stomach, headaches, up to alcohol poisoning and potentially death. more directly: Everclear is effectively concentrated alcohol yet is required to have warnings about possible death or blindness on the bottle.
Amoxacilin (the pink bubble-gum antibiotics I had as a kid) is a medicine in small quantities, but if you're like my cousin and drink a whole bottle you have to be hospitalized...
Apple seeds are safe to eat (though probably not reccomended), however if I were to down a gallon of apple seeds I would likely die of some combination of a bowel obstruction (or something) and/or sianide poisoning...
While most of us I think agree that it's possible that the MAP does not have a chance (or a significant chance) of harming an unborn child, I don't see that there has been enough conclusive evidence put forth on the matter.
But don't let it be assumed that because one thing is safe that a concentrated amount of that thing is also safe.
As for the punishment/consequence argument, I think others have already addressed it sufficiently, but I'll throw in some more examples that might help.
Example: Playing around with nuclear waste can cause cancer and death.
There are numerous stringent security measures which keep nuclear waste in locations that the public cannot access.
Are these security measures punishing those people who want to play around in nuclear waste? or are they protecting the public from a harmful action?
(not the best analogy, I know, but fun nonetheless)
Alternate Example: it's just prior to the civil war and slavery is legal.
A law is instituted by some of the free states that allows escaped slaves to live free of fear of being recaptured.
Is this law intended as punishment to those who lose slaves or is it intended to respect human life?
Alternate example: there is a problem in this country with obesity and poor health.
If we were to ban certain weight-loss pills because they were believed to cause cancer or other harmful effects.
Are we punishing overweight people by taking away one of their routes out or are we saving lives and as a side effect making some people live with the consequences of their lifestyle?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, just so I'm clear on this point, your opinion wouldn't be affected if souls were removed from the equation, right? That's how it reads to me.
I can't say this for sure. It's certainly possible that my preference for the continuity line of reasoning would not exist without my belief in the soul.
However, the continuity line of reasoning is not dependent on the soul. My belief in when ensoulment takes place is, at heart, an article of faith. It certainly doesn't surprise me that an examination of the physical processes involved contains a similar, contemporaneous demarcation line.
For sure, my rejection of a status definition of personhood stems from my belief in a non-physical aspect of human beings. I think, though, that this is not solely based on my belief in the soul.
quote:(1) It is wrong to bring about the end of a human life.
(2) When the sperm and egg combine and become at least one new individual with unique DNA (identical twins excepted), a human life has begun.
From these, any intervention that causes the termination of a pregnancy is wrong. Am I reading you correctly?
Leaving aside questions of danger to the physical health of the mother, yes, you are reading me correctly.
If we include instances of danger to the physical health, my answer involves the double intent line of reasoning that Theca (I think) touched on. The upshot would be that some actions which caused the termination of the pregnancy would not be wrong, based on the intent of the action.
Intent must be distinguished from motive here. An abortion intended to reduce a health risk to the mother still involves an intent to terminate the pregnancy, even though the motive is to save the mother's life. I think such abortions are probably wrong, but I'm not sure they should be illegal even if they are wrong. (This seems startling, I know. I think that passing by a drowning person who could be saved with no risk to one's own life is a great moral wrong that causes death, but I don't think it should be illegal, either.)
On the other hand, a chemotherapy regimen that is certain to kill the child has the same motive as the abortion described above, but is intended to cure cancer, not terminate the pregnancy. The termination is the byproduct of the treatment. If the treatment was exactly the same except that it didn't harm the child, it would still function according to its intent.
Again, though, if you ignore danger to the physical health of the mother, your summary is correct.
I don't think that every action that reduces the risk of successful completion of a pregnancy is wrong. There are many things that are beneficial yet incur risk of harm. We have a moral duty to truly weigh such risks and ensure they are worth the benefit, but we do not have a moral duty to avoid all such risks. However, assume for a moment that MAP does sometimes prevent implantation, even only 0.0001% of the time. Then it would be wrong to take in any situation in which this might occur, because the intent of the pill is served by the possibility of the unlikely chance.
quote:I also have a tangential question. The way I'm reading you it sounds like you view all pregnancy control as immoral. If that's so, does that also extend to surgical methods? For example, if I were to have a vasectomy, would it be immoral of me to have sex with someone who knew that, assuming no STDs on either side? What I'm trying to understand is the why of it. One possibility is that you think taking measures to reduce the chance of conception is immoral, but it's only one possibility and I'm not sure what the others are.
Could you explain? Email would be fine if you'd rather not talk about it here for whatever reason.
I need to think how to explain this.
If I haven't answered and you're still interested, please bump this thread with a nag post after the weekend.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: 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.
I'm sorry, but this statement is just silly... consider some similar issues:
Alcohol in small quantities can be good for the health, reduce risk of heart disease, calm nerves, encourage sound sleep etc... a few too many shots can induce impaired judgement, impaired motor skills, upset stomach, headaches, up to alcohol poisoning and potentially death. more directly: Everclear is effectively concentrated alcohol yet is required to have warnings about possible death or blindness on the bottle.
Amoxacilin (the pink bubble-gum antibiotics I had as a kid) is a medicine in small quantities, but if you're like my cousin and drink a whole bottle you have to be hospitalized...
I'm sorry, but this analogy is completely false. Abortion is not the consequence of taking too many birth control pills, like blindness is the consequence of drinking too much Everclear.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think a fair amount of what I posted has to do with everyone. There would be changes for adults because upon reaching the age of 18 in the US, it is possible to choose sterilization as an option. This is a solution not readily available to teens (at least here) because:
1) most parents would not approve it. 2) I can't imagine a doctor in today's climate conducting the operation on a minor regardless of whether the parents approved or not.
Also, the adults I know who have faced the unwanted pregnancy thing are not facing the same sources of panic. If anything, the assumption is that if you are an adult, you are sexually active, so trying to hide that fact from the general public is usually not as big a concern (sure, nuns, seminary students, members of some religious groups would still have the problem...but still not as big a deal for the vast majority of people).
I will, however, admit to biased thoughts regarding women who repeatedly get to the point of needing MAP or wanting an abortion as adults. I still do worry about abusive relationships -- and I consider failure on the man's part to take responsibility for birth control when necessary a potential form of abuse -- but there's still that nagging feeling in my mind that says "oh c'mon...it's not THAT difficult to avoid getting pregnant. If you are worried about it, then act like you're concerned and do what it takes NOT to get pregnant."
And yes, I still have a high tolerance in the post-mistake decision making period. Even for adults.
So...yes, most of my post would apply, but obviously some parts are teen-specific. Or at least apply more strongly to teens.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, assume for a moment that MAP does sometimes prevent implantation, even only 0.0001% of the time. Then it would be wrong to take in any situation in which this might occur, because the intent of the pill is served by the possibility of the unlikely chance.
I'm confused. How does that not translate to also being against the regular pill? Because if you're assuming it's a remote possibility for Plan B, then it's probably a very very very very remote possibility for regular birth control by that assumption. So what is the probability cutoff?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: There would be changes for adults because upon reaching the age of 18 in the US, it is possible to choose sterilization as an option.
Just FYI, Bob, that's not entirely true, as most doctors won't perform sterilization surgery on an 18 year old, either, or even someone in their early 20s.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I thought that might be the case, but at least 18 year olds wouldn't need parental permission.
I was wondering, though, what with the success at reversals, wouldn't at least SOME doctors be more inclined to go ahead with the procedure?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reversal process, as I understand it, has a much greater rate of success for men than for women. Both the initial operation and the reversal procedure also are much less invasive/risky for men than women. And the more time that has passed before you try to get it reversed the less your chances, so if you get it done at 18 and change your mind when you're, say, 30, you're chances are already pretty slim. (Again, for women.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I know people of both sexes who have had successful reversals, but I don't know how "old" their original surgeries were.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* Yeah, it can certainly happen. But they tell you when you have it done that you should consider it permenent, because the odds are that it is.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm confused. How does that not translate to also being against the regular pill? Because if you're assuming it's a remote possibility for Plan B, then it's probably a very very very very remote possibility for regular birth control by that assumption. So what is the probability cutoff?
I'm assuming that for a point of discussion, pH. Nothing more.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, thanks for the detailed reply. I should have explicitly mentioned the health of the mother exception. In my eagerness to concisely summarize my perception of your position, I oversimplified.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: An abortion intended to reduce a health risk to the mother still involves an intent to terminate the pregnancy, even though the motive is to save the mother's life. I think such abortions are probably wrong, but I'm not sure they should be illegal even if they are wrong. (This seems startling, I know. ...)
It actually doesn't startle me. Remember, we've discussed same-sex civil marriage before, too. I think that's a valuable distinction to make.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: On the other hand, a chemotherapy regimen that is certain to kill the child has the same motive as the abortion described above, but is intended to cure cancer, not terminate the pregnancy. The termination is the byproduct of the treatment. If the treatment was exactly the same except that it didn't harm the child, it would still function according to its intent.
...
I don't think that every action that reduces the risk of successful completion of a pregnancy is wrong. There are many things that are beneficial yet incur risk of harm. We have a moral duty to truly weigh such risks and ensure they are worth the benefit, but we do not have a moral duty to avoid all such risks.
This reminds me of what happened to my father. He was recovering well from the critical brain surgery to remove his ruptured tumour, and underwent radiation therapy to kill small groups of cancerous cells that were dispersed in his brain when the tumour ruptured. The radiation therapy was absolutely necessary, and all three of us (that is, him, mum, and me) agreed to it for that reason, but it was so hard on him that it marked the turning point from steady recovery to a gradual decline until he ultimately died a couple of months later.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: However, assume for a moment that MAP does sometimes prevent implantation, even only 0.0001% of the time. Then it would be wrong to take in any situation in which this might occur, because the intent of the pill is served by the possibility of the unlikely chance.
I don't understand this usage of "served," and consequently I don't think I understand the point you're getting at here. Can you clarify this?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I need to think how to explain this.
If I haven't answered and you're still interested, please bump this thread with a nag post after the weekend.
I'm going away Saturday and will be gone for a little over a week, but if you haven't answered by the time I come back and I haven't forgotten I'll bump this or make a new thread.
-------------
Bob, thanks for the clarification. I'll try to explain why I was asking. This paragraph twigged my brain a little bit:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And really, nobody is EVER saying that we want teens to be punished once they are pregnant. Face the consequences...yes. You have to anyway. And...for those who AREN'T pregnant, face the consequences early, before you really have to face them. And then act according to your own best interests. Stick to #1 if you can. If you REALLY can't abstain from sexual intercourse as a way of satisfying the sexual urge (and I submit that shows a certain lack of creativity on your part), then for crying out loud get yourself educated about birth control and do it right, every time. Because the consequences ARE serious.
There are a couple of reasons. First, and this isn't directly related to your post at all, I think after reading that, I can see the discrepancy between the "punishment" and "consequences" positions. Pregnancy has historically been a natural consequence of sex for virtually all human beings (and, indeed, for virtually every living being that uses sexual reproduction mechanisms). Thus, under this view, accepting the possibility of pregnancy is implicit in the decision to have sex. It ought to be explicit, of course, but sometimes it isn't.
However, modern pregnancy control methods have reached the point where, in virtually all instances, pregnancy no longer has to be a natural consequence of sex. To use a loose analogy, I don't consider the possibility that I might die every time I board an airplane, because thanks to technological improvements, operational improvements, and security measures, that possibility is remote enough that I can ignore it almost all of the time. Similarly, as a woman, if I don't want to become pregnant, it doesn't mean that I can't -- or, under the "punishment" view, shouldn't -- have sex. That is, the punishment view takes as a premise that people using modern pregnancy control techniques can make two independent decisions: (1) I am ready to have sex, and (2) I am ready to become pregnant.
That doesn't always work, of course. Condoms break, pills are forgotten, and even surgical methods aren't 100% effective. However, even alone each of these pregnancy control methods is close* to 100% effective when used correctly, and using them in combination (e.g. pills and condoms) reduces the risk even further, well past the point where it isn't unreasonable to spend as little time, on order of magnitude, thinking about it as I spend thinking about dying in an air crash.
Under this view, insisting that pregnancy remain a consequence of sex can be perceived as wanting a person to suffer unnecessary (that is, not naturally-occurring) consequences, which is not that far removed from directly inflicting unnecessary consequences. It isn't hard to view the latter as a form of punishment in this context.
I don't subscribe strictly to either view, but I think I understand the essence of the difference between them now, so thanks for helping me with that.
As to what bothered me, I'll quote from the same paragraph:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If you REALLY can't abstain from sexual intercourse as a way of satisfying the sexual urge (and I submit that shows a certain lack of creativity on your part), then for crying out loud get yourself educated about birth control and do it right, every time.
I completely agree with your last clause. I think everyone should be well-educated about all of the available, legal pregancy control options. However, I have a real problem with the way you've couched your first and paranthetical clauses. You seem to be attaching a negative value to "sexual urges." The way I parse what you've written, I read an implicit suggestion that sexual urges are something to be suppressed, or at worst controlled, until some unspecified later time. In other words, you should only have sex if you (and presumably your partner in, uh, crime) really can't stop yourselves. If you can't restrain or repress those primal urges, or if solo play or "pre-game festivities" just are't cutting it.
What I'm getting at is: I don't think people should aim to abstain from sex; I think they should aim to have sex with the partner(s) of their choosing in the context(s) of their choosing. That may, obviously, entail aiming to abstain completely, but I don't take that as an axiom.
I recognize that you began the paragraph addressing teenagers, of course, which is why I asked whether you meant it to apply more broadly.
*Condoms are the least effective, of course, and whether they are "close" to 100% effective when used correctly but without redundancy (e.g. without pills) depends on what you mean by "close." Obviously pills and surgery are an order of magnitude "closer" to 100% effective than condoms.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I believe you correctly identified an underlying current to this thread - that premarital sex, or perhaps even marital sex purely for pleasure, is immoral. I actually have no problem with other people thinking this, and living their lives accordingly, but I have a huge problem with people expecting me to confrom to their moral structure.
For example, I believe, with all my heart, that having a child, whether a teenager or adult, whether married or unmarried, when you have reason to seriously question your ability to care for that child, is immoral. Period. Especially given the number of children on the planet who are already in desperate need.
However, I do no run about telling people that their choice not to have an abortion or to have another child is immoral and sinful and wrong. Because it ain't my bidness.
Clearly, my opinion that in many cases NOT having an abortion is immoral is pretty much the polar opposite view of people who believe that it's immoral TO have an abortion. And that's ok, we all have different ways of looking at the world, and it's great that there are places like Hatrack where we can talk to each other openly. But I think that people would be understandably annoyed if I started berating them on moral grounds for their choice to carry a baby to term, so why would these same people feel it was approriate to berate me if I were ever to choose to have an abortion?
I don't question the thinking behind different moral viewpoints, just the moment at which people think it's ok to impose those views on others.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't question the thinking behind different moral viewpoints, just the moment at which people think it's ok to impose those views on others.
I [sort of*] agree with this in principle [in this context], but if someone believes that abortion (with certain exceptions) should be classified as homicide, I'm not sure that they can in good conscience refrain from advocating their view.
That's exactly what makes compromise so difficult in the abortion debate. One "side" has little reason to compromise. That isn't a criticism, though.
[I edited in the parts in brackets.]
[*Really, I'm something of a liberal authoritarian, so I don't seem to have much trouble telling others what to do in certain contexts. I strongly support seatbelt laws and smoking bans, for example.]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know there are people here who believe sex outside of marriage is immoral. I highly doubt there is anyone posting here that believes marital sex purely for pleasure is immoral, and I think you have to be reading some pre-assumptions into posts to get that out of them.
As far as whether or not option #1 should be the preferred moral option, if you believe that getting pregnant will absolutely ruin your life* and you know that for one reason or another other options are not available (either you would never consider an abortion or you don’t have access to an abortion provider or you have some health condition that would be aggravated by even the beginnings of pregnancy, or you can’t keep a secret to save your life and your parents would kill you if they found out, or whatever) then abstinence is your only 100% safe option, no matter what your views on the morality of sex outside of marriage.
*note that the truly “absolutely ruin your life” situations are probably much rarer than they seem at the time – but I know of people who have attempted suicide upon finding out they were pregnant. For someone who believes that suicide is better than pregnancy or abortion, I would suggest that abstinence would not be an unreasonable alternative.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While that's a very long "if" chain, I don't reject that argument. Given that I don't believe in immaculate conception, abstinence is indeed the only 100% safe option.
I'll try to explain what I do reject. Consider Bob's #1 and #2:
quote:1) If you don't want to get pregnant...
2) If you don't want to get pregnant and yet can't find other ways short of sexual intercourse to satisfy the sexual urge...
So, other things "short of sexual intercourse" should be tried first, and if none of them are satisfying enough, you can go on and have sex, but Bob will think that you lack creativity. However, I might easily be able to "satisfy the sexual urge" without having sex with someone, but want to have sex with them anyway even though I also don't want that person to become pregnant. Bob could address my criticism by rephrasing #2 as "If you don't want to get pregnant but you do want to have sex, ..."
What I'm getting at is that it's possible to make the argument that Bob's making without taking as a premise that sex should be a last resort. It's the premise, not the argument, that I reject.
Added:
Let me put it this way: I think sex is something that people should want to have. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samarkand, I have a couple of comments in response to you.
1) Perhaps I'm just not seeing it the same way as you because I'm closer to the views of Dagonee and others, but I don't see many/any of us trying to push sex as immoral on others. I do think there are people here trying to push sex as non-trivial on others. No one here is proposing to make premarital sex illegal (even those that I'm sure strongly believe it to be immoral). We are, however, trying to establish that it is not something to be entered into completely without concern (whether for pregnancy, STDs, emotional trauma etc).
2) Again, when complaining that Pro-Life advocates "push their views on others" consider the comparison to slavery: Pro-Choice advocates are like those arguing that people shouldn't be able to infringe on their property rights. Pro-Life advocates are like those arguing that all humans have the right to freedom...
it's a completely different level of argument. I realize my views do encroach potentially on your lifestyle, but in my mind your views encroach on the life of the unborn (who unfortunately don't have much of a voice in the matter, so it seems more lopsided an argument than it really is). You are arguing for your own rights while I am arguing for the rights of someone who can't argue for themselves.
If people cannot grasp this distinction, then the discussion is pointless.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't understand this usage of "served," and consequently I don't think I understand the point you're getting at here. Can you clarify this?
I simply meant that the goal of MAP is to not be pregnant, and the prevention of implantation* (and subsequent death) of a fertilized embryo serves that goal. (Edit: in the sense that, were the prevention not to occur, a pregnancy likely would.)
*again, used in the hypothetical sense to explain a possible position.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 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.
I presume that my posts in this regard are not irrelevant to your posting, or I wouldn't have made them. I may be incorrect in my assumptions, but I don't doubt you're aware that when one takes on the task of addressing the viewpoint of others, hypothetical or not- as we both appear to be doing, you in citing the rationale of those who oppose "Plan B", I in those who favor its legalization- that points can become less clear, particularly which points are those of the arguer and which are simply points of the greater mass behind a point of view, e.g., why those who oppose "Plan B" will continue to do so.
So, if there's any lack of clarity, yes, I understand your own ambivalence with regard to "Plan B".
Moving on: While there may not be a moral element on most dimensions of something like having air bags, there can be an implication of a result being "natural"- that is, that it will occur, barring interference- meaning that it should not be interfered with. Not what you're saying, but a tack some opposing "Plan B" might. So it's worth pointing out that we interfere with "natural" things all the time for a variety of reasons, and the "natural" nature of something alone is not alone an argument for it. If only for clarity's sake.
quote: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.
You have every right to be offended if you feel your point of view is being misrepresented. Of course, in such discussions it can be very easy for the emotional nature of the argument to cause confusion. It might be best to correct such statements and move on. It can be done without rancor.
quote: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.
And I've had friends at pro-choice rallies who had people scream in their faces that they were baby-killing sluts. <shrug> I'm willing to set the anecdotal aside, or use it. I'm not willing to concede that one person's anecdotal evidence is superior.
quote: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.
Perpendicular, perhaps. Not irrelevant. You said:
quote: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.
And I'm saying, no, it's not merely the presence of an identifiable victim that makes an act wrong; in the case of the analogy, it's the recognition of other steps that could have fulfilled the visible need, and made the wrongdoing unnecessary. Or to put it another way: there can be no wrong if there is no alternative choice.
Abortion is wrong.Stealing cars is wrong.
Except when it isn't.
I suspect most, if not all, of the pro-life people on Hatrack would acknowledge that in a case where there is a certainty that both the infant and the mother will die if the preganancy is carried to term, and that abortion will save the life of the mother, that carrying out an abortion would not be a reasonable course of action.
Similarly, while most people would argue that stealing a car to replace a stolen wrecked car is wrong, I think many people would think that, say, hotwiring an apparently abandoned car to escape from the area of a natural disaster that imminently threatens the thief's well-being is probably justifiable.
X sees something as wrong, Y says "but you see this similar thing as not being wrong- why is there this distinction? And is that bridgable?"
It may not be a direct response to your statement, but it is irrelevant to neither your statement nor the discussion as a whole.
As far as intent and punishment, it's very difficult to make absolute claims about anything. "Punishment" itself has different definitions, and both "negative reinforcement of behaviors that one wishes to minimize" and "smashing something one hates into dust" can be described as such. Further there can certainly be a rational spoken level to an argument (Abortion is necessary to the rights of women/The destruction of unborn children is a moral wrong and a stain on society) and unspoken emotional level (Insert paranoid distrust of government, defamation of fundamentalism, et. al here/ Insert sexual phobias, defamation of those who participate in premartial sex here.) The role of the latter is not so easily dismissed.
Obligatory disclaimer: No, I'm not saying the aforementioned is the running mindset of anyone...
But, for that matter, consider, however naively, that a purely rational, clearly spoken argument is all that exists with regards to such a debate. Then one gets into some really ugly questions, like "If your interest is in preserving life, rather than punishing wrongdoing, why not focus on environmental mercury and lead and inadquate prenatal care, which cause scores of infant deaths, rather than focusing on the possibly nonexistant fetal deaths caused by 'Plan B'?"
(Or, to be fair, "If you're really so interested in women's rights, why are you focused on the United States where women can vote on the issues that effect them, rather than any of a number of nations where they have no control over their own lives at all?)
To wrap the two points together: If wrong and punishment is about the victim, why is there so much less focus on situations to prevent the victimization rather than pursuing the [perceived] victimizer? Is something "more wrong" because it has a perceptible human perpetrator, despite the results being identical for the victim(s)? And if so, how can that not color one's views of intent?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is your nag post, Dagonee, but I'm still on holiday and won't be back until next week so if you haven't had a chance to think it over there's no great rush. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You have every right to be offended if you feel your point of view is being misrepresented. Of course, in such discussions it can be very easy for the emotional nature of the argument to cause confusion. It might be best to correct such statements and move on. It can be done without rancor.
I did correct such statements. Several times. It did no good.
quote:And I've had friends at pro-choice rallies who had people scream in their faces that they were baby-killing sluts. <shrug> I'm willing to set the anecdotal aside, or use it. I'm not willing to concede that one person's anecdotal evidence is superior.
Your anecdote doesn't support the contention that some pro-life people want to punish women for sex at all.
Beyond that, not one shred of proof has been offered for this punishment motive.
quote:Or to put it another way: there can be no wrong if there is no alternative choice.
And yet, the pointing out of the viable choice - not having sex if one is not willing or ready to have a child - is consistently mischaracterized by a small number of people on this forum.
Clearly you recognize that the existence of an alternative choice matters in such a discussion. I just wish certain other people would reach that realization, rather than insisting that the motives of other people are, in fact, not what they say they are (and using incredibly specious logic to do so, too).
quote:Abortion is wrong. Stealing cars is wrong.
Except when it isn't.
I suspect most, if not all, of the pro-life people on Hatrack would acknowledge that in a case where there is a certainty that both the infant and the mother will die if the preganancy is carried to term, and that abortion will save the life of the mother, that carrying out an abortion would not be a reasonable course of action.
OK, there's a lot of fine philosophical discussion to be had about when normally wrong actions are justifiable.
Not the point. Of course it's sometimes morally justifiable to steal a car. And you're right, most people think there are times when it's morally justifiable to cause the death of an unborn child.
And many people will disagree about the precise boundaries of either of those conditions.
Not the point. This is the central proposition of the car analogy: if someone thinks the act in question is wrong, then their wanting to ban that act is most likely not motivated by a desire to punish people for some other act, but rather to prevent a wrong thing from being done.
The fact that people disagree about when that act is wrong is irrelevant to analyzing this proposition. For the purposes of the proposition, the act is wrong. Finito. End of story.
If the situation involves a time when the person whose motive is under examination thinks the act isn't wrong, then that proposition quite simply doesn't come into play.
quote:Then one gets into some really ugly questions, like "If your interest is in preserving life, rather than punishing wrongdoing, why not focus on environmental mercury and lead and inadquate prenatal care, which cause scores of infant deaths, rather than focusing on the possibly nonexistant fetal deaths caused by 'Plan B'?"
(Or, to be fair, "If you're really so interested in women's rights, why are you focused on the United States where women can vote on the issues that effect them, rather than any of a number of nations where they have no control over their own lives at all?)
Neither question is ugly. Both are enormously silly if intended to be a serious response to someone. Both questions contain an implicit assumption that only the most serious problem in existence can be worked on; once that one problem is solved, then we can move on to the next.
In this context, of course, the question is even more ridiculous, because there's no effort involved in simply not filling Plan B prescriptions. (To be clear, it is the decision not to fill a prescription that has provoked the accusations of "punishment.")
quote:If wrong and punishment is about the victim, why is there so much less focus on situations to prevent the victimization rather than pursuing the [perceived] victimizer?
I'd like to see you support the contention that there is "less focus on situations to prevent the victimization rather than pursuing the [perceived] victimizer."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also have a tangential question. The way I'm reading you it sounds like you view all pregnancy control as immoral. If that's so, does that also extend to surgical methods? For example, if I were to have a vasectomy, would it be immoral of me to have sex with someone who knew that, assuming no STDs on either side? What I'm trying to understand is the why of it. One possibility is that you think taking measures to reduce the chance of conception is immoral, but it's only one possibility and I'm not sure what the others are.
Could you explain?
twinky, I'm going to deal with this in pieces.
Disclaimer (not needed for twinky, but possibly for others here): I am presenting this as what I believe. I am not attempting to convince anyone that it is correct. The center of Christianity is not in sexual morality, and I’m going to rely on many premises closer to the center of Christianity (as I perceive it) that many readers don’t share. Were I attempting to convince others, I would be attempting to prove those premises. I’m not, so I won’t. I will attempt to answer questions that I believe to be motivated by a desire to understand my point of view. I will attempt to resolve apparent (or perhaps real) inconsistencies within my premises and analysis. I will not attempt to step outside my own framework for purposes of this discussion.
Overview: I’ll define some terms and discuss marriage generally.
Question number 1: When is it morally licit to try to not have children? (future post)
Question number 2: Why is abstention (timed or otherwise) the only acceptable means of preventing pregnancy? (future post)
Overview
I am purposely doing this from memory, trying to articulate things I believe and feel but have not spoken before. If I am incorrect on a matter of doctrine, I apologize. Please view this only as my views on Catholic marriage. I’m also going to be all over the place, but trust it will come back to the question at hand eventually.
Part of Catholic marriage is the intent to have children if possible. This does not mean that those who do not have children are not married. It simply means that the state of mind at the time of marriage is supposed to be the intent to accept the fruits of the bounty of marriage. It also means that marriage and parenting are intertwined. Obviously each can and does exist without the other, but they are, at the core, the intensely related. As an example, the intent to not have children at the time of marriage is enough to cause the Church to grant an annulment, which means they consider the marriage to not have been properly entered into.
The religious ed definition of Sacrament is “an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.” There are 7: baptism, communion (or Eucharist), reconciliation (also called penance or confession), confirmation, marriage, holy orders, last rites (or extreme unction).
Marriage and holy orders are considered the vocational sacraments, in which the recipient is dedicating himself or herself to their Christian vocation. Both are also considered reflections of God/Christ, a way in which we were made in God’s image.
Each vocation has an intended set of people to be cared for. Holy order recipients care for all the Church, usually in subsets. Married people care for children and for each other. It is this dedication of service to others that makes both vocations. Note also that this dedication of spouses to each other means that marriage is a vocation whether children are present or not.
The priest and bishop who receive holy orders reflect God’s guidance and care of us. Note that this is related to parenthood (Father as a form of address for priests) so often and casually that many people forget the comparison is there.
The marriage symbolizes many things:
1.) The union of two into one is a reflection of the Trinity (not in number, but in unity).
2.) The ability to create life is a reflection of the creative powers of God and a chance to participate in the ongoing creation.
3.) The parenting of children is a reflection of God's guidance and care of us.
Marriage is the only Sacrament given by lay persons. While there are emergency situations when some of the other Sacraments may be performed without a priest or bishop, in a marriage ceremony, each spouse gives the Sacrament to the other.
So we’ve covered one part of the question at hand: a fertile, married couple must intend to have children and be willing to care for them as part of their vocation of marriage.
If all actions to prevent pregnancy (including abstention) were considered illicit, then the principle involved could be stated very simply, something like “Married couples must have as many children as possible.” But, not all such actions are illicit.
Specifically, abstaining from sex for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy is sometimes licit. This can be done full-bore – no sex ever – or by attempting to time the fertility cycle and only abstaining during fertile periods. I’ll call the second type NFP for purposes of this discussion and won’t worry about how the timing is determined.
Knowing that abstention intended to prevent pregnancy is sometimes licit means it must sometimes be licit to try not to have children. I will attempt to address this in the next post. This next post will have little to do with sexual morality.
The post after that will focus on why, if the intent is sometimes licit, the means are restricted. In doing so, I will be attempting to present Catholic sexual morality as a positive thing – not positive only in the sense of “good” or “beneficial,” but also positive as in “this is why God gave sex to us” as opposed to “this is what is forbidden.”
quote:Your anecdote doesn't support the contention that some pro-life people want to punish women for sex at all.
Beyond that, not one shred of proof has been offered for this punishment motive.
I would tend to argue that calling someone who holds a position a sexually promiscuous infanticide implies a desire to punish, at least in the second (destructive) definition, if not the (corrective) first. If you disagree, clearly, that won't go anywhere. And I'd be inclined to say, "Okay, anecdotes aren't going to do much good here."
quote:And yet, the pointing out of the viable choice - not having sex if one is not willing or ready to have a child - is consistently mischaracterized by a small number of people on this forum.
The viability of that choice is a whole other can of worms. As to how someone suggesting that might be mischaracterized, well, these things happen on both sides; all I can say is if you still think it's worth clarifying and re-clarifying to the point of migraine, good luck and more power to you (and no, I'm not being sarcastic.)
quote:Clearly you recognize that the existence of an alternative choice matters in such a discussion. I just wish certain other people would reach that realization, rather than insisting that the motives of other people are, in fact, not what they say they are (and using incredibly specious logic to do so, too).
It's extremely difficult not to assign motives on such an emotional subject. And I have to reiterate that I suspect it's difficult to be entirely certain that one's motives are solely what is apparent in the written or spoken word. I just don't know that everyone is capable of that level of introspection. Certainly what one sees doesn't suggest so.
And when discussion ranges between individuals, comunities, groups, religions, political platforms, etc. etc. etc... Never mind trying to encapsulize any of the above... The terminology alone gets pretty twisted.
And then there's the whole "How can person 'X' not recognize the consequences of their position..." Which also gets confused with the matter of intent.
Rambling. "Yes, words get mischaracterized and intentions get presumed. There's a number of reasons why; many are regrettable, some may be inevitable, I agree we should try to take things at face value for the sake of discussion."
quote: This is the central proposition of the car analogy: if someone thinks the act in question is wrong, then their wanting to ban that act is most likely not motivated by a desire to punish people for some other act, but rather to prevent a wrong thing from being done.
The fact that people disagree about when that act is wrong is irrelevant to analyzing this proposition. For the purposes of the proposition, the act is wrong. Finito. End of story.
There seem to be, or have been, a number of laws whose purpose may have been other than what was stated. Poll taxes come to mind. In my home state, there was (and probably still is) a curfew that prevents people under the age of 18 from being out late at night. The stated intention was to reduce crime; I couldn't help but think that it was convenient to reduce crime by discriminating against a non-voting block.
It is perhaps inevitable that someone adversely affected by a law will be suspicious of the intentions of those who back that law. Sometimes that cynicism is unwarranted; sometimes not. But it would certainly be better for the sake of discussion to say "Have you considered this will have this effect," rather than "You clearly intend this."
Though, emotional impact being what it is, it's a lot easier to rally people to the latter.
quote:If the situation involves a time when the person whose motive is under examination thinks the act isn't wrong, then that proposition quite simply doesn't come into play.
Makes for sticky law-writing, though, doesn't it?
quote:Neither question is ugly. Both are enormously silly if intended to be a serious response to someone. Both questions contain an implicit assumption that only the most serious problem in existence can be worked on; once that one problem is solved, then we can move on to the next.
I don't really think so. If one assumes that time, money, energy, etc. is finite, wouldn't one be best to address issues where there will be the greatest direct impact, if one's intentions are what they say they are? There may certainly be other factors; it's easier to motivate oneself to helping people in one's own country than halfway across the world, for example. (the response to the tsunami in Asia vs. the response to Hurricane Katrina comes to mind.)
It's easier to marshal people to helping locally than internationally, against an imminent problem than a distant one; it's also easier to rally people to fight an enemy than something amorphous or intangible. But there, rightly or wrongly, suspicion festers.
quote:In this context, of course, the question is even more ridiculous, because there's no effort involved in simply not filling Plan B prescriptions. (To be clear, it is the decision not to fill a prescription that has provoked the accusations of "punishment.")
You'll pardon me if it's sometimes difficult in this discussion to differentiate on what level law or intent or opinion is being discussed.
quote:I'd like to see you support the contention that there is "less focus on situations to prevent the victimization rather than pursuing the [perceived] victimizer."
Well, that goes way beyond contraception issues. It's more of an societal, or perhaps a human observation, that I suspect carries over. On that level, I can give some of examples. Consider the amount that's spent on border control, versus humanitarian efforts in nations with large amounts of illegal immigration. Drug counselling, versus drug incarceration. Heck, consider the incident at Columbine High School: how much of the media attention was focused on whether Marilyn Manson and Doom were responsible for the shootings? And how much of the later response tended towards metal detectors and dress codes, rather than counselling and awareness?
I'm not saying this is endemic to this debate. I'm just saying it's a common thread I don't think has miraculously halted here.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would tend to argue that calling someone who holds a position a sexually promiscuous infanticide implies a desire to punish
I'd like to see that actual argument, rather than just your assertion that this is so.
Beyond that, are we even talking about the same thing any more?
The accusation made: Those who support a ban on abortion (or Plan B) and say such a ban does not require people to have a baby because there are alternative ways to not get pregnant want to punish women for having sex.
How does someone yelling something nasty at a bunch of protesters have anything to do with this contention?
I never contended that there is no desire to punish associated with banning abortion. Anyone who supports a ban most likely supports some punishment for those who violate it.
The question is whether the ban itself is intended as punishment.
quote:The viability of that choice is a whole other can of worms. As to how someone suggesting that might be mischaracterized, well, these things happen on both sides; all I can say is if you still think it's worth clarifying and re-clarifying to the point of migraine, good luck and more power to you (and no, I'm not being sarcastic.)
All I've been trying to do is clarify this point. Do you agree that the desire to ban something one thinks is wrong is mostly like not an intent to use that ban as punishment for a totally different act?
quote:It's extremely difficult not to assign motives on such an emotional subject.
No, it's really not. Rather, it's not even a little bit difficult not to do so in print, here at Hatrack, in the midst of a discussion.
quote:If one assumes that time, money, energy, etc. is finite, wouldn't one be best to address issues where there will be the greatest direct impact, if one's intentions are what they say they are?
The place where the greatest problem exists is not necessarily where the biggest impact can be had. Beyond that, you're original examples on this point make assumptions about what people consider "bad" that aren't warranted. I think deliberate killing is worse than accidental death. Many people likely think that greater equality here will allow more to be done for nations with almost none.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I've known people who were quite open about their view that pregnancy is an appropriate punishment for illicit sex. And they use some of the same "consequenses" language you've been using, though they clearly mean something different (punitive) by it.
I think your argument would be better served by acknowledging that some people do use the language that way, and then clarifying what you and others mean by it, rather than denying that it means that at all.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rewinding to August 30th...sorry twinky, great post back there. Sorry I missed it.
Samarkand, I don't think I'm making a moral judgment in my post. I understand twinky's view that there's no need for #1-type measures if you can manage birth control properly. I think I even said that. A couple of times.
All who still care: Now...here's why I said that bit about "if you just can't satisfy your sexual urges without actual intercourse". I meant it exactly as it is written. I know this may sound old fashioned, what with excellent birth control methods out there, but intercourse is not the only way to orgasm. It is a way. It's a particularly fun way, but there are other excellent ways too. And I do think that people forget that and decide that sexual intercourse is a MUST.
And for those who decide that...then my preference is that they know what the heck they're doing with respect to birth control.
That's it...that's what I said and that's what I meant.
I'm not making a moral judgment. I meant what I said about it showing a lack of creativity. I won't go into details, but the methods and varieties of sex sans intercourse are wonderful and they fit well within my idea of what #1 can be.
I think a lot of people assume that when someone says "don't have sex" they mean go cloister yourself and don't touch any area of another person that's normally covered by a bathing suit. Age-appropriate...I'm advocating a little creative exploration in lieu of actual intercourse. That doesn't mean I think kids should start that behavior at 13, but I do think that it's possible to enjoy that kind of thing well into adulthood leading up to the point when one decides to have a family, or decides to permanently NOT have a family.
And, yeah, if you can't make that kind of thing work, and absolutely MUST have intercourse, then I want you to do so responsibly and do everything in your power to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.
And it's not me saying "face the consequences" should you become pregnant. It's life.
Maybe this will make the difference clear:
If someone came to me and said they were pregnant and didn't want to be, I'm not going to tell them "well, you shouldn't have had intercourse then!" If anything, I'm going to ask them if they need help, and do they want to talk through their situation and options.
In the back of my head, I might be tempted to think less of a person who, say, gets to this point and is in denial about it, but I do understand the panic and the feeling of wishing (against all logic) that it wasn't happening.
I hope this clarifies things a little more.
And thanks again twinky for pointing to an area where I could've been more clear in my earlier post.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That doesn't mean I think kids should start that behavior at 13, but I do think that it's possible to enjoy that kind of thing well into adulthood leading up to the point when one decides to have a family, or decides to permanently NOT have a family."
Considering that very small toddlers start that behavior because it feels good, and adults tend to at that point (some in more open and accepting ways, and others not so much) socialize them as to appropriate times and places for said normal behavior, I'd have to argue that the behavior starts much earlier than 13 -- and lasts probably a lifetime.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Bob, that it could (and probably should) continue up until said person is willing and ready to accept the consequences of full participation in a mutual fashion . . . as it were. *grin*
And perhaps that is part of the problem in the USA? We squelch natural self-exploration which is a wonderful form of -- well -- self-exploration . . . and one that can help satisfy those youthful -- and NOT so youthful -- urges that can lead into times of major regret when/if one acts upon them. Pregnancy, STDs, HIV/AIDS, not to mention the concepts of self-restraint, delayed gratification, self-respect . . .
Anyway -- just thinking aloud.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well you know, the communications geeks say you have to say something at least three different ways before it sticks . . .
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Dagonee, that was interesting. I'm looking forward to reading your follow-ups.
Bob, thanks for clarifying. I still don't agree, as I outlined above, but I get where you're coming from.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what dkw said applies. Rephrasing #2 as "if you don't want to get pregnant, but you DO want to have sex..." would be fine with me except that, at least to my mind, such a thing can't be separated from acceptance of the risks of pregnancy, however small.
If the idea is that sex can't be made completely, 100% risk free, then the individual should be aware of that and the fact that they are taking a "calculated" risk. They might do everything right birth control-wise and still get pregnant.
Does the fact that they were trying NOT to get pregnant make the decisions easier? I suspect not. I suspect part of the reason people get motivated about birth control practices is that they don't want to have to face the decisions -- even if they know in advance that they'd choose abortion, it's still going to be a hassle, and possibly gut wrenching.
All I was trying to say is that as the seriousness of the desire to avoid pregnancy goes up, the willingness to engage in actual coitus should correspondingly drop.
Anyway, I doubt we can resolve the disagreement if one still exists, twinky. I hope I at least satisfied you on the possibility of this not being a moral judgment on my part. I don't look down on people for wanting sex, or even HAVING it. I regret it in some (usually because of age and/or maturity issues), but I'm not viewing this as a morality issue so much as I do an avoidance of regrettable outcomes issue. Purely aside from moral issues about whether it is murder or not, I view abortion as a regrettable outcome. It is something that is avoidable (except in extreme circumstances) through changes in behavior and adoption of selected techniques. So, yes, #2 is not of equal preference to #1 because it increases the risk of pregnancy, even if that increase is small. But it is much prefered over #3 and #4.
If it helps any...to me, there's a huge gap between 1&2 and 3&4. The gap between 1&2 is pretty small. But they aren't the same.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the biggest part that catches me on what you're saying, Bob, is the whole goal of orgasm. I'm sure there are plenty of unmarried people who have sex for reasons aside from simply having an orgasm, just as I'm sure there are many married people who feel the same way. I'm not sure that a discussion of the possible spiritual meanings of sex would be useful, but I'm just going to throw it out there.
posted
pH, I think you have it right. I was trying to get my various thoughts to come together and I think you did it.
Sometimes there are things that one must express to another person and those things can only be truly expressed by nothing-held-back intercourse. At least for me, that is often a different purpose than the physical pleasure/release of orgasm (which for me often happens before actual intercourse - I am so spoiled - as well as during).
Now. I am a grown up and make grown up choices about sex. And I am willing and prepared to accept the natural consequences of those choices. But I do think that, in a perfect world, those consequences should be chosen. I also think that we should make it more possible for people to share sexual expression without taking on consequences they do not choose.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do think that, in a perfect world, those consequences should be chosen. I also think that we should make it more possible for people to share sexual expression without taking on consequences they do not choose.
And now we come back to one of the basic, but often misunderstood premises of freedom of choice:
We are free to make choices, but we are not free to choose the consequences.
I learned that one a LONG time ago ... although of course I'm still trying to find a way around it.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there are ways that we can shape those consequences. There is a difference in saying, "let's see how we can make this safer" and, "well just stop doing that". Which response we choose has to do with the value of the activity and the possibilities and costs of making the activity safer. For me, the "well just stop doing that" response to sex fails to take into consideration the enormous, non- procreative importance and value of sex.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'd like to see that actual argument, rather than just your assertion that this is so.
If we are assuming that there exists a rational purpose behind such an exclamation, the only non-punitive ones I can envision are to rally supporters or to vent emotion to prevent an even more hostile and/or violent erruption.
quote:Beyond that, are we even talking about the same thing any more?
Good question.
quote:The accusation made: Those who support a ban on abortion (or Plan B) and say such a ban does not require people to have a baby because there are alternative ways to not get pregnant want to punish women for having sex.
How does someone yelling something nasty at a bunch of protesters have anything to do with this contention?
It might, if there's an overlap between the former and the latter. A "visceral knee-jerk" response to matters isn't out of the question. In point of fact, I'm a little sceptical that this *isn't* what happens whenever someone agrees with every position of a party's political platform.
quote:I never contended that there is no desire to punish associated with banning abortion. Anyone who supports a ban most likely supports some punishment for those who violate it.
The question is whether the ban itself is intended as punishment.
Noted.
quote:All I've been trying to do is clarify this point. Do you agree that the desire to ban something one thinks is wrong is mostly like not an intent to use that ban as punishment for a totally different act?
I can't make an absolute statement of that. Again, consider poll tax.
quote:No, it's really not. Rather, it's not even a little bit difficult not to do so in print, here at Hatrack, in the midst of a discussion.
You sound injured, and I'm sorry for that. But I disagree on the point. Because I believe both sides often get to a point where what they want to say is, "How can you claim to not see or dismiss the consequences of what you're proposing? Are you a liar, or an imbecile?"
And I don't really think there's a good way to say that.
quote:The place where the greatest problem exists is not necessarily where the biggest impact can be had. Beyond that, you're original examples on this point make assumptions about what people consider "bad" that aren't warranted. I think deliberate killing is worse than accidental death. Many people likely think that greater equality here will allow more to be done for nations with almost none.
But if (admittedly a big "if") the results of correcting two different wrongs are materially identical, the desire to do one over the other delves into personal motivations that aren't easily quanifiable.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a group of pharmacists who have filed a lawsuit because they were fired (or were afraid of being fired) for not being willing to administer the MAP.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...I guess I should try to clarify a bit more.
I wasn't trying to convince people that sex isn't fun or spiritually fulfilling, or that those aspects of sex should be discounted.
I realize now that I should've stated my position as follows:
As the personal "cost" (considered from any and every angle) of getting pregnant goes up, it seems to me that the willingness to engage in activities that could lead to pregnancy (no matter how unlikely) should decrease.
My hope is that people are going to weigh the joy of sex (and the value of intimacy in their relationship) against the risks and they are going to make a decision. If they decide that the intimacy and spiritualness of coitus outweighs the downside risk of getting pregnant, that's their choice. I wasn't trying to say that people cannot or should not make those decisions.
Quite the opposite. If people are thinking about the risks and making informed decisions, and acting accordingly, I'm thinking we're going to have a lot fewer unwanted pregnancies.
edit: I'm sorry for the confusion. I didn't realize that I hadn't been saying this all along.
posted
Bob, thanks for clarifying. I haven't been saying anything this thread, because other people have been saying it much better than I could. But I really agree with your last post.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*bump* for Dagonee. As always, no rush, I just want to make sure you haven't forgotten. Shall I start a new thread? Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I think that's a valuable distinction to make. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
However, I might easily be able to "satisfy the sexual urge" without having sex with someone, but want to have sex with them anyway even though I also don't want that person to become pregnant. Bob could address my criticism by rephrasing #2 as "If you don't want to get pregnant but you do want to have sex, ..." ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
