It’s a Beautiful Day, Don’t Let it Get Away
Well, it’s been a slow week for A2 overratedness, and here all we’ve got is something about Howell: school trustee Wendy Day facing calls for her resignation over a blog posting.
Well, it’s been a slow week for A2 overratedness, and here all we’ve got is something about Howell: school trustee Wendy Day facing calls for her resignation over a blog posting.
Thought about posting on that, but decided to post on the U.N. blogger chased out of Sudan instead.
posted by David Boyle on October 28th, 2006 at 12:35 pmThe thought of an anti-abortion protest in an elementary school is just horrifying. Not only do kids that age not need to know about abortion, but they are easy mouthpieces for the anti-choice movement because they have not yet developed the ability to think in shades of gray. Someone tells them that abortion is murder, and they know murder is wrong, therefore abortion must be wrong too.
It is true, as Day posts on her blog, that these kids are learning about “civil activism,” but kids who are too young to even have civil rights are just pawns in a game being played by their parents. The anti-choice crowd probably feel that having kids protest abortion is extra-moving or extra-convincing, but really it is just sick.
As a blogger myself, however, I support Day’s right to post her views on her blog, and it is true that she was elected. Better to know the views of our elected representatives, don’t you think? And in Howell, she probably fits right in.
posted by Emily on October 30th, 2006 at 10:29 amWhy does Emily refer to members of the pro-life movement as “anti-choice”? Do she think she will be able to convince them that they are wrong by calling them provocative names. Pro-lifers don’t call Emily “anti-life”, or for that matter, “pro-death”, but maybe they should, because it is just as accurate as Emily’s rhetoric.
posted by Ravi on October 30th, 2006 at 4:42 pmAh, Ravi, I think it’s possible that you might be wrong there. Pro-lifers call pro-choice people ‘pro abortion’ every day. Emily simply did a turnabout-is fair-play move. See, pro-choice means that I respect your choice to have or not have an abortion. Anti-choice means, well, you’d like to make my decisions for me.
posted by LittleB on October 30th, 2006 at 8:47 pmHere’s one of NARAL and Friends’ favorite talking points: abortion is a deeply personal, private decision that a woman is capable of making for herself in consultation with her family, friends, doctor, and clergyman.
Here is my response, which is an excerpt from an e-mail that I sent to “Rabbi” Marla Feldman of the RAC:
If a woman decided to murder her 2-hour old newborn
baby, that would be a deeply personal and private
decision too, but it would be murder. If her family,
her doctor, her rabbi, and her circle of friends all
told her there was absolutely nothing wrong with it,
it would still be murder. Societies have laws because
there will always be people who will try to convince
themselves that evil is not evil.
I don’t want to make any decisions for anybody, LittleB (like, what’s your real name?), I want the States to have the powers that the Framers intended for them to have, including passing and enforcing criminal statutes. People that engage in conduct that the people, through their elected officials, have decided is intolerable, should be subject to punishment. I’m not referring to women who have abortions, but the people who perform abortions that are not medically necessary. The role of the physician is to heal, not to kill. Killing unborn babies for a profit is evil, pure and simple. It debases the medical profession, but more importantly, makes it an accomplice to murder. OK, not exactly murder, but something similar, because abortions involve the destruction of a human being in its earliest stages. The more people know about embryology and prenatal development, the less acceptable abortion will become, which is why the NARAListas are getting frantic and working overtime to use language that distracts attention from the humanity of the unborn baby, and get that language adopted by society.
“Choice” was adopted by NARAL in the 70’s because it polled better than “abortion”….as Chris Matthews said, if you don’t have a problem with abortion, then you should at least be willing to say “abortion”. The word “choice” denies the humanity of the primary victim of abortion, and the arguments in favor of “choice” sound eerily similar to the ones in favor of slavery in the 1840’s and 50’s (i.e. Against abortion? Don’t have one. Stephen Douglas would have said “Against slavery? Don’t own slaves.”) Emily, being an historian, may be in a position to comment on the accuracy of this statement.
The linguist Steven Poole wrote a book about how the words we use drive the debate, incl. pro-choice/pro-life. “Life” trumps “choice” in the minds of most young people, because, unlike the Baby Boomers who considered themselves so selfless and altruistic, today’s youth reject the self-centered, no-consequences value system of their parents’ generation. 72% of young people 13-17 years old in a 2003 Gallup survey said
that abortion was “morally wrong” Source:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35797
Unfortunately, since Roe v. Wade removed the debate from the political realm, where it belongs, there’s been hardly any real debate, just people screaming slogans at each other. Am I right?
Too long of a response…sorry for the long response.
regards,
posted by Ravi on October 31st, 2006 at 3:45 amRavi Saini
I also find it interesting that people constantly refer to “choice” in terms of having abortion. Humans (unlike many animals) know precisely what the purpose of sex is (procreation) yet we CHOOSE to do it, and then we get bent out of shape when it works like it’s suppose to. Obviously there are a few cases of pregnancy where choice wasn’t mutual (rape, incest) but, for the most part, we know what we’re getting into. so, maybe, if you don’t want a baby, maybe you shouldn’t have sex. but if you really can’t do without the sex, take responsibility for your actions, whatever the result.
posted by tim on October 31st, 2006 at 6:33 am“Humans (unlike many animals) know precisely what the purpose of sex is (procreation)…” Thank you Tim I needed a good laugh. Your quote, regardless of which side of the argument you are on, is so very wrong, as well as naïve but let’s entertain it.
Human relations – Let’s see if I want to have a family of three I have to find a spouse who wants to have sex three times; only three times… in their entire life. How long do you think a marriage would last if a couple had sex three times?
Quality of life – If sex is only procreation, then eating is just sustenance, music is noise, telling stories is a waste of time. Why do humans cling to each other and reach out to each other and share experiences? Tim, do you ever eat with friends? Why waste your time?
Anthropologically – (Tim wrote, “but if you really can’t do without the sex…”) I am sorry Tim but this is the naïve part. The desire to have sex is an urge for a reason. We were not built to not have sex. Up until a mere 100 years ago if women of most cultures weren’t pregnant most of the time, having 10 or more babies, they would never have adult children around to care for them when they got old. Childhood mortality, brutal farming or hunting conditions, disease, and starvation killed children at a much higher rate than today. In times earlier people worshipped fertility idols because the leaders new that if the women were not having babies the tribe, clan, village could disappear in a generation. While modern medicine and technology may have saved us from watching our children die from malaria or under a piece of horse-drawn farm equipment, the urge to have sex did not get taken care of with the same advances. But of course that ‘medicine’ exists now also and you are welcome to drop just as many as you like.
Tim, once you pass puberty we will have to talk.
posted by abc on October 31st, 2006 at 9:30 amYes, I missed a ‘k’. Damn that spell chec.
posted by abc on October 31st, 2006 at 9:43 am“the purpose of sex is (procreation)”
¿¡¿excuse me?!? dude: i’m there for the party!
“if you don’t want a baby, maybe you shouldn’t have sex”
get the hell out of my bedroom, you nut case!
“‘Choice’ was adopted by NARAL in the 70’s because it polled better than ‘abortion’”
ravi, notwithstanding your arrogant grasping at moral superiority, the fact is pro-choice people are firmly anti-abortion, which is why they are stalwart supporters of sex education and birth control for young people. meanwhile, the pro-life crowd is rife with wierdos like tim, who sees sex as a base and morally repugnant act fit for animals. (are you one of them?)
furthermore, your suggestion that advances in embryology obviate abortion ignores the fact that 60% of induced abortions are elected in the first eight weeks, 90% in the first 12 weeks.
posted by peter honeyman on October 31st, 2006 at 10:07 amIf it’s really only about “choice,” why is there no outcry against forced abortions in “one-child” China?
Granted, that’s China (and not Palestine), but the “choice” people seem to be eerily silent about it nonetheless. Just an observation, which someone will no doubt emphatically tell me is wrong.
posted by Dave on October 31st, 2006 at 11:41 amah, thought i’d get a rise from that one. okay, let’s start with abc’s comments.
first, about the purpose of procreation. are you suggesting that sex is for something other than that? last i checked, there’s some semen and potentially some eggs involved, and you might get a baby, but not always. if you are suggesting sex is a requirement for intimacy or love, i disagree. from my own experience, i moved up to his town (from nc) with a girl and we’d decided we wouldn’t have sex until we married. we were no less commited or intimate b/c we didn’t have sex. in fact, i would dare say we were more commited precisely b/c of the fact that we could set aside those urges.
second, sex only three times for three kids. no, that’s not what i’m suggesting. you’re putting words in my fingers. chances are they’d have to have sex alot more than three times, but if they had three kids and kept going at it, they just might make another baby. also, if the sole basis for a relationship is sex, or if sex is the sole basis for a relationship, then we’d all better prepare to be replaced by our lover when we get older. there’s always another leon phelps around the corner. in addition, you might be shocked to know that there are people who are unable to have sex on a regular basis. (check webmd on vulvodynia) b/c these people can’t have sex often, does it mean they are less worthy of companionship? i think not. so, again, i’m not buying sex as a key component of a healthy relationship.
quality of life–you’re analogies make little sense, but i’ll indulge you. sex is procreation, AND it can be much more than that. but, whatever your purpose for doing it, it’s always about procreation. life will find a way to burrow through a condom or defeat a birth control pill. (and clinging ain’t sex and i do eat with my friends, but don’t have sex with them…it’d be too messy for starters).
anthropologically–yeah, no doubt the desire to have sex is the most powerful urge people have. and society has seen to it that we are inundated with it on a daily basis. tv, radio, every kind of media pours it on us. but that doesn’t mean you have to indulge it. it is rather interesting you bring up 100 years ago. let’s check on that. chances are you grew up in a one-bedroom house (maybe two-bedroom). after dark everyone went to sleep. sometimes, as you’re lying there in bed, you hear mom and dad doing something, maybe if the moon hits the window right, you see a little something. either way, the next day you ask your older sibling, or maybe a neighbor kid about it, and you learn a little bit about what’s going on. eventually you learn about sex, you learn b/c it’s right there, you see it, you see your parents doing it (unwanted visual image), you learn what can happen if you do it. now, along comes victorian prudishness, and sex is now sheltered behind closed doors, it’s mysterious, no longer something you have to deal with from time to time. with the mystery comes the intrigue and with the intrigue comes the curiosity. and for a time, it’s kept secret, no one talks about it, no one does research about it, no one explains it to the kids (other than don’t do it). it’s forbidden and that makes it delicious. then along comes the 1960’s-1970’s science starts examining sex, books and magazines talk about more, women suddenly become more liberated (let’s face it, women regulate the accessibility of sex, always have, always will), and we finally are able to talk about it again. except it’s not the same way it used to be. there’s still a forbidden aspect to it. it’s a point of rebellion. people do it now just to be different (except, really, every one who does it now is just conforming). however, there are still some of us who are able to govern our passions, mostly. speaking of which…i have hit puberty, my wedding tackles works, and i regret the one time i ever used it. i wasn’t even in love.
and peter…i’m not a nutcase (okay, maybe a little), but never in my rambling dialogue did i suggest that my opinions should be made law. no one man’s opinions and no group’s beliefs should ever be made law in this country. if i wanted to live in a country where everyone had to do what i said, i’d found my own church and start a theocracy somewhere (probably in the mountains). maybe a dictatorship…that’d be more satisfying for me i think. but then, where would the fun be in that? i wouldn’t have abc to argue with.
long live personal responsibility–t
posted by tim on November 1st, 2006 at 4:07 amRavi, respectfully submitted, I don’t use my actual name so that lunatics who decide that my choices (or even my opinions) are wrong won’t be able to come to my house and kill me. Sadly, crap like that is *way* possible.
posted by LittleB on November 1st, 2006 at 6:32 amI’m not arguing with you, you’re naïve. Your experience is not everyone’s and, as can be quite typical for nutcases such as yourself, you substitute your own personnel experience for that of everyone else’s. But while your lifestyle may work for you, and Mark Foley’s for him, and Michael Jackson’s for him (her?) it prescribes nothing for anyone else. I on the other hand was speaking about people, many people, a vast majority of people. You were talking about yourself, like I care. Your naivety is apparent, as is your inability to do math or read. Your logical fallacy is if I had three kids by the time I am 24 I cannot have sex again … *ever*, unless I am willing to have more children. Popes have more sex than that.
On to anthropology – Tim get a dictionary or something, anthropology is a science not a tv show; the story about how you discovered sex and how you explored it is not relevant. And the 1950’s and 60’s are less than 100 years ago.
“(let’s face it, women regulate the accessibility of sex, always have, always will)” – I did say naïve already didn’t I?
“…and we’d decided we wouldn’t have sex until we married…” So this was not a joint decision as she regulates etc. etc.
“…and we finally are able to talk about it again. except it’s not the same way it used to be. there’s still a forbidden aspect to it. it’s a point of rebellion. people do it now just to be different (except, really, every one who does it now is just conforming). however, there are still some of us who are able to govern our passions, mostly. speaking of which…i have hit puberty, my wedding tackles works, and i regret the one time i ever used it. i wasn’t even in love.” Sorry all, I had to highlight this as this is simply an astounding piece of persuasive writing. I’m hooked. Sign me up. I am a believer. (What are all the ‘its’ about?)
Laughing at ya.
posted by abc on November 1st, 2006 at 9:27 ammostly i am agape from tim’s way way TMI … but also (leeringly) wondering what “wedding tackles” are, how they “works”, and the nature of tim’s “regret” over “the one time [he] used it” …
penis enlarger? nipple rings? ribbed condom? shameless tim, tell us more!
posted by peter honeyman on November 1st, 2006 at 9:52 amabc…maybe i am naive, but i’m still waiting for you to demonstrate i’m wrong (using logical as opposed to name-calling and belittling comments). for the history of sex i cited, read “on killing” by lt. col. dave grossman. pulitzer nomonation book and in it he puts forward his theory of killology and compares its evolution to the evolution of sexual practices and opinions. and i’m not a nutcase, i’m just different. re-read the last paragraph of my last post.
peter….yeah, probably was a little too much tmi, but abc was enquiring about my passage through puberty, so, i went there.
posted by tim on November 1st, 2006 at 2:16 pmI did not inquire or enquire about your passage anywhere, and unlike Peter could have done without it, but I have a question. I am now 24 and have three children and don’t want any more. I would though still like to have sex with my spouse. Is a contraceptive device OK with you?
posted by abc on November 1st, 2006 at 3:10 pmi’m confused as to why you’re asking the question, given your opinion of me, but, i’ll answer it anyway. what you do in your bedroom is your business, what i do is mine, and that’s that. i don’t know you, don’t even know if you are a he or a she, so you rightly shouldn’t care what i think. i was putting forward my own unique pov on the whole abortion debate, not suggesting abortion/birth control policy for the federal or state governments. if someone likes my pov and wants to adopt it, great, if not, i’m not going to cry myself to sleep over it or change just to conform to the masses.
posted by tim on November 1st, 2006 at 6:59 pm“what you do in your bedroom is your business, what i do is mine, and that’s that.” Nah that’s not that. You also said in your original post, “if you don’t want a baby, maybe you shouldn’t have sex. but if you really can’t do without the sex, take responsibility for your actions, whatever the result.” Now, why did I ask about contraception? My whole argument has been that people, most people, want to and should have sex. Yours is stated above. My position relies on simple contraceptive measures to keep people from having unwanted pregnancies, not abortions. Yours relies on …abstinence.
Each of us is capable of creating dozens of families, why is that? Nature (of which we are a part) has made sure that we are over efficient and, as with all other living things, has made sure that we have enough of our seeds to sow too many children because Nature expects us to lose them. Well we lose far fewer than we did so we need to have far fewer, but the sex should go on.
posted by abc on November 1st, 2006 at 11:55 pm“Nature (of which we are a part) has made sure that we are over efficient and, as with all other living things, has made sure that we have enough of our seeds to sow too many children because Nature expects us to lose them.”
Also could be some argument that it’s a partly a mechanism to help keep parents together after kids are born–especially likely to affect the survival of a species whose kids take years to become independent.
posted by Bruce Fields on November 2nd, 2006 at 12:28 amno, my position is that people need to take responsiblity for their actions, as you quoted above. if you can’t deal with the possible consequences of an action, then don’t take it.
and your second paragraph makes no sense. if we are now losing far fewer children, and so don’t need to have as many, then the logical course of action would be to engage in the child-making activity less often.
here’s a tidbit from the cdc. “In a study of abortion patients conducted during 2000–2001, 54% of patients reported that they were using contraception during the month they became pregnant. However, their use of contraception might have been inconsistent or incorrect (18). In 1995, when the most recent NSFG was conducted, approximately 29% of sexually active U.S. women who used only oral contraceptives for birth control reported that they missed a birth-control pill one or more times during the 3 months before their NSFG interview. In addition, approximately 33% of U.S. women who were using only coitus-dependent contraceptive methods†† during the 3 months before the interview used these methods inconsistently (9)”–from abortion surveillance by the cdc reported in 2000.
what were the other women thinking that weren’t using birth control? are they not aware of it? just not using it? what? maybe there needs to be better birth control education. of course, even if there is, it also sounds like about 1/3 of the women in the US aren’t going to use it properly. so, let the sex go on, consequences be damned.
posted by tim on November 2nd, 2006 at 2:19 amFunny thing, in those countries with better sex education (and better access to birth control) than the U.S., a lot higher proportion are using contraception.
Much as I try to assume good faith and engage with people with different values, it’s hard to know what to say to someone who says, in all seriousness, that the appropriate response to lower infant mortality rates is for everyone to have less sex.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on November 2nd, 2006 at 2:59 amlarry:
from a policy standpoint i think you make an excellent point. there certainly does need to be more birth control education in this country. i’d be interested to see the stats from other countries on their contraceptive uses. and if they use it correctly.
i wasn’t responding to lower infant mortality (which is a good thing) but the number of unwanted pregnancies (which is a bad thing) out there. i took abc’s “we need to have far fewer” to imply that if sex remained constant and infant mortality dropped, more pregnancies would be unwanted. there’s a difference, and if you wanted to eliminate those unwanted pregnancies, then the best possible solution in terms of desired result (no pregnancies) is less sex (none to be exact), another is more birth control and education to go along with it. i don’t feel the two are mutually exclusive, though I will concede it’s awkward to tell someone to wait until the appropriate time and then hand ‘em a box of condoms/pills and turn ‘em loose. from a policy standpoint i think that both approaches will work for different groups of people, though abc’ll be quick to point out (and rightly so) that most will choose the birth control route, which is their choice.
posted by tim on November 2nd, 2006 at 5:02 am“if we are now losing far fewer children, and so don’t need to have as many, then the logical course of action would be to engage in the child-making activity less often.” The erroneous assumption here is that the *only* positive or healthful outcome of sex, is a child.
“what were the other women thinking that weren’t using birth control? are they not aware of it? just not using it? what? maybe there needs to be better birth control education. of course, even if there is, it also sounds like about 1/3 of the women in the US aren’t going to use it properly. so, let the sex go on, consequences be damned.” Tim, how about you picking up the slack? Why is it only the woman’s job to provide the protection? Is that because women are the “regulators”? There appears to be a pretty sexist subtext here.
posted by abc on November 2nd, 2006 at 9:45 amabc: unfortunately, the cdc doesn’t do any research concerning male contraceptive usage. i’m just working with the facts we have. i’d be hypocritical if i, personally, said it wasn’t a guys responsibility to take part in the contracepetive use. however, neither the US Dept. of Health nor the CDC address male contraceptive usage when compiling their abortion stats.
and i did bounce the “who regulates sex” concept off of several guys (and a few girls) i work with. it was unnanimous, they think women regulate access. most of the guys felt that if it were up to them they’d have sex as often as possible with as many women as possible. on the flip side, most of the women agreed that if they wanted to have sex several times a day, then, given the sentiments of most men, it would be possible, not particularly satisfying or healthy, but possible.
posted by tim on November 2nd, 2006 at 9:36 pmtim, the guttmacher institute is an excellent resource for information in sexual and reproductive health.
this fact sheet on pregnancy, contraception, and abortion is a good place to start.
posted by peter honeyman on November 3rd, 2006 at 9:41 ammleh. i meant “on” not “in.” (but i did catch my initial freudian slip of “goof” for “good”!)
posted by peter honeyman on November 3rd, 2006 at 9:44 amhey, what’s with the recorded time being an hour fast?
posted by peter honeyman on November 3rd, 2006 at 9:45 amAnd since we have paused to deal with some bureaucracy like EST vs DST, why are some names yellow and others are gray. I noticed that Ravi is also both colors. What gives?
posted by abc on November 4th, 2006 at 10:14 amyellow names link to a web site
posted by peter honeyman on November 4th, 2006 at 11:00 am