Mixed Messages and Sex Without Condoms


An interview with Corinne Carey of the NYCLU about women in prison and health care. Also, is it okay to have sex without condoms in some circumstances and why can’t abstinence-only people get the story straight?

Subscribe to RealityCast:
RealityCast iTunes subscription
RealityCast RSS feed

Links in this episode:

Sex with no babies

Abstinence-only thong

FRC gets rattled

Masturbation is safe sex

Sex Without Condoms

NPR’s response segment

Post-birth abortions?

Transcript:
This week on Reality Cast, we’ll have an interview with Corinne Carey of the New York ACLU on women’s health care in the New York state jail system.  Also, a segment on mixed messages from the abstinence-only movement, and an author who doesn’t understand what the word "abortion" means, but doesn’t let that stop him from being very much against it.  And is it always wrong to talk about sex without condoms?

If you haven’t seen some of Sarah Haskins’ videos for the show infoMania, drop what you’re doing and check them out.  She is incredibly funny.  

  • insert target birth control *

Haskins should reconsider this comedy gig.  If she got into marketing and pitched this "Want sex but not babies?" idea to a client, they’d be falling all over her praising her brilliance for such an innovative campaign.

*********

There are many reasons for hostility against the abstinence-only movement, with the number one being the obvious one, which is that odds are they’re against you personally getting laid.  Then there’s the lying, and the maudlin religious piety.  And of course, there’s the sexist views that insult both men and women, by insinuating that men are nothing but sex-crazed beasts who need women to rein them in, and that women are nothing but marriage-minded simpletons who need to treat their bodies like currency to get the ring.  

But this week, let’s pick on them for being so freaking confusing.  They’re constantly sending out mixed messages. Of course, some of them are less mixed if you apply some analysis and assume that abstinence-only is more about pushing sexism than health care.  Let’s look at some examples.  This first one is a video from the National Women’s Law Center about a baffling abstinence-only product.  

  • insert wait wear *

Talk about a mixed message!  Be a virgin but wear underwear that was pretty much designed for sex.  Are they kidding?  But if you look at it from the perspective of a sexist, it actually makes perfect sense.  Sexist culture is all about giving women damned-if-you-damned-if-you-don’t standards, so that you’re always wrong, no matter what you’re doing.  You’re supposed to both be virginal so that your sexuality doesn’t threaten the scaredy-cat men, but you’re also supposed to be sexy so that they like to look at you.  At all points in time, you should be doing something wrong, either being too slutty or too prudish.  There’s no such thing as doing the right thing while being a woman.  Being a woman, at the end of the day, is where you screwed up.

But I’ll admit, this next example made me laugh even harder, but mostly because Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is such a baby that’s scared of his own shadow.  Planned Parenthood has some new videos out, and this is how Perkins describes the experience of watching them: Quote "the group posts a series of videos so revolting that members of my staff were visibly shaken."  End quote.

What’s in these videos?  Animals being slaughtered?  Sweat shops employing child labor?  Some religious conservative leader relaxing in his afterhours by spending time with gay prostitutes?  No, of course not.  That’s ordinary stuff.  This, however, is grueling.

  • insert I like me 1 *

Yep, the idea of women masturbating is enough to make the Family Research Council folks shake from fear.  As Ann at Feministing notes, the irony is that this video is actually made in support of the choice to abstain from sex.  

  • insert I like me 2 *

Perkins is probably mad that Planned Parenthood won’t play the role assigned by anti-cboicers.  Anti-choicers are forever claiming that pro-choice organizations are telling you that you have to have sex whether you want to or not, and here’s Planned Parenthood not only not doing that, but arguing that for some people, abstinence is indeed the right choice and that you should support that.  Of course, they’re realistic about what abstinence looks like, which is a whole lot of masturbation.  

But really, if you reframe this and realize that Perkins is, above all else, a raging sexist, then his fear and anger makes sense.  I mean, right there is the scariest message of all—a genuine female person saying that she likes herself without immediately falling on her sword in shame.  How can she like herself?  She’s a woman!  Didn’t anyone tell her that women aren’t likeable?  Add to it her belief that as a decent person worth being liked, it’s okay for her to feel pleasure, and you’re crossing all sorts of lines.  Next you’ll be saying a woman is as good as a man.

*************

  • insert interview *

**************

Oh boy, there’s nothing like talking about sex and young people to stir up an ugly controversy.  NPR’s Day to Day learned that when they had a short segment on for their "What’s the new what?" series.  Pendarvis Harshaw of Youth Radio was the host and he crossed the first line by not condemning the idea that a new generation might be creating its own sexual mores.  But alas, he gave his critics something to grab onto by invoking fears of disease.

  • insert sex without condoms *

I thought the segment was cute.  Harshaw wasn’t promoting irresponsible behavior.  The behavior he describes is actually right out of the healthy sexual behavior manual.  Use condoms until you’re in a committed relationship.  If you do decide to forgo, only do so if you’re in a monogamous relationship with someone you trust, and you are both tested for disease.  I thought it was refreshing and funny, and a way to promote healthy behavior without scolding or creating standards that are so high that people despair.
The segment revealed the high numbers of stuck-up old people with unabashedly racist attitudes that listen to NPR who are willing to complain.  Harshaw’s accent was mocked, as was the use of hip-hop music in the segment.  People grabbed at the disease excuse to rationalize their ignorant opinions.  Finally, NPR had to do a response segment.  

  • insert sex without condoms 2 *

Excuses, excuses.  People think the only tone you should address young people in is one that young people will immediately tune out—preaching at them, scolding them, and basically punishing them because they’re young and you’re not anymore.  That approach doesn’t do half as much in promoting responsible behavior as Harshaw’s, but it makes a bunch of cranky people feel superior, which is apparently more important than the public health.  The thing is that sex is fun, and if you don’t concede that it’s supposed to be fun and make it all seriousness all the time, people won’t listen to you.  

NPR went back and interviewed Harshaw about the whole dust-up, and here’s what he had to say.

  • insert sex without condoms 3 *

The whole situation makes me very uncomfortable.  Whenever I see someone complaining about the language or tone or sense of humor of a piece, I’ve learned enough at this point to realize that what they’re almost certainly objecting to is the content, but they’re too cowardly to say outright that’s what it is. So instead of dealing with the argument, they try to discredit the speaker.  So what did Harshaw say that upset people so much?  I think it was the implicit message of his piece, which is that there’s nothing wrong with sex, whether inside or outside of a committed relationship, but what’s important is taking care of your health.  And a lot of people don’t want to hear that.  They think that you should be ashamed of your sex life and suffer consequences if you have the sort of sex they don’t approve of.

That, or all the complainers were plants from the diamond industry.  If sex without condoms does replace the engagement ring as a sign of commitment, they do stand to lose a lot of money.

**********

And now for the Wisdom of Wingnuts, with this one being the what the hey edition.  And seriously, this is a what the hey.  Sean Hannity has been extensively interviewing some crazy right wing crank named Jerome Corsi, who belongs to the just-make-stuff-up school of research.  And this guy makes the strangest claim about Barack Obama’s position on, um, "abortion" rights.  

  • insert after abortion *

Yes, ladies and gentleman.  He just claimed that Obama voted to allow women to abort a pregnancy when they aren’t even pregnant because they gave birth.  I don’t know how that would work.  I mean, I’m sure there’s some convoluted anti-choice nonsense behind this that’s not even worth addressing, because really he’s making a definitional error.  You can’t terminate a pregnancy if you aren’t pregnant, full stop.  I’m not entirely sure how you can even engage with people in a debate with such a poor grasp on reality.  

 

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • invalid-0

    Here’s a place on the Current TV website where Sarah Haskins’ videos are listed. I second your rec – she’s amazing, and her point is spot on – want sex without the babies? So simple, and EXACTLY why people use contraception.
    http://current.com/topics/88794117_sarah_haskins

  • amanda-marcotte

    Abortion isn’t fun, and should be avoided if you can help it.  But because it’s an unpleasant surgery, not because fetuses are citizens and women aren’t.

     

    The pill is 99% effective, though, so the 1% of women who fall through the cracks every year deserve a back-up plan.  They were taking responsibility for themselves, so even the moralizers like yourself should accept that they don’t deserve to be punished with a baby for their "irresponsibility".

  • http://journals.aol.com/redwall33/TheMindofGenevieve/ invalid-0

    We could have a giant masturbation-fest in front of the ‘family’ research council’s office…that’d be funny.

    I don’t know, feeling mischievous today.

  • invalid-0

    Amanda,

    Your anger and vitriol is upsetting and demeaning to people who disagree with you. How can people engage in a civil problem solving discussion if they are constantly people insulted and attacked from people who disagree with them? Personally i think your point of view misses some facts. Pro-Life people do not consider a women any women including their own mothers and daughters to not be citizens. Their is a major focus on the “fetus” because people believe the “fetus” to be human. If a small child is human, then it should be granted the same human rights as other “fetuses”. There is a double standard in our country, an unborn child is protected if it is wanted. That is not fair, every unborn fetus should be protected from a violent death. Adoption although not an easy option either is available. Adoption is a better option because no one dies. I myself was adopted, i was given the right to live because the women who carried me in her body “choose” to give me life and have me adopted, rather then ending my fetal life, when i was just another fetus. “Women’s rights” is about choice, any person mother or father or friend, does not have the right to choose the death of an innocent person.

  • mellankelly1

    If a small child is human, then it should be granted the same human rights as other "fetuses".

    Okay, except that a small child does not have the right to force any person (including it’s parents) to undergo any form of bodily invasion.  Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that both common law and statutory law have long upheld the right of a person to refuse to allow others to invade his or her bodily integrity.  In essence, you are asking that a zygote/embryo/fetus be granted superior rights which no other person possesses and that is unconstitutional.

    Their is a major focus on the "fetus" because people believe the "fetus" to be human

    Nobody is arguing that the fertilized egg of a human is anything other than human – however, the sperm is human too and there is no "major focus" on that.  Clearly this is about more than being "human."

    Adoption although not an easy option either is available. Adoption is a better option because no one dies.

    Adoption can be a good option for the women willing to gestate a pregnancy… abortion can be a good option for the women who do not wish to remain pregnant.  Either way, no one dies.

    • http://www.igniteherpassion.com invalid-0

      …except that a small child does not have the right to force any person (including it’s parents) to undergo any form of bodily invasion.

      This argument might be valid if there was an invasion – in the case of pregnancy (with the exception of pregnancy by rape), there is more of an invitation. It’d be like inviting someone to live in your home and then shooting them in the night for trespassing.

      Men and women need to take responsibility for their actions. If you wish to enjoy sex, you are taking on the potential that a human being may be conceived as a result. Even if you use both condoms and the pill, there is still a .5% chance of a pregnancy. Even if you do not intend it, you know there is a chance. So – when a person is created as a result of you taking a chance, when you have invited that person into your body by taking that chance, you should not be able to say “no – get out – even if it means you die.” Adults need to take responsibility for their actions.

      It’d be like going to a casino to have some fun with the intent of winning – but then asking for your money back because of the financial hardship that may result if they keep the money you lost – you didn’t intend to lose that money – you just wanted to have fun. HEY – I’m gonna try that!

      If you don’t want a baby, or even a .5% risk of having one, then stay out of the kitchen – otherwise, accept that it may happen as much as you try to avoid it – and be prepared to take the responsibility for the life that is created as a result of your informed consensual act.

  • invalid-0

    Okay, except that a small child does not have the right to force any person (including it’s parents) to undergo any form of bodily invasion. Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that both common law and statutory law have long upheld the right of a person to refuse to allow others to invade his or her bodily integrity. In essence, you are asking that a zygote/embryo/fetus be granted superior rights which no other person possesses and that is unconstitutional.
    ****
    This gives a list of reasons why it is different with the fetus than with a born person to have a right to live in the mother’s body.
    http://www.arizonarighttolife.org/userfiles/File/violinist_factsheet.pdf

  • invalid-0

    Point by point rebuttal:

    1. Woman has consented to pregnancy by consenting to sex: Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy, and there is no rational basis for claiming that it is. This is no really no different from rape apologists who claim consent to pettings/kissing/a date equals consent to sex.

    2. Parental Obligation objection: Fails because parents are not obligated at any point after birth to allow their bodily integrity to be violated even if required to save their child’s life. There is no analogous parental obligation that could be extended backwards into gestation.

    3.Pregnancy not much of a burden: Fails because being confined to a hospital bed is not what makes the “violinist analogy” objectionable, but rather the co-opting of the woman’s bodily functions without her consent.

    4.Abortion is killing/ detaching an adult is “Letting die”: Nonsense, since we could just as easily suppose that the violinist would fight the removal, making it necessary to kill him to effect the removal. While the violinists’ death may not have been intended prior to his attachment, in his present state his death is very much a choice and therefore “intentional”.

    5. Fetus has a natural right to a woman’s body: This is what we call special pleading: making up a special exception by fiat. If a fetus has a natural right because they can survive nowhere else, then so too does the violinist. The idea that the fetus “belongs there” is not a decision for anyone but the woman to make. There is nowhere else for human head lice to live but on the human body, but this does not give them a “natural right” to live on your scalp.

    • invalid-0

      1. If anything, it is irrational believe that a woman can consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy.
      Sex does bond relationships, but that is largely to ensure effective procreation.

      Plus, assuming all sexual organs are working properly, all sex acts result in the passage of sperm into the woman’s body. Sperm has no other purpose except procreation.

      With child support, it makes no moral difference how much contraception the father used, unlike when a driver takes all reasonable precautions but still hits a child.
      That is because procreation is the result of the sex act working maximally well.

      So, if one wants child support laws, one must accept the teleological relationship between sex and procreation.

      2. What was the only method of nourishing newborns before the 1850s? BREASTFEEDING

      I cannot imagine that anyone would require a woman to take a lactation hormone in order to breastfeed a random violinist for nine months. But, it seems quite reasonable to require mothers to breastfeed their children if no other alternative exists.

      A kidney donation is an extraordinary measure. The need for it is caused by gross pathology, and most will never need one.

      Parents are not morally responsible for gross pathological aberrations in their children unless they directly contributed to them. As long as the parents take reasonable precautions to avoid the need for the transplant, they cannot normally be held morally responsible for the need.

      The same reasoning applies to parental liability limitations, since any condition causing such extreme damage is a gross pathological aberration the parents did not directly induce.

      The parents may not withhold from the child the opportunity to receive a new kidney — they must seek medical care for the child (in fact, whoever is in custody would have to do this whether he/she is the parent or not). But they are not obliged to provide a kidney themselves; they did not directly induce the need.

      5. Lice have no moral rights, so we can dispense with that analogy. The uterus exists for no other purpose except housing the baby. The woman’s body also helped produce the baby. None of these apply to the violinist.

      It is very clear once teleology is allowed in that consent to sex does give any resulting child the right to the woman’s uterus whether or not she intends pregnancy.

      • invalid-0

        1. Care to offer any kind of substantive argument to your ridiculous claim that a woman consent to pregnancy when they consent to sex. Any woman will tell you there have been many times they have wanted to have sex and not wanted to be pregnant. The fact that the average woman will have sex hundreds to thousands of times in her life an seldom have more than a handful of children ought to inform you that childbirth is not part and parcel of sex.

        Your child-support tangent is bizarre. You are aware, aren’t you, that a responsible driver taking sensible precautions is still liable for damage he causes in a collision. The civil liability is the same. I fail to see any point of disharmony here.

        2. It’s called a wet-nurse, genius. Therefore your claim that no other alternative existed is false, and further irrelevant since formula does now exist. My point that there exists no post-birth obligation by parents to extend backwards into gestation stands.

        As long as the parents take reasonable precautions to avoid the need for the transplant, they cannot normally be held morally responsible for the need.

        So parents don’t have any responsibility to provide their child with medical care if they aren’t responsible for the pathology? Ridiculous! You’re all over the map!

        5.

        Lice have no moral rights, so we can dispense with that analogy.

        Why not? Another case of special pleading? You’re claiming that the fetus has a right to its mother’s body because that’s the only place it can naturally survive. The same is true of human head lice and the human head.

        The uterus exists for no other purpose except housing the baby.

        Not that one in particular, therefore the analogy fails. The fact women have stomachs doesn’t mean you get to force-feed them, either.

        It is very clear once teleology is allowed in that consent to sex does give any resulting child the right to the woman’s uterus whether or not she intends pregnancy.

        Why allow teleology? Why should anyone besides the woman herself be allowed to determine the purpose of her uterus?

  • invalid-0

    The link above raises an interesting argument:

    On a cold January night in Minnesota, just after the turn of the twentieth century, Orland Dupue asked the Flateuas
    if he could stay with them for the night. Dupue had been invited as their guest and had dined with them earlier. He had
    also become sick and fainted earlier. Nevertheless, the Flateaus refused and, left in the cold, Dupue contracted frostbite and
    lost his fingers. A civil suit was brought and the court ruled that the Flateaus were indeed liable for Dupue’s injuries. The
    judge in the case said, “The law as well as humanity required that he not be exposed in his helpless condition to the
    merciless elements,”

    I find this amusing not only because it fails completely on the grounds of not involving an invasion of bodily integrity, but also because it makes you wonder how the anti-choice crowd would feel about being obligated to foot the bill to support every unwanted child ever conceived.

  • mellankelly1

    This gives a list of reasons why it is different with the fetus than with a born person to have a right to live in the mother’s body.

    See… I was talking about real life and you use a fairy tale as rebuttal.  You need to stick with the issue at hand, that being common law, statutory law, pregnancy and bodily integrity in order to properly refute my statements.  Unless, of course, you believe in fairy tales.

  • invalid-0

    Many of us are already helping pay for the needs of those children conceived, not aborted, and left destitute by the scumbags who think its their right to F**K without consequence.

    And yes, there are plenty of us who support income redistribution and other “commie” ideas. :)

    • invalid-0

      Apparently, pro-life atheist, you thought it was your right to ‘f**k without consequence’ – otherwise you would have used a condom and/or refused sex if your partner wasn’t using some kind of contraception. If you’re not going to take any responsibility, then you’re in no position to whine.

  • amanda-marcotte

    People say to me, "Amanda, but there’s a couple of atheists out there who are anti-choice.  What do you say to that?"  And I say, "Well, the fear of sexuality and bitterness that people are having sex without being punished knows no religion."

     

    Indeed.  I’m sorry if you are jealous and bitter, and I sympathize.  But holding the entire female half of the human race prisoner by unjust laws forcing them to give birth against their will—because you’re bitter that other people are out there having sex—is no solution.Why not put that energy into improving your sex life instead of trying to ruin the lives of others?

  • harry834

    "The idea that the fetus "belongs there" is not a decision for anyone but the woman to make. "

    Spot on, DL. The decision is the woman’s because she has to bear the physical, emotional, and sacrificial consequences that are unlike any obligation a government could place on its ciitzens.

    Also, pro-lifers should explain why women who have abortions are allowed to escape jail if other murderers are not. If your sympathy is your rationale, then let her lawyer tell that to the judge and jury – like any murderer’s defense.

    Calling abortion "murder" has been the central cry to make laws and activists keep women from terminating their pregnancies – thus forcing pregnancy on the unwilling. If pro-lifers cannot treat this "murder" like murder, then what is the rationale for forcing pregnancy on unwilling women?

    Because only some women can claim regret. Not all women can. Abnd the voices we never hear are the mothers who wish they did have an abortion.

    It’s naive to think those women don’t exist. If you want to disregard their voices, then say so. Then say why.

     

  • http://www.diamond-rings.co.nz invalid-0

    People, it is actually the choice of the person who carries the fetus on whether they want this to grow in their stomach and then be responsible for it for the rest of their lives. Its not your choice. If one day medical science allows us to transfer the fetus to the body of the anti-abortionist, then they can have their say a little more. Not to then mention the anti-abortionist needs to look after this child for the rest of their life. Especially if handicapped. Pull your heads in, the fetus doesnt have the right, the person carrying it does, it is invading their body and their life.

    Jake
    http://www.diamond-rings.co.nz

  • mellankelly1

    Plus, assuming all sexual organs are working properly, all sex acts result in the passage of sperm into the woman’s body. Sperm has no other purpose except procreation.

    That is simply untrue (for example, some women prefer to spit - ergo, no sperm in her body) there are many sex acts that do not result in sperm entering into a woman’s body.  Even sexual intercourse doesn’t always result in the ejaculate entering the woman’s body.

    It is very clear once teleology is allowed in that consent to sex does give any resulting child the right to the woman’s uterus whether or not she intends pregnancy

    Very clear?  No, irrespective of teleology, a pregnancy has no "rights" to speak of.  A pregnant woman, however, has every right to decide the course of her pregnancy.

  • invalid-0

    I was referring strictly to vaginal sex. If the woman had only had correctly executed oral sex, anal sex or withdrawal sex, she would not be pregnant!

    Of course, when condoms are used or the partner is impotent, sperm may not enter. But use of condoms is obscuring the proper function of sex. Obscuring the proper function may not be wrong in itself, but one is still responsible for the child’s neediness if the precautions fail.

    I did not say that the pregnancy has rights, but that the baby has rights. The woman engaged in an act ordered towards the creation of babies that always need the womb for nine months and will be placed there by nature if unobstructed. That is the source of the child’s rights to the womb.

    Do you believe men are morally obliged to pay child support regardless of precautions taken? They only way to reasonably answer yes is to allow teleology in (or at least acknowledge that procreation results from the sex act working maximally well).

    Do you believe that mothers would be obligated to breastfeed their children if no alternatives existed, even though it involves major alterations of several of a woman’s body systems (maybe it was 200 years ago and no other woman in the village was available to act as a wetnurse).

    • invalid-0

      And the woman has no right to say no to vaginal sex – that’s what her vagina is for, so the man has a teleological right.

    • mellankelly1

      I was referring strictly to vaginal sex. If the woman had only had correctly executed oral sex, anal sex or withdrawal sex, she would not be pregnant!

      Oh… you should take care to write what you mean.  "All sex acts" is a far cry from unprotected vaginal sex. 

      Of course, when condoms are used or the partner is impotent, sperm may not enter. But use of condoms is obscuring the proper function of sex. Obscuring the proper function may not be wrong in itself, but one is still responsible for the child’s neediness if the precautions fail.

      I think it’s great that you feel that the proper function of (vaginal) sex is to procreate.  I just happen to disagree with you on that point.  I think sex can be had for many different reasons depending on the person, the relationship, the time, place and many other factors.  Further, the only time one could be considered responsible for a child is when there is a child present.

      I did not say that the pregnancy has rights, but that the baby has rights.

      Oh good.  I agree, babies have rights.  Also, women have rights too… even the pregnant ones… even when the pregnancy is unwanted.  We should protect the rights of these women.

      The woman engaged in an act ordered towards the creation of babies that always need the womb for nine months and will be placed there by nature if unobstructed. That is the source of the child’s rights to the womb.

      What the who now?  Pregnancies do not have rights… pregnant women do.  Didn’t we just go through this?

      Do you believe men are morally obliged to pay child support regardless of precautions taken? They only way to reasonably answer yes is to allow teleology in (or at least acknowledge that procreation results from the sex act working maximally well).

      False.  You could reasonably answer yes for any number of reasons.  That’s like saying, men have a right to our vagina’s due to the fact that  procreation results from the sex act working maximally well and therefor should have access to our vagina’s any time this urge (or "design in nature" if you will) appears.  Insane in the brain.

      Do you believe that mothers would be obligated to breastfeed their children if no alternatives existed, even though it involves major alterations of several of a woman’s body systems (maybe it was 200 years ago and no other woman in the village was available to act as a wetnurse).

      No, I do not.  I do believe that women generally love and are bonded to their newborns and even if the desire wasn’t there would choose to breastfeed if no other alternative existed.  What a bizarre little scenario you’ve imagined.

    • sayna

      What a joke. You want to control women’s bodies but you haven’t got the slightest clue as to how they work! You said that women urinate through our vaginas and now you list “withdrawal sex” as seperate from vaginal sex:

      If the woman had only had correctly executed oral sex, anal sex or withdrawal sex, she would not be pregnant!

      I mean, it’s bad enough that you want to control my body, which does not belong to you and whose sensations you will never feel, but you don’t even know basic facts about it and seem to have only a vague idea of how it works. How insulting!

      Furthermore, your arguments against bodily domain are flawed.

      But use of condoms is obscuring the proper function of sex. Obscuring the proper function may not be wrong in itself, but one is still responsible for the child’s neediness if the precautions fail.

      The “proper” function of sex? There is no such thing. If you are suggesting that reproduction is the “proper” function of sex then you are making a logical fallacy called appeal to nature, or the naturalistic fallacy. Your argument is flawed because nature does not determine what is good, moral, or “proper”. And besides, it defeats your point about non-vaginal sex because one could argue that sex is not the natural or “proper” use of the organs involved.

      You’ve also made the often-debunked claim that consent to sex is irrevocable consent to pregnancy.

  • invalid-0

    If a woman is to be held responsible for the pregnancy – then she is fully responsible for both the desired (healthy viable newborn) and bad outcomes, which can include the conditions such as the malfunctioning of the babys kidneys due to malformation in utero, etc. Naturally not all pregnancies result in healthy newborns. Both cases are outcomes of the sex that results in pregnancy – she is just as responsible for both.

  • invalid-0

    and therefore just as responsible for its need for a kidney transplant.

  • invalid-0

    Likewise the man involved, he might be the right match.

  • http://www.automatedfitness.com/ invalid-0

    You’ve really broken down these interviews very well and if any of these hypocrites were to read this you’d see them watching themselves much closer.

  • invalid-0

    No, the vagina exists initially for the woman’s purposes (to expel urine). Her body is not programmed to bring a man involuntarily to her vagina as it is programmed to bring the fetus she makes into the uterus.
    You need to address the breastfeeding analogy and child support laws to have a good argument.

  • invalid-0

    No, a child needing the uterus for nine months is the result of sex working maximally well. A kidney transplant need is a defect. If reasonable precautions are used to prevent a defect (that would be caring properly for the child), then one cannot be held morally responsible for it (careful driver hitting innocent pedestrians).
    Unless you would allow the woman in my scenario to refuse to breastfeed, you will have to accept my distinctions.

  • invalid-0

    No, the vagina exists initially for the woman’s purposes (to expel urine). Her body is not programmed to bring a man involuntarily to her vagina as it is programmed to bring the fetus she makes into the uterus. Once the sperm is in, her body makes the baby!
    Plus, the man does not need the vagina to survive.
    The uterus has no use to the woman at all other than sustaining an unborn child.
    Also, I will stress again, THE WOMAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD’S NEED TO BE IN HER UTERUS. That is how the child acquired the right to be in the uterus.
    Rape pregnancies may be different in this regard. Design of the woman’s body may not be enough ON ITS OWN to disallow abortion (no responsibility for the child’s neediness). However, I am dealing with typical pregnancies here.
    What are your grounds for treating child support differently from the careful driver who hits innocent pedestrians? You MUST HAVE SOME GROUNDS for garnishing a man’s paycheck.
    The teleology of sex seems to be all that does the trick.
    I said that having sex without procreative intent is not in itself wrong since it does not harm an existing person. But if children result, that does not mean they are not responsible for the children’s neediness.
    I do not see how my breastfeeding scenario is bizarre. Women abandon their babies all the time (though most do not).

  • invalid-0

    No, instead sex working maximally well ends up in the majority of embryos failing to make it through 9 months, counting both those that fail to implant and those that miscarry later. All other outcome are outcomes of sex too. The maximal one (failures) and the minimal ones (health conditions and successful, healthy ones) If you have sex and are responsible for the outcome then you are responsible for all consequences, not just the ones you happen to like the best.

    I haven’t heard of any law that would force a woman to breastfeed…nor a law that forbids breastfeeding when a woman is also sexually active since it can change the uterine lining causing a newly formed embryo not to be able to implant successfully.

  • invalid-0

    There is a reasonable precaution here to take in order to not have that same bad outcome from pregnancy, and that is to not have sex ever…

  • invalid-0

    The vagina has nothing to do with urine, that’s the womans urinary tract. The vagina exists for sex. The woman (and man) were biologically programmed at puberty with a drive for sex. Abstinence classes try to convince teens to overcome these natural hormonal drives.

    I’m not sure where you are going with the child support. Child support laws are just that…if two parents disagree on the provision of life saving medical care to treat a natural occurring condition, the disagreeing parent is not off the hook for child support if the child survives longer than what even nature (and the dissenting parents decision) would have allowed. The continued existence of this child following intervention is not due to sex at this point. Its was also never dependent on sex working ‘maximally well’ because when sex works in nature it ends up with more flushed out dead embryos – you happen to like a specific outcome so you are giving it a label to your liking – but nature ends up with a different one. As with the decision for life saving medical intervention for a child, if a woman wants to gestate a fetus to term thats her right to do so and the man, though he may dissent, will have responsibilities to the child.

    Both sides of breastfeeding addresses above.

  • invalid-0

    There is a good discussion on this out on Austin Clines blog about teleology, other risks, the legal right to life, and moral rights over ones body.

    http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/07/28/teleology-and-abortion.htm

  • invalid-0

    meaning, you believe having sex is consent yet bad outcomes are a part of this… so you try this as your precaution and attempt to overcome your sex drive all of your life, never having sex ever..even under the excuse to breed as this leads to embryo that flush out or health consequences occurring in pregnancy, etc…. then you will not be morally responsible for these bad outcomes of pregnancy that you just as much ‘consented’ to as to the outcomes you happened to desire.

  • invalid-0

    The vagina has a double purpose. It allows for sex and the expulsion of urine. However, I noted that design is not enough alone (breastfeeding the violinist example).

    In order to be ethical, child support laws require the father to be responsible for the child’s neediness. If the father is only responsible for the child’s existence but not the neediness-given-existence (per Harry Silverstein and David Boonin)there is no more basis to force him to support his children than there is to make doctors support patients they have saved.

    Also, there has to be a reason to say that the number of precautions he took is irrelevant (unlike other contexts, like careful driver hitting innocent pedestrians). The only option is to accept that sex is ordered towards procreation.

    If the father is not responsible for the child’s existence (you reject my argument and he took plenty of reasonable precautions) we cannot ethically charge him child support either.

    Parents should have no right to refuse consent to life-saving medical treatment (in fact, the courts have overruled parents on occasion). Failing to seek medical care for a child is violating his/her rights (even if the guardian did not cause the illness, this is part of guardianship regardless of relationship to the child). In fact, if you were to find an sick infant on your doorstep, you would be morally obliged to seek medical care for it.

    If a child dies due to lack of life-saving care, he/she will be dead due to a violation of his/her rights. A parent cannot violate his/her child’s rights to avoid financial obligations.

  • invalid-0

    The process of procreation failed when the child dies. Procreation works maximally well when the child is born.

    I am not discussing desired outcomes. When discussing abortion, the only pregnancies in question are unwanted ones! Neither a healthy child or an unhealthy child was a desired outcome!

    Are the parents automatically morally responsible for the fact that a mentally ill child of theirs attacks others through no choice of the child’s?

    NO.

    They are only responsible if they did something to directly contribute to the grossly pathological state given that the child already exists (because procreation is not in itself bad). Our laws reflect this. Victims’ families cannot go after the parents in court based solely on the fact that the parents brought the attacker into existence.

    However, the father is morally responsible for the child’s need for food, shelter, etc. All children need that! No gross pathology is needed to cause that.

    Your logic would allow no distinction. Which way do you want it?

  • invalid-0

    Today, it is not really an issue, since formula exists. In the scenario above, I think the court should punish the woman.
    A sexually active woman who breastfeeds is doing what is best for the newborn. There is no one in existence at that point. So, the doctrine of double-effect kicks in.
    Morally, she should abstain from sex during the most fertile part of her cycle in that situation.

  • invalid-0

    This post is not totally coherent. The point is the mother’s responsibility for the child’s neediness.
    Do you believe in child support laws? If sex is an absolute necessity, we have no justification for charging fathers child support.
    No one would agree with charging a raped man child support, or one whose sperm was stolen, even though the man would be biologically related to the child. We have to have a basis for distinguishing men who consented to sex from these men.
    Plus, the extremely pathologic outcomes I have described are extremely rare.

  • invalid-0

    This is interesting, since he says explicitly that he only discusses legality and not morality.
    He does not argue that there can be no moral basis for the argument I am making, only that no legal basis exists.
    Judith Thomson wants her argument to succeed morally as well as legally.

  • invalid-0

    On the contrary, in the comments discussion of Austin Clines blog he does too address morality.

  • mellankelly1

    No, the vagina exists initially for the woman’s purposes (to expel urine).

    Baby… there has not been and never will be urine expelled from my vagina (or any other woman’s vagina, for that matter.)  It sounds to me like you have no idea the vast differences between a woman’s reproductive system and her urinary system.  The Urethra and the Vagina are two separate body parts – a penis would never, ever (under any circumstances) enter the Urethra.  A woman’s vagina is for sexual pleasure… a woman’s urethra is for the expulsion of urine… a woman’s uterus would be where the zygote/embryo/fetus would reside.

    Her body is not programmed to bring a man involuntarily to her vagina as it is programmed to bring the fetus she makes into the uterus.[emphasis mine]

    Seriously?  You seriously believe that a fetus travels from the vagina to the uterus?  Please do yourself a favor and check the link I provided above which explains the female reproductive system (note: a fetus does not travel from the vagina to the uterus.)

    Rape pregnancies may be different in this regard. Design of the woman’s body may not be enough ON ITS OWN to disallow abortion (no responsibility for the child’s neediness). However, I am dealing with typical pregnancies here

    Just so we’re clear here… there is no difference between a pregnancy that was the result of rape and a pregnancy that was the result of consensual sex.  Rest assure, the moral or physical status of the zygote/embryo/fetus is exactly the same in both scenarios… the only difference would be the circumstances surrounding the intercourse.

    What are your grounds for treating child support differently from the careful driver who hits innocent pedestrians?

       I do not see how my breastfeeding scenario is bizarre.

    After reading that you believe the vagina to serve the purpose of not only expelling urine, but carrying a fetus to the uterus.. your breastfeeding scenario and comparing child support to an automobile-pedestrian accident appear relatively normal.

  • invalid-0

    The vagina has a double purpose. It allows for sex and the expulsion of urine.

    So, are you trying to find women who are willing to talk with you online about their genitals or are you just another product of abstinence only sex education…

  • invalid-0

    I did not say that the fetus is created near the vagina. That is really not the issue.

    I was talking about genitalia.

    Plus, the difference I described does not relate to the error in terminology.

    Thomson’s argument tries to completely sidestep the moral status of the baby. There is no moral status difference a violinist who is hooked up to a stranger who is not responsible for his neediness and one who is hooked up to one who is responsible for his neediness.

    But, the stranger’s responsibility might differ.

  • invalid-0

    That is not enough of an argument. You need to address the child support issues I raised. The only way to justify ignoring precautions taken is to acknowledge a special relationship between sex and procreation.

    Also, my argument is concerned with responsibility for the child’s neediness.

    I will make sure to separate consent from responsibility. I believe the latter is the relevant issue.

    The naturalistic fallacy does not refer to natural consequences. Certainly, we should not kill each other just because it happens in nature. But, people are responsible for the natural consequences of their actions (sure, they can avoid accepting the consequences if there is an ethical way to do so, such as medical care. But, such does not current exist with abortion).

  • invalid-0

    OK, I should have said genitalia instead of vagina. However, the RESPONSIBILITY portions of my argument are unaffected.

  • invalid-0

    Again, GENITALIA is what I meant when I referred to the vagina.
    Regardless, the woman’s body is not intrinsically ordered towards the donation of the vagina to a SPECIFIC man the way it is towards the nurturing of the particular unborn child her body produced.
    Though, design is not adequate anyway. The issue is RESPONSIBILITY FOR NEEDINESS.

  • invalid-0

    This is not the issue. I checked the link and realized I should have used “genitals” instead of vagina. But, that does not relate much to my argument, especially the responsibility issues.

  • invalid-0

    Yes she does. She can do so without harming an existing innocent person.
    The man is violating her because the woman did nothing to cause his “need” to rape, so she is not obligated to provide the use of her vagina.

  • invalid-0

    To make myself clear. Substitute “genitals” wherever I have used the word “vagina.”
    Though, the main points of my argument are unaffected.
    People were right to correct me. But, they should not be using ad hominem arguments to try to argue against my position. They need to provide an alternative justification for child support laws and other issues I have raised. One could bite the bullet (as some have), but that seems such a high price to pay for consistency.
    Another clarification: my primary issue is responsibility for the child’s neediness, not consent to pregnancy

  • invalid-0

    Yes my post is coherent. I’m simply breaking down each of your arguments one by one. If you have sex there is consent according to your own writing (I’m using your own framing of sex but including all outcomes and recognize that the man is part of the sex act too) knowing that this will occur you consented to these deaths….so it is also consent to create embryonic death. Please abstain from sex for life, knowing that you will cause more embryos to die than ever bring to term.

    Its funny how you come to the same abstinence conclusion for the breastfeeding mom to prevent these deaths but call me incoherent for holding you accountable…I will give you the same break during the woman’s infertile period if you can guarantee this will not lead to conceptions but that also means you can never breed. And giving the option to have sex during the infertile periods would also make room for your other argument – teleology. The man would still retain a teleological right to the vagina itself (I was never referring to genitals – only the vagina) at least during her infertile times. The teleological right to a vagina would have to hold in this instance, the vagina is for penile sex.

    My use of ‘desired’ has nothing to do with the womans perspective at all. I’m not challenging the woman here. Its all your arguments. You are using sex as your frame and I’m arguing along the frame, just as DL disagreed that sex denotes consent and you responded about sex. Phrases like ‘maximally well’ are nothing but your own value judgements. Someone who doesn’t want to get pregnant thinks sex (and procreation) works maximally well when the embryos flush out prior to full term gestation.

    I’m not sure how your victims families thing has anything to do with what I was saying at all. I haven’t discussed anything actions a child might do after its born.


    I still haven’t heard of any punishment (and no moral outrage leading to a law) for your breastfeeding 1850s example. On the breastfeeding issue if you do believe that life begins at conception then yes an embryo does exist in the breastfeeding provided. But again you do want the woman to abstain during her fertile times because she creates a embryos that can’t implant but you won’t except abstinence for yourself due to the same outcome – the act of sex DOES creates a majority of embryos that don’t fully implant… We’ll call your moral indictment of woman while ignoring your own morality ‘the doctrine of double standard morality’.

    Yes you explain your rendition of the child support issue and I’ve also responded. In addition, there are plenty of philosophers that have opinions on child support and abortion. You happen to not like Judith Jarvis Thomson even though her analogy has no bearing on child support. As for Boonin in his final analysis in A Defense of Abortion, I have that book, and in his section where he challenges the child support vs. abortion arguments I see a totally different conclusion both morally and legally than you seem to have. Also child support is never a bodily integrity invasion, no parent is ever obligated in such a way even if they could be said to put them at risk and responsible for the dependency.
  • invalid-0

    I address the child support in the comment above. My read on Boonin in his A Defense of Abortion book in the section on Child Support is that he makes a compelling final argument against what you are trying to claim on child support arguments. Boonin has a nice writeup on the physical use of bodies and bodily integrity in that same child support section.

    In the case of IVF created embryos, we don’t hold the scientist responsible for child support even though the existence of the child is a direct result (and impossible without) the scientist. The IVF clinics are not a party in child support even though it takes the consent of three parties in this scenario to create that embryo and the direct actions of the IVF clinic.

    I didn’t say that a parent can refuse to provide life saving medical care – I just said they can disagree with it – they have the right to an opinion and if they don’t get their preference they still have to pay child support when nature is overridden and the child lives longer than nature would have provided. Just as a man might disagree with a pregnancy, the prenatal interventions she takes that override nature and cause a child to come into existence that naturally wouldn’t, or womans refusal to abort after he’s had sex, and even if he used precautions. Once his sperm occupies her body, even if he took precautions, she has the say over the course of the pregnancy.

    Sex (or procreation if you now prefer) is more orderered toward embryos being created and not implanting. Like Mellankelly1 below, I too disagree with you on the meaning of sex and you will find many who similarly disagree (and some that agree too). Sex means different things to different people and they value different components.

    If you think abortion is morally wrong, that’s your belief. I believe a person has a moral right to their own body no matter how you wish to try and slice and dice women’s bodily domain or find excuses to dismiss the other risks taken that you don’t care about (even your driving example does this – DL has a great post in another thread on RH about driving and moral implications, even if you want to excuse taking risks with words like ‘careful’). I find it immoral to compel a woman any way in her pregnancy – whether this is to carry it to term, terminate the pregnancy, or accept/be denied medical interventions to save a pregnancy. I find it morally wrong to uphold the right to life over anothers body only when that is a woman and only when it is a fetus.

  • invalid-0

    Womens bodies are more ordered toward menstruation and flushing out embryos – it happens more often. And a womans body doesn’t care about specific embryos – in fact the later in the womans cycle she has sex the more likely the embryo will not implant due solely to her body and nothing to do with the embryo. It just so happens that when a pregnancy occurs there usually is a single embryo in there at a time. Just like she has sex with only one man in her vagina at a time.

  • invalid-0

    Right on Sayna,

    Not everyone agrees that abortion is unethical. Many people believe it is unethical and immoral to impose laws on womens bodies, even if it is for the benefit of another. At the link I posted above it addresses some of these same issues like neediness, etc in the comments.

  • mellankelly1

    I did not say that the fetus is created near the vagina. That is really not the issue.

    Silly boy… this is what you said: "Her body is not programmed to bring a man involuntarily to her vagina as it is programmed to bring the fetus she makes into the uterus."  – again, the emphasis is mine.  You clearly have no idea what the purpose of the vagina is (psst… it’s where the penis goes during vaginal intercourse.)  You simply cannot be taken seriously when discussing the female reproductive system.  This is no fault of mine, dear.

    I was talking about genitalia

    Your statement that "No, the vagina exists initially for the woman’s purposes (to expel urine)."  would still be untrue considering that the genitalia are the organs of the reproductive system (not the urinary system.)

     Plus, the difference I described does not relate to the error in terminology.

    At the very least, it certainly calls into question the validity of your premise when you are so clearly misinformed about the female reproductive system.

  • mellankelly1

    To make myself clear. Substitute "genitals" wherever I have used the word "vagina."
    Though, the main points of my argument are unaffected.

    Mike… this is the last time but here it goes: the female genitalia consists of the organs of the reproductive system (not the urinary system) ergo, even if you replace "genitalia" for "vagina", your statement: "No, the vagina [genitalia] exists initially for the woman’s purposes (to expel urine)." - would still be inaccurate.  Please, learn about a subject prior to debating it.  Misinformation does not help you… it calls into question the validity of your statements (all of them.)

    They need to provide an alternative justification for child support laws and other issues I have raised

    Child support laws are put in place to support children.  There are no children involved in the termination of a pregnancy.  No man has ever been forced to pay zygote, embryo or fetus support (nor does there exist "unborn child" support.)  Your analogy is flawed to say the least.  Once you can address these facts in addition to the proper function of the reproductive system/Urinary system it will become clear that your argument is a logical fallacy.

  • mellankelly1

    This argument might be valid if there was an invasion – in the case of pregnancy (with the exception of pregnancy by rape), there is more of an invitation. It’d be like inviting someone to live in your home and then shooting them in the night for trespassing.

    Okay.  First, I wasn’t suggesting that a fetus invades a woman’s body and it’s asinine to make the statement that anyone would be dense enough to infer that.  Making the completely accurate statement that a person (including a child) does not have the legal right to force another person (even it’s parents) to undergo any form of bodily invasion (even a blood test) is relevant to the discussion involving bodily autonomy.  Still don’t get the reference?  No person (including the government or anti-abortion extremists) may encroach upon another persons body.   Further, you cannot pretend to be concerned by the moral status of a fertilized egg and then make the statement that the same fertilized egg would suddenly lose it’s moral status simply due to the circumstances surrounding the intercourse (your exception for rape).  It is quite clear from reading your piffle that your issue is not protecting the innocent life of the zygote/embryo/fetus but your contempt for what you consider to be the improper behaviour of women.

     

    Also, comparing the emotional and physical effects of pregnancy, childbirth and a lifetime of child rearing to a night at the casino is utterly classless.

  • invalid-0

    Of course Mellankelly1, just like asking for your money back from the person you gambled with, every woman is clamoring for the men they have sex with to return the vaginal fluids they gave him during the sex act. Isn’t that what you’ve been arguing for? And it’s a moral outrage that we’re missing laws on the books in order to force financial burdens from gambling losses to be endured – gamblers are currently allowed to take other means such as a second job or moving in with a friend to try to overcome and restore the financial situation where possible (just as some of us believe the woman has the right to restore her state). Of course, neither of the examples given addressed the issue you actually brought up which is that bodily integrity is never breached to maintain the life of another….as if we hadn’t already discussed ‘consent’ … now a word change to ‘invitation’ – it doesn’t effect the examples from various commenters above or in the blog link I posted (decision to drive, other decisions/risks/chance and outcomes with the right to life never enforced over anothers body).

  • http://www.igniteherpassion.com invalid-0

    Also, comparing the emotional and physical effects of pregnancy, childbirth and a lifetime of child rearing to a night at the casino is utterly classless.

    It was an analogy: a-n-a-l-o-g-y. To make a point. Ok? I would say that throwing around angry insults in the midst of an intelligent conversation is classless. But that’s ok – you are obviously very passionate about this – as am I.

    First: I would never presume to be the judge of the behavior of anyone. And I do not single out women (although I could see how you might take that since I did not mention the father’s roll – I’ll say it now – the father needs to accept responsibility as well).

    People are going to do what they do – and that’s fine. All I am saying is that if you are going to do adult things, and you know the potential consequences of your actions, then you need to take responsibility for your actions and the outcomes as an adult.

    So: if you want to have sex out of wedlock – or in wedlock – then you need to be aware that a child – a human being – may be the result. And if the result is a human being, then you need to take the responsibility.

    As far as the casino analogy, I was not saying that a night at the casino compares to the emotional and physical effects of pregnancy, etc. But I was saying that you have to accept personal responsibility the potential outcomes or risks of certain actions – be it gambling, having sex, driving drunk, getting married, taking out a loan, breaking the law, or any other decision in life. Also – as far as a lifetime of rearing a child: let’s not forget the option of adoption.

    At this point you may be thinking I am against sex. I am not. I think sex is GREAT! I have three children and would rather not have any more – so my wife and I are careful not to get pregnant. She would have a hard time (she is very small), but would be ok in the end if she had another baby – but she does not want another. However, we both know that there IS a chance we could get pregnant. If we do, guess what? We will accept the responsibility and have a baby (and pray that he/she is healthy – but will care for and love any outcome).

    As far as the statement about rape – I mentioned it because in the case of rape, my argument about taking responsibility for your actions does not hold water. As far as the moral implications of abortion in cases of rape, I have a hard time with that – I simply don’t know.

    You rather eloquently made the point that no human being has a legal right to force another person to undergo any form of bodily invasion. Wouldn’t a pregnant woman wanting to get an abortion be forcing bodily invasion on her unborn child? Does your argument work both ways?

    I think that one of the things that is lacking today is support for single pregnant women. I have a friend who has had an abortion, if any of the nurses or doctors at her clinic cared enough to ask her “are you sure, honey – do you want to talk about this?” She would have changed her mind – she was hoping for someone to say something and show they cared – because she had NO ONE to support her or talk to. Do I judge her? – Absolutely not. So – there are many issues to resolve, including providing more caring, love and support for women who have gotten into a tough spot.

  • http://www.igniteherpassion.com invalid-0

    Note – this is a re-post of my comment because I forgot to hit “reply” to “Seriously” – my apologies.

    Also, comparing the emotional and physical effects of pregnancy, childbirth and a lifetime of child rearing to a night at the casino is utterly classless.

    It was an analogy: a-n-a-l-o-g-y. To make a point. Ok? I would say that throwing around angry insults in the midst of an intelligent conversation is classless. But that’s ok – you are obviously very passionate about this – as am I.

    First: I would never presume to be the judge of the behavior of anyone. And I do not single out women (although I could see how you might take that since I did not mention the father’s roll – I’ll say it now – the father needs to accept responsibility as well).

    People are going to do what they do – and that’s fine. All I am saying is that if you are going to do adult things, and you know the potential consequences of your actions, then you need to take responsibility for your actions and the outcomes as an adult.

    So: if you want to have sex out of wedlock – or in wedlock – then you need to be aware that a child – a human being – may be the result. And if the result is a human being, then you need to take the responsibility.

    As far as the casino analogy, I was not saying that a night at the casino compares to the emotional and physical effects of pregnancy, etc. But I was saying that you have to accept personal responsibility the potential outcomes or risks of certain actions – be it gambling, having sex, driving drunk, getting married, taking out a loan, breaking the law, or any other decision in life. Also – as far as a lifetime of rearing a child: let’s not forget the option of adoption.

    At this point you may be thinking I am against sex. I am not. I think sex is GREAT! I have three children and would rather not have any more – so my wife and I are careful not to get pregnant. She would have a hard time (she is very small), but would be ok in the end if she had another baby – but she does not want another. However, we both know that there IS a chance she could get pregnant. If we do, guess what? We will accept the responsibility and have a baby (and pray that he/she is healthy – but will care for and love any outcome).

    As far as the statement about rape – I mentioned it because in the case of rape, my argument about taking responsibility for your actions does not hold water. As far as the moral implications of abortion in cases of rape, I have a hard time with that – I simply don’t know.

    You rather eloquently made the point that no human being has a legal right to force another person to undergo any form of bodily invasion. Wouldn’t a pregnant woman wanting to get an abortion be forcing bodily invasion on her unborn child? Does your argument work both ways?

    I think that one of the things that is lacking today is support for single pregnant women. I have a friend who has had an abortion, if any of the nurses or doctors at her clinic cared enough to ask her “are you sure, honey – do you want to talk about this?” She would have changed her mind – she was hoping for someone to say something and show they cared – because she had NO ONE to support her or talk to. Do I judge her? – Absolutely not. So – there are many issues to resolve, including providing more caring, love and support for women who have gotten into a tough spot.

  • invalid-0

    No, the vagina exists initially for the woman’s purposes (to expel urine).

    I’m confused. A woman’s vagina does not expel urine. I think you’re meaning ‘urethra’? They’re quite separate.

    I think you’re being a bit deterministic with all these claims that ‘the uterus is intended to carry a foetus’; ‘the vagina is intended for xyz’. Intended by whom? God? No thanks, god doesn’t exist. Nature? Nature is not a conscious entity.
    Uteruses have a role in hormone release and regulation, so they’re not *just* there for use in pregnancy.

  • mellankelly1

    It was an analogy: a-n-a-l-o-g-y.

    I believe it was a false analogy (or a logical fallacy.)  You were inferring that gambling and becoming pregnant were similar in one respect and therefor that they would be agreeable in other respects… I do not believe that gambling and asking for ones money back is similar to the biological possibility of becoming pregnant.  Particularly considering that over half of all women who became unintentionally pregnant were using some form of contraception during the month that they became pregnant (taking active measures not to become pregnant is a far cry from willingly gambling ones money.)

    All I am saying is that if you are going to do adult things, and you know the potential consequences of your actions, then you need to take responsibility for your actions and the outcomes as an adult.  So: if you want to have sex out of wedlock – or in wedlock – then you need to be aware that a child – a human being – may be the result. And if the result is a human being, then you need to take the responsibility

    I would offer that a) consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy, childbirth or child-rearing and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, b) over half of all women who became pregnant used some form of contraception the month that they became pregnant (which constitutes taking responsibility.)  Further, terminating ones pregnancy is every bit as responsible as gestating ones pregnancy.

    As far as the statement about rape – I mentioned it because in the case of rape, my argument about taking responsibility for your actions does not hold water. As far as the moral implications of abortion in cases of rape, I have a hard time with that – I simply don’t know.

    I understand that mindset regarding exceptions for rape in a sense (as I’ve spoken with many people who feel this way) but there really is no logical way to differentiate between the pregnancy that was a result of rape and a pregnancy that was a result of consensual sex aside from the circumstances surrounding the sex.  As much as you may not want to admit it, logically speaking, the issue appears to be with dictating women’s proper behaviour.  I will state again that how you or I feel about sex and what it should mean to each man and/or woman is completely irrelevant… women and men are perfectly capable of deciding which perfectly legal behaviour they will or will not engage in; and I will reiterate that choosing to terminate ones pregnancy is every bit as responsible as choosing to gestate ones pregnancy regardless of whether or not you approve of that choice.

    You rather eloquently made the point that no human being has a legal right to force another person to undergo any form of bodily invasion. Wouldn’t a pregnant woman wanting to get an abortion be forcing bodily invasion on her unborn child? Does your argument work both ways?

    Certainly not.  Legally speaking, a person has no right to force another person to undergo any form of bodily invasion (a pregnant woman has rights, her pregnancy does not.)

    I have a friend who has had an abortion, if any of the nurses or doctors at her clinic cared enough to ask her "are you sure, honey – do you want to talk about this?" She would have changed her mind – she was hoping for someone to say something and show they cared – because she had NO ONE to support her or talk to

    I am honestly surprised by this because prior to terminating my pregnancy in 1993 (this was in Ohio) I had group counseling and afterward, one-on-one counseling to be sure that I wasn’t being coerced and that I had decided that terminating my pregnancy was the best decision for me.  I never (not for one second) felt that the women working in that clinic did not care about me.  I feel badly for any woman who feels that she wasn’t the one to make the decision regarding an unintended pregnancy.

  • invalid-0

    We get that you were attempting an analogy….your attempt doesn’t work for multiple reasons that have been pointed out.

    Mellankelly1’s bodily integrity argument is accurate. This is true for the fetus or a person, even if the woman took a risk …another person has no right to use her body to maintain their life…. and the woman has the right to physically stop this other person from doing so. There are examples in the blog link I posted to Austin Cline and above, even reproductive examples. All you are doing is making the same claims that have already been countered without offering anything new as to why the counter arguments don’t hold. Also driving itself (even sober) is a risk with consequences, even if one takes precautions such as wearing a seatbelt…you don’t need to be drunk for driving to be a risk, yet we aren’t treated legally or even morally as if we consented to being hurt in an accident.

    And in contrast to your attempted analogy many people, even if they disagreed with the original decision to gamble, applaud someone who as a result of a gambling loss takes on another job, instead of simply enduring the financial hardship. I don’t know of any law that forbids them from doing so, forcing them to endure the financial hardship. The use of prenatal care itself often involves medical interventions to overcome many of the known but sometimes undesired outcomes of pregnancy. I have yet to encounter anyone who has objected to my own use of interventions during my two pregnancies to overcome the real outcomes/consequences that occur for me, which do not result in a timely/active enough labor to allow live birth. I voluntarily overrode these actual outcomes by using medical interventions.

    Many of us believe that overcoming unwanted outcomes and stopping consequences from fully developing is responsible.

  • invalid-0

    Though I know there is a risk I can get hit as an outcome of my decision to drive, the other driver can be held liable for damages …meaning I’m not held responsible as if I consented to injuries, even though I know that getting hit and hurt is a possible outcome of my decision to drive.