The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Real Choices

Re: Real Choices

tfowler — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:10:33 -0000

Dilan Esper - Re: "Men don't bear the burden of childbearing. That's why it has to be a woman's decision."

If you assume the pro-choice position on the central point of controversy in the abortion issue, that the fetus is not a human and has no rights or rights that fall well short of those of humans, then I'd agree with you 100%. Other possible objections to allowing abortion just don't cut it against the woman's liberty and interest in the situation.

But that's a big assumption. Its begging the question for the core of the debate.

If you assume the other position, that the fetus is a human, with human rights, than your argument breaks down.

So what if we assume neither. Well without a decision or assumption on the central issue you can't really resolve the abortion issue as a whole (and since I don't think the central issue will be resolved, the abortion debate will continue IMO), but I'm not trying to resolve that debate, or even push a side of it here. I'm limiting my analysis to just your, "Men don't bear the burden of childbearing That's why it has to be a woman's decision" comment. If abortion may possibly be murder, may possibly be a violation of the human rights of the fetus, then men (and women other then the specific pregnant woman) would reasonably have a say on the issue, just as they would on any human rights issue.

Re: Real Choices

Ryan W. — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:08:32 -0000

no matter how many times you refer to it, "natural law" means nothing more than "stuff Ryan made up which no other person in the world is obligated to obey"

You have given no hint that you understand what I'm saying. I have given objective criteria, and you respond by asserting that they are subjective.

But used correctly, condoms basically never fail

Actually, Planned Parenthood had a line of widely used condoms a while back with a very high failure rate. I posted on a blog about it at the time (that almost noone read), and got replies from several people who reported that the thing had broken several times when used with their boyfriend. (Planned Parenthood condoms were the outlier, granted, and they claim to have since re-designed them.)

Designed correctly, websites are technically unhackable. But when dealing with any large population, human error (or deliberate misuse) is always a factor that has to be taken into account. Whether condoms are 'technically perfect in a lab setting' is irrelevant. I'm concerned about how well they work in real life when exposed to user error (or deliberate misuse.) And sure, some public discussion could improve things. To an extent. Every indication is that it's not going to completely eliminate user error.

Murphy's law is a design principle.

And as mentioned, there are other routes of disease transmission (oral transmission) where people don't typically use protection at all.

(news flash-- vaginas and latex feel very different)"

News flash; at that point it can be a little late if the guy already ejaculated and decides to keep going or if he's secreted any significant quantity of pre-cum.

Of those who had used condoms during vaginal intercourse, 49% of the prostitutes had experienced condom breakage in the previous 6 months and 16% of the clients in the previous 12 months. The breakage rate was 0.8% for prostitutes and 1.5% for clients. Condom quality was seldom reported as the cause: breakage was generally attributed to human factors, such as rough or prolonged intercourse, incorrect handling of the condom, or the use of insufficient lubricant. Prostitutes also identified penis size as a cause. Condoms slipping off before or after ejaculation was reported less frequently than breakage. 13% of clients and 36% of prostitutes expressed a need for either smaller or larger condoms.

source

So if the argument is that people are not skillful enough in their use and many prostitutes don't even get it right it seems logical to conclude that encouraging a standard of having multiple partners is, in fact, going to increase disease transmission in a population to an extent. Because some people are going to screw things up.

In any case, this is my last post. I get the feeling that I could post all the data in the world and it wouldn't change your conclusions. So I will leave you to them. Condoms are the one and only solution to everything and enough sex ed and public policy can make all people use them perfectly and think with their brains rather than their genitalia. People never have oral sex or exchange bodily fluids in other ways.

I sincerely hope you have a pleasant life.

Re: Real Choices

Dilan Esper — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:35:32 -0000

Ryan:

I don't find the rest of your points particularly interesting at this point (no matter how many times you refer to it, "natural law" means nothing more than "stuff Ryan made up which no other person in the world is obligated to obey"), but it's worth noting that right wingers way overstate the risk of condom failure. Bill Maher has a great line about it, saying this is a product he has used for 30 years and it is as reliable as a toaster.

Condoms fail because they are misused, and because often men think with their ****s when the thing breaks (news flash-- vaginas and latex feel very different) and don't pull out. But used correctly, condoms basically never fail and the risk of a promiscuous person who conscientiously uses a condom getting an STD or conceiving an unplanned pregnancy is probably less than the background risk of a monogamous person who does not use a condom catching an STD because he or she doesn't know that his or her partner is cheating on him or her.

STD's and unplanned pregnancies are for the most part a result of bad decisionmaking in the heat of the moment, not some incapability of the technology to prevent the risk. Condoms work fine, and they'd work even better if conservatives got over their hangups on sex and allowed a more open public discourse on the issue.

Re: Real Choices

Ryan W. — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:51:40 -0000

Ryan, this is why conservatives aren't worth arguing about with regards to sex.

Ad homeniem. I've cited objective material to support my positions. I don't think we're operating from grossly different presuppositions. We both want people to be happy and free of pain. You seem to put more weight than I do on the importance of immediate physical pleasure in the face of possible tremendous pain or difficulty in the future. If you want to say that our differing values on that point are the source of our entire disagreement, I'll drop the matter. I like physical pleasure, but am probably not willing to sacrifice as much for it as you are. The question, through this whole discussion has been; "what is the result of certain kinds of seuxal conduct?" This is something which can be addressed fairly objectively. It's only not worth discussing if you are not interested in the objective consequences of certain policies.

And as it runs, I'm not a dyed in the wool conservative. I'm a fairly moderate classic liberal, as are some of the other people you've argued with in this thread.

Consensual sex is a pleasurable activity. If it didn't get women pregnant, and it didn't spread STD's, the proper amount of it to have would be "as much as you feel like with whomever you feel like". Because it's fun

Sure. I would certainly be more sexually active if my actions didn't have consequences. But they do. Heck, some significant diseases like CMV, HHV-8 and mycobacterium like drug resistant tuberculosis (which seems to be making a comeback) can be spread via saliva.

And here's the key-- it is possible to use public policy to increase the number of people who conscientiously and responsibly use the technologies..it is possible to gear public policy towards reducing promiscuity and sexual activity, and it may have some effect in reducing risky conduct..

And for some groups, absolutely, I agree, public policy can have an impact. Though public policy doesn't seem to have as much of an impact as social pressure from family, peer groups, and religious organizations. From what I've read, those with "C-" averages and and poorer in school tend to not be influenced at all by the school-based sex-ed programs that I've looked into.

And for those reasons, again, it may make sense for people who are not going to use these things properly and conscientiously to curtail their promiscuity and sexual activity.

Part of the problem is that those less likely to use protection properly are probably also the least likely to identify that fact and respond with sufficient foresight. This is conjecture on my part. But it matches my personal observations.

But for people who can conscientiously and responsibly use the technology, it doesn't make any sense at all.

It does make some sense. You seem to agree that even condom use has a failure rate in protecting people from STDs, even if used correctly, and then seem to argue as if it does not?

And I have had one friend get pregnant via a broken condom (as she explained it, anyways.) I don't know if she was doing something incorrectly like using an oil based lubricant.

And so, you have two possible models. The first one may reduce disease incidence, but does so by taking away a pleasurable activity.

The second model also reduces disease incidence, but does so by making it safer for people to engage in the pleasurable activity.

The two strategies of partner reduction and barrier protection are not mutually exclusive. And I'm not talking about taking away a pleasurable activity. I'm talking, first and foremost, of reducing # of sexual partners. Which is another apparent adjustment in response to the sexual revolution. During my grandparents day, people dated multiple potential mates at once, even up to the time of a marriage proposal. Today, relationships tend to become monogamous much more quickly.

So if the "pleasurable activity" you're referring to is, say, a Ménage à trois every weekend then yes, we may have different subjective evaluations of the value of short term pleasure vs. long term pain caused to ones self and others that would prevent any agreement between us. Otherwise, the matter seems to be fairly objective.

But it offends conservatives, because they believe in some incoherent and nonexistent natural law, or, worse, some fairy tale about an invisible man in the sky who is offended when people use their genitals in certain ways. And that's the real issue here. People are supposed to have less sex because it offends conservatives.

Thankfully, the sexual revolution happened, and liberals won the argument.

There were some beneficial aspects to the sexual revolution. However as I've said from the beginning, I've given objective evidence for my position. Objective evidence of harm (a component of Natural Law) should offend any compassionate human being. Science has included things like phrenology, spontaneous generation and so forth. It isn't discarded for that, or dubbed 'incoherent.' The particular issues are debated objectively and then settled. Likewise, different beliefs in what is naturally good are not, in themselves, a refutation of all Natural Law. As I explained earlier and you seem not to have understood.

Policies which increase harm are failures, to the degree that they increase harm, even if their proponents hold power. But please remember; if you don't believe in any kind of objective morality at all, then you give up the capacity to make objective judgments about other people's policies. Words like "superior" have no meaning, because you've asserted that there is no basis for objectively superior policy. There are only things that you like, or things you don't like. (or possibly 'superior' can mean 'superior for anyone who shares your presuppositions.') If you are going to fault those who you disagree with for being 'incoherent' then it would make sense for you to work on your own coherency.

Re: Real Choices

Dilan Esper — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:50:52 -0000

Ryan, this is why conservatives aren't worth arguing about with regards to sex.

Of course, women can get pregnant, and it can spread STD's. So with no technological solutions to such matters, there are decent reasons to be less promiscuous and to curtail one's sexual activities.

But we have technological solutions, including contraception and abortion to deal with pregnancy, and condoms and treatments to deal with STD's. Now, do these work perfectly well? No. Are people always conscientious and responsible using such things? No. And for those reasons, again, it may make sense for people who are not going to use these things properly and conscientiously to curtail their promiscuity and sexual activity. And that's fine. That works for some people. An I will concede-- it is possible to gear public policy towards reducing promiscuity and sexual activity, and it may have some effect in reducing risky conduct.

But for people who can conscientiously and responsibly use the technology, it doesn't make any sense at all. Because they would be giving up lots of pleasure that could be enjoyed with very little safety risk. And here's the key-- it is possible to use public policy to increase the number of people who conscientiously and responsibly use the technologies.

And so, you have two possible models. The first one may reduce disease incidence, but does so by taking away a pleasurable activity.

The second model also reduces disease incidence, but does so by making it safer for people to engage in the pleasurable activity.

The second model, of course, is far superior. But it offends conservatives, because they believe in some incoherent and nonexistent natural law, or, worse, some fairy tale about an invisible man in the sky who is offended when people use their genitals in certain ways. And that's the real issue here. People are supposed to have less sex because it offends conservatives.

Thankfully, the sexual revolution happened, and liberals won the argument.

Re: Real Choices

Ryan W. — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:17:31 -0000

The sexual revolution happened, and people adjusted their conduct soon thereafter to take account of sexually transmitted diseases

Roughly 25 years and several tens if not hundreds of thousand of unnecessary deaths later, yes.

Very, very few people wait until marriage anymore, and most college students and many high school students are sexually active.

I haven't said otherwise. The question is what the result of their behavior will be.

The only thing that reduced the STD rate was condoms

Again, this is objectively disprovable. Bacterial STDs were significantly reduced during the 50's and 60's by the introduction of antibiotics.

Of course, this doesn't touch on your central thesis that number of sexual parterns does not influence STD rates. I mention it because there are numerous factors which are at play here, and it is careless to make catagorical statements like this.

So no, casual sex doesn't cause any of this. Indeed, there are plenty of monogamous women in Africa who are HIV positive.

This is an non-sequiter. Would you say; There are some people who die before 40 and have never gone skydiving. Therefore skydiving (especially if it is done properly) does not pose an added risk factor for premature death? The insurance actuary tables tell a different story.

The reason that I did not use HIV as a model for STDs in general is that Male with Male sex seems to be a significant mode of infection among men, much more so than with other STDs.

Likewise, number of partners is a well established risk factor for STD infection. If you believe otherwise, please provide evidence.

Previous studies have shown that the number of different sex partners a person has within a one- to three-month period is a risk factor for contracting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital herpes and human papillomavirus infections. Also, studies have shown that the total number of different sex partners over a lifetime is related to the risk of developing cervical cancer and other types of genital cancer. Recent studies have indicated that having a new sex partner within the last month is a risk factor for infection with chlamydia. STD rates are related to age, race, social class and residence. Young people who are in minority groups, live in the inner city and have low socioeconomic status represent a high-risk group for STDs.

source

Re: Real Choices

Dilan Esper — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:18:05 -0000

Ryan:

The sexual revolution happened, and people adjusted their conduct soon thereafter to take account of sexually transmitted diseases. Very, very few people wait until marriage anymore, and most college students and many high school students are sexually active. Further, fewer people are waiting until they are in a committed relationship or living together to have sex. These are all trends that have CONTINUED through the 1980's and 1990's. The only thing that reduced the STD rate was condoms; condom use was spotty in the 1960's and 1970's, and is now de riguer for most people who are not in serious relationships.

So no, casual sex doesn't cause any of this. Indeed, there are plenty of monogamous women in Africa who are HIV positive.

Re: Real Choices

Ryan W. — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:24:11 -0000

I'm basing my assertions regarding changes in promiscuity in the 80s on what people born in the 60's and 70s have claimed.

Should have read; those who went to school in the 60's and 70's.

Re: Real Choices

Ryan W. — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:19:39 -0000

Where's the evidence that people went back to 1950's sexual morality starting in 1980?

I didn't say that people "went back to 1950s sexual morality in the 1980s." I provided evidence that increased promiscuity led to increased STDs using a given non-controversial dataset. The 1980s onward data is considerably more complex, for a number of reasons, some mentioned. Which introduces complicating effects, some not directly related to promiscuity.

I agree that certain conditions outside of promiscuity, such as female power in a relationship, can affect STD transmission rates, since female power improves consistency of condom use. And economic empowerment and education can increase female power. That's still not the same as an argument that promotion of promiscuity is good for women, however, or that it actually reduces STD transmission.

If you're willing to acknowledge that increased promiscuity led to increased spread of STDs in the 1960s and 70s, we can move on to other points. Otherwise, I'd like to nail down what should be one simple point before we jump to a different one which is irrelevant to the point I was making.

I'm basing my assertions regarding changes in promiscuity in the 80s on what people born in the 60's and 70s have claimed. (Certainly not an objective source. You're welcome to provide a better measure. And it doesn't diminish my point, regardless of the result.)

For instance;

WHEN Metro started publishing in 1985, STDs and feminist backlash had put a damper on free love.

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.09.05/timeline-0506.html

Re: Real Choices

Dilan Esper — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:39:33 -0000

Where's the evidence that people went back to 1950's sexual morality starting in 1980?

I was in high school 1985-88 and college 1988-92, and that wasn't my experience. Nor does it appear to be the experience of generations who went to college after me.

Re: Real Choices

Ryan W. — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:48:10 -0000

The sexual revolution didn't end in 1979.

Sexual mores seem to have become more conservative, at least among some groups, in the late 80's and early 90's with the rise of HIV and Hepatitis B, emergence of resistant strains of bacterial pathogens, and the increased understanding that unprotected sex with multiple partners does seem to have some severe consequences. Also, the invention of PCR in the mid 1980s and its increased use in the early to mid 90s introduces a complicating factor in the rate of positive diagnosis (increased sensitivity of diagnosis) that I didn't want to get into.

Is there any reason to believe that the data set I gave fails to speak to the issue (and to do so more clearly than a 90s-00's set would?)

Re: Real Choices

zosima — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:21:57 -0000

Megan,

I'm going to be blunt. This is a terrible argument. Arguing that abortion isn't a right is ethically coherent. Arguing the we don't need to protect abortion rights because a majority isn't interested or capable of exercising those rights is not ethically coherent. The percentage of people that might exercise the right has no bearing whatsoever.

Of course, par for course, you messed up the statistical argument as well. Assuming that the law is passed and that it isn't later repealed, a fair assumption for evaluating the implications of legislation, it will affect all future generations as well. So the correct proportion of women it will affect is the proportion of women that can bear children in a particular generation.

This is simple asymptotics. We've got an equation y=mt+c, c is the women currently alive that the law will affect at passage, t is time, m is the number of women born in a time interval that the law will affect. As t grows, c becomes an insignificant contribution to equation, and m dominates, no matter how big c is.

You are essentially saying c is really big, or that the bill is somehow ethical because you are counting upon its repeal. Terrible, really terrible, argument.

Re: Real Choices

Dilan Esper — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:01:06 -0000

Ryan:

The sexual revolution didn't end in 1979.

Re: Real Choices

Ryan W. — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:04:10 -0000

Just because it is possible to spread STD's through promiscuous sex doesn't mean that promiscuous sex inevitably leads to STD's.

Your hypothesis is empirically disprovable.

Two major viral sexually transmitted diseases, genital herpes and genital warts, dramatically increased in frequency during the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s

source

It's true that bacterial diseases diminished during the 1960s due to the introduction of antibiotics (which is part of why the sexual revolution occurred.)

Re: Real Choices

David Nieporent — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:40:20 -0000

Whether you want to label it "gender equality" or not, the claims of a woman who merely wants some physical pleasure without consequences whenever she wants it, are outweighed by the massive interests of babies in not being killed. (Ipse dixit is fun.)

Re: Real Choices

Dilan Esper — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:26:52 -0000

Describing unprotected promiscuous sex as people having fruitful, healthy sex life with whomever she(they) please(s) makes as much sense to me as describing the free sale of melamine contaminated milk as the product of a 'fruitful, healthy food industry.' The result of both is to make people sick.

Just because it is possible to spread STD's through promiscuous sex doesn't mean that promiscuous sex inevitably leads to STD's. The sexual revolution should have led to huge spikes in STD rates, but it didn't-- because it turns out that people who aren't ashamed of being openly sexual take precautions much better than people who have to negotiate repressive situations.

Re: Real Choices

Ryan W. — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:09:53 -0000

The problem with that position is we shouldn't be subjecting women's sex lives to central planning...That's basically the Soviet mindset applied to sex.

First, I agree that people should have a 'right to privacy' in regards to their medical decisions. I don't know if abortion is murder or not, but I wouldn't fire a gun into a bag that held a creature, not knowing if the thing was human or not. Even if it was legal. But abortion is, ultimately, a personal decision.

I just don't think that abortion is the perfect solution that it's often made out to be by some people. My point is, the social acceptance of abortion has costs. If a woman is unable to give consent (due to rape or being underage) abortion may make some sense (or not, I don't know.) If a woman finds that there are unacceptable medical complications due to her pregnancy (and she should determine what is acceptable) then she shouldn't have the government interfering in her medical choices, in my opinion.

But to compare such laws to central planning seems a deeply flawed analogy. Things like lack of price signals or a need for technological innovation simply don't apply to sex the same way that they apply to industry. (Though I am curious whether you're consistent in your libertarianism. Should charity via things like medicare also not be subject to central planning? What about centers for adoption or care for those kids who are wards of the state? What about education?) Like them or not, societies with cultural or legal restrictions on abortion were functional in a way that the Soviet economy was not.

Describing unprotected promiscuous sex as people having fruitful, healthy sex life with whomever she(they) please(s) makes as much sense to me as describing the free sale of melamine contaminated milk as the product of a 'fruitful, healthy food industry.' The result of both is to make people sick. There are an increasing number of bacteria resistant to antibiotics, and viruses which are not readily curable with antivirals. Such a lifestyle demonstratably hurts men, women and children.

It's really, really bad to be telling some women "we are going to force you to have a baby that you don't want to have and possibly ruin your life because we think that will create proper incentives that will lead to a better society overall".

If you don't believe in any kind of God or even Natural Law, what force does your objective claim of "really really bad" even have, beyond being your own opinion? Do you mean to say you "really really don't like it?" I can assert that something is 'good' or 'bad' because I believe that 'good' and 'bad' are objective things.

More materially, is it also really really bad, in your opinion, if a baby is born with a congenital STD? Doesn't congenital herpes 'ruin a child's life' to some extent? There are probably a few cases of congenital reactive arthritis caused by transmissible disease. Does chronic pain ruin a kids life? One problem that I've brought up that hasn't really been addressed is that the increase in illegitimate births, not to mention STDs, which coincides with widespread abortion suggests that acceptance of abortion might actually 'ruin' the lives of more women by altering societal standards which worked in their favor.

Look at how much men tend to contribute to child rearing in cultures more tolerant of female promiscuity. There's a pretty good correlation between female fidelity and male contribution to childrearing, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Why would men want to raise a kid for any length of time in a society where the kid probably isn't theirs? Also, I had one friend whose mother had had more than a dozen abortions. Because of some complications, she couldn't abort one of her pregnancies. So he was born, and without a father to speak of. Sometimes women relying on abortion change their mind when it's time to get the procedure, for various reasons. A functional culture tries to put barriers around large pits, to prevent people from falling into them accidentally.

I also don't buy the claims that women having casual sex are really the cause of all the problems you mention.

Well, what kind of evidence would convince you? Or is this a matter of faith for you? And how can you not think that increased casual unprotected sex leads to increased STD risk? And if increased congenital STD risk is not important, then why not just leave 3 year olds on a doorstep somewhere. If the mom suddenly can't afford to care for her toddler, why should that ruin HER life? Noone has a legally or even culturally enforceable responsibility to take care of kids, right? Because to enforce that is "central planning."

Re: Real Choices

Dilan Esper — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:34:19 -0000

The problem with that position is we shouldn't be subjecting women's sex lives to central planning. It's really, really bad to be telling some women "we are going to force you to have a baby that you don't want to have and possibly ruin your life because we think that will create proper incentives that will lead to a better society overall". That's basically the Soviet mindset applied to sex.

I don't think it's any of our collective business to try and stop women from having casual sex. (I also don't buy the claims that women having casual sex are really the cause of all the problems you mention. But it really isn't our prerogative to try and stop women from having sex you don't approve of even if it were the cause.)

It's pretty amazing that people who can cite all the problems with the central planning model when it comes to economic activity suddenly embrace it when it comes to stopping women from being "too slutty". Abortion rights and the sexual revolution allow women to decide these questions for themselves-- and I trust women to make their own decisions more than I trust social planners who think they can use government policy to control illegitimacy rates.

Re: Real Choices

Ryan W. — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:09:27 -0000

Dilan Esper - "Natural law" doesn't get you anywhere with respect to preventing theft. First of all, lots of people don't even believe that property rights are natural and individual (think Marxists or Native Americans).

The purpose of 'natural law' is to argue for some standard which trumps culture or opinion so the assertion that different people had differnt ideas about what constitutes natural law (and the Marxists did have their equivalents) are not counterexamples, by themselves. The examples you give make my argument for me, based on the criteria I gave.

The Soviet Union had to spend 50% of its GDP on weapons to try and match the West, and when it collapsed, as it did, the things of greatest value in its possessions were mostly natural resources rather than things that it produced. Many of its cars were produced in factories that had been given to it by the US to help it fight WWII.

Native American culture was similarly non-productive, and similarly overrun, militarily.

I'm not arguing that Natural Law is the highest law. I am arguing that some beliefs lead to societal self-destruction in the long term and can be argued against on that basis.

Sure, there are gray areas and lots of areas that aren't relevant one way or another. But that shouldn't obscure the fact that some things are relevant. Beliefs have results. Some of those results are different than what is intended by those acting out the beliefs. To use the standards that you've set up; if illigitimacy increases along with abortion, as it seems to, (and I don't know how the causality runs) we might fairly ask if that childrearing setup is really conducive to a healthy sex life and the 'liberation' of women. Also, if an increase in STDs leads to more kids born with congenital disease, does that violate the child's rights in any way? Or is that just a tough break?

Re: Real Choices

Dilan Esper — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:01:26 -0000

Ryan:

"Natural law" doesn't get you anywhere with respect to preventing theft. First of all, lots of people don't even believe that property r ights are natural and individual (think Marxists or Native Americans). Second, people don't agree what constitutes theft (think teenage music file sharers). Third, people don't agree when theft is justifable (think libertarian arguments against taxation or arguments that what Robin Hood did is justified).

At anything other than the most useless level of generality, natural law has no content at all, except for "whatever some religious nut or conservative claims is natural". Accordingly, there is no such thing as natural law (at least that is of any use to any of us).

Re: Real Choices

torourke — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:19:00 -0000

Thanks Yancey for pointing this out. Friedman is clueless. And her link purportedly showing that abortion benefits all women somehow is risible. It consists of anecdotes followed by studies that don't even come close to supporting her assertion.

Re: Real Choices

TwitFinder — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:42:54 -0000

DE says: "protect a woman's interest in being able to have a fruitful, healthy sex life with whomever she pleases and without the fear of an embarrassing, debilitating, difficult pregnancy and childbirth"

So let me get this straight. Perhaps, just perhaps, if she'd KNOWN that an "embarrassing, debilitating, difficult pregnancy and childbirth" might happen before she rode him hard and put him up wet. Oh, wait....

I'm going to abort this thing(tad pole or not) because I'm an irresponsible twit? Is that your salient argument?

And no, I'm not a rabid pro-lifer in the least.

Re: Real Choices

Ryan W. — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:14:50 -0000

I would note that at least some of the benefits touted by the pro-abortion (not pro-choice) crowd.

Should say " at least osme of the benefits touted by the pro abortion crowd have not materialized.

Re: Real Choices

Ryan W. — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:08:01 -0000

Dilan Esper - There's no such thing as "natural law".

Some social arrangements work better than others, and all have consequences. Natural Law is a way of addressing that fact. Societies which do not prevent theft are weaker, and are eventually destroyed millitarily. The law higher than custom is "what works." I would note that at least some of the benefits touted by the pro-abortion (not pro-choice) crowd.

It also, of course, shows that all the crap about "abortion is murder" is a subterfuge.

I think there are people who oppose abortion in some cases who don't feel that abortion in nessicarily "murder." (Personally, I support people's right to medical privacy.) I do think it's unsurprising that pro-choice advocacy has convinced some guys that they shouldn't have to care for a kid because "she chose to have the child." And doesn't that logically follow from a pro-choice standpoint since the choice to parent a child is no longer made at conception and people should be able to have lots of sex without having to deal with the consequences? If it's the mom's choice to deal with the consequences and the dad has no say, why does he have any responsibility?

It can be perilous making accusations of hypocrisy against a group with disparate reasoning behind their conclusions.

Re: Real Choices

redfly — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:42:15 -0000

Thank you. It's ridiculous. They're a perfectly good alternative to the Pill - even better for women who are smokers, over 35, or sensitive to the hormones in the Pill. And a 99% effectiveness rate.