Advertise here: Contact FM.

Political Science & Promiscuity
May 9, 2006 7:01 PM Subscribe

"The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an anti-child mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception." Don't even mention the mind-set behind a vaccine for HPV.
posted by missbossy (1194 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

The mindset revealed by these comments gives one pause. There are really people who think like this, aren't there? One can't help but they really don't think sex is a very good idea.
posted by LeisureGuy at 7:08 PM on May 9, 2006

New 'Anti-Abortion Pill' Kills Mother, Leaves Fetus Alive
posted by ND¢ at 7:11 PM on May 9, 2006

If ever a post called for the use of the "batshitinsane" tag.....

I don't know what to say. I suspect this sort of view can't be reasoned with, and there's no point in trying.
posted by WidgetAlley at 7:12 PM on May 9, 2006

"We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League

Well, hells bells, why don't you just come out and say using any form of contraception IS abortion? These people drive me nuts. I mean, could you say anything dumber?

"So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome."

.
posted by j.p. Hung at 7:19 PM on May 9, 2006

WidgetAlley: Tag added gladly.

The problem with not trying to reason, argue, fight, whatever, is shown in the second link. A vaccine which could potentially save women's lives is opposed in the belief it encourages promiscuity. It's so insane that even batshit comes off looking good.
posted by missbossy at 7:22 PM on May 9, 2006

I am getting so sick of these idiots. The main medical provider in my community is a 'christian' based one. There was a recent article in the local paper about a 19 year old women who went to one of their doctors not only being denied birth control , but also made to listen to a humiliating lecture.

These freaking moralists want to tell you have to have sex without birth control , but could care less if the babies that predictably come from this kind of idiocy need food, shelter and education because the mothers can't provide for them.
posted by UseyurBrain at 7:25 PM on May 9, 2006

It's not terribly surprising to those of us who have been on the front lines of this battle for 20 years. It is, however, terribly frightening that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum now.
posted by dejah420 at 7:27 PM on May 9, 2006

1. An Iraqi terrorist plants a bomb by the side of the road.
2. The bomb explodes, killing innocent civilians.
3. An American journalist reports this incident in an American newspaper.
4. The journalist is responsible for violence in Iraq.

See? It's really quite simple, actually.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:27 PM on May 9, 2006

I guess this is their answer to the argument "don't want abortion? provide plenty of birth control"....of course they'll seek an end to birth control too. Because sex is evil. And must be punished by the "pain of childbirth". Whatever...this faction is rapidly revealing themselves as the most like the islamofascists. Keep killing each other, fundies of all stripes.
posted by telstar at 7:34 PM on May 9, 2006

I'm unclear on what's wrong with an anti-child mind-set.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:36 PM on May 9, 2006

American Taliban.
posted by homunculus at 7:49 PM on May 9, 2006

Reginald Finger, an evangelical Christian and a former medical adviser to the conservative political organization Focus on the Family, said. "With any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition"--a medical term for the absence of fear--"would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care." Finger sits on the Centers for Disease Control's Immunization Committee, which makes those recommendations.

If teens were universally rational about fearing death or took no ill thought out risks they wouldn't be teens, they'd be old farts. What is this sadistic, homicidal idiot thinking?
posted by nickyskye at 8:14 PM on May 9, 2006

The problem with not trying to reason, argue, fight, whatever, is shown in the second link. A vaccine which could potentially save women's lives is opposed in the belief it encourages promiscuity. It's so insane that even batshit comes off looking good.

I'm all for fighting tooth and nail any legislation which limits women's choices when it comes to our own damn bodies, and for supporting those that promote health. But I'm not at all sure the people that claim that a HPV vaccine would promote promiscuity would respond to reason. After all, they clearly believe that "promiscuous" women are worth less than the celibate, or else they wouldn't be trying to prevent "promiscuity"[1]. What's more, they also think that their outmoded and unhealthy beliefs regarding "promiscuity" are worth sacrificing lives for (even if the lives sacrificed are those of "promiscuous", and therefore somehow inferior, women.) That stance is just so utterly and completely insane and unreasonable that it makes me doubt the efficaciousness of reasoned argument. (Also the worthwhileness of humanity, but that's another story.) And don't get me started on the inherent contradiction between the supposed "culture of life", and its refusal to accept a vaccine that so far has seemed to be an almost fail-safe way to save lives.

[1] I'm putting promiscuous in quotation marks because, if over half the population of America contract the HPV virus (as quoted in the second link), one need not have sexual contact with very many partners at all to be exposed the virus. I don't call bedding three or four different people in a lifetime promiscuous-- hell, you could have been married to all three of them (... er, not at the same time, obviously, but you get the point.)
posted by WidgetAlley at 8:23 PM on May 9, 2006

I genuinely believe that people like this are evil. Not mean, or small-minded, or what-have-you, but evil. Intrinsically and irredeemably evil.

...and I'm going to spare us all the rest of that rant, except to say: centrists, this is your enemy. You cannot discuss them into rationality, and there is essentially no limit to what they'll do because they are prepared to dedicate their lives to their cause. Sound familiar?
posted by aramaic at 8:37 PM on May 9, 2006

Not really surprising that for many of those in the movement Pro-life = Anti-sex. Why else would any logical person who claimed to be against abortion be so set against comprehensive sex-ed? Teaching people how to properly use contraception leads to a greatly lower abortion rate, since fewer unwanted pregnancies will occur. Why would someone support such a failure of an education method like Abstinence-only ed?

Unless you don't want people having sex. Unless you think that the only use for sex is to make more babies. Unless you think that women who wants to enjoy sex without the fear of being carrier to something that she neither wants or possibly can support are sluts. That someone who wants to take a step in order to protect themselves from this or from a horrible disease are whores.

dejah420 is right, the knowledge that there are people who hold these views is nothing new to a lot of people in the pro-choice movement. What's scary now is that these people now hold enough power to enact their bat shit views on the rest of us.

Of course, these are views that apply to every one else except them. Many fundamentalist have and will cross the picket lines and walk into the clinic because their situation is different, they're not like all those sluts sitting in the waiting room. And I'm sure plenty of these blowhards leading the charge make sure to wear condoms when visiting their mistresses and/or go to their doctors to receive treatment for their STDs.
posted by kosher_jenny at 8:40 PM on May 9, 2006

Finger sits on the Centers for Disease Control's Immunization Committee, which makes those recommendations.

Now THAT is the scariest thing I've read today.
posted by quite unimportant at 8:41 PM on May 9, 2006

What - you thought these nutjobs just wanted to outlaw abortions? Do yourself a favor and go to a real fundie church and listen to a sermon, any sermon. Now imagine all the points of that sermon becoming the law of the land, and remember that next time you think about trying to have a meaningful dialog with these dark age cretins.

Since I grew up in that crowd for the majority of my life and go back there every couple months for birthdays/what-have-you, I can guarantee you that by and large fundie Protestant attitudes towards contraceptives are "knock yourself out." It's what you do post-conception, including morning-after pills and abortions, that gets their goat. Close friends of my family who I still meet up with maybe twice a year (Christmas and Superbowl, usually) have protested in front of abortion centers, handcuffed themselves together in masses to make it nearly impossible to drag them away, been arrested and thrown in jail, etc.

They've also used condoms without giving it a second thought.

However, and they're very strict and clear on this point (and this same line is taken by literally every single fundamentalist Protestant I've talked to both from in my family's church and outside it) - once conception has occured, any attempts to prevent a natural birth are murder in God's eyes. Period.

So, yes, I do think these nutjobs just want to outlaw abortions. I've attended literally hundreds of services at a real fundie church. Some of the parents of my best friends growing up worked at the Alpha Center (polar opposite of Planned Parenthood). Fundies aren't Catholics Lite when it comes to birth control - they're far more strident, and despite your claims they are most assuredly playing towards a different goal.
posted by Ryvar at 8:47 PM on May 9, 2006

Finger sits on the Centers for Disease Control's Immunization Committee...
posted by taosbat at 8:49 PM on May 9, 2006

I don't appreciate being called a cretin and a nutjob.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:49 PM on May 9, 2006

I wonder how these folks feel about this: Oral and anal sex increasing among teens?
posted by caddis at 8:51 PM on May 9, 2006

I was reading this article in the nytimes mag this sunday and was thinking, damn...seeing as how I am sterile by choice...is there no hope for me?
posted by glenwood at 8:55 PM on May 9, 2006

Why would someone support such a failure of an education method like Abstinence-only ed?

I think I can answer this. When I was in high school my mother single-handedly lead the charge against standard sex-ed in my school district. Starting from nothing outside of a belief that not teaching abstinence as the 'best' method of birth control would lead to pre-marital sex (and therefore legitimize sinful behavior), she started her own crusade.

She spent months digging up statistics from multiple sources highlighting worst-case condom failure rates. STD transmission likelihood when using various forms of birth control, specific details on the symptomology of STDs, etc. Talking to her about VDs in general is still a little frightening, actually. She canvassed neighborhood and neighborhood in the school district gathering around a thousand signatures on a petition towards abstinence-based sex-ed in my school district.

Multiple public hearings were held by the school board, she got tons of parents in the district from our church to attend, had them bring their kids in my own high school along to testify as to their beliefs regarding abstinence (fortunately I was spared, she was wise enough not to even ask me to). She presented all the statistics she gathered.

And, unfortunately, she won.

The district caved and began offering abstinence-based Health classes in addition to the standard ones. I can vouch for the fact that she - a pretty extreme crusader along these lines - has no problem with married couples using condoms. She just genuinely believes that teenagers who are not taught abstinence will somehow think that pre-marital is 'normal' (as if their schooling had anything to do with their actual opinions as regards sex) and therefore be drawn into sin, with a high probability of a compounding sin of abortion due to irresponsibility/incompetence as the result.

In any case, which Health class you got usually had far more to do with how your schedule worked out due to other core classes. While I of course got the abstinence-based class, it was perhaps a supreme irony that my sister could only fit the conventional condom-based class into her schedule.
posted by Ryvar at 9:05 PM on May 9, 2006

seeing as how I am sterile by choice...is there no hope for me?

Not if you're Catholic. As per the above two posts I made, my folks were cool with my vasectomy.
posted by Ryvar at 9:07 PM on May 9, 2006

Uggh, I have relatives who are this insane. It's willful ignorance and hysteria and small-minded bigotry, and surprisingly, it all serves to prove to themselves what wonderful people they are. I actually heard, "We could solve the population problem in Africa if we just handed out lots of thermometers so the women could learn Natural Family Planning techniques." My jaw dropped. The smugness is unbearable.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 9:26 PM on May 9, 2006

If teens were universally rational about fearing death

What's remotely rational about fearing death?

Also: as long as the majory takes their cues on morality from what mommy and daddy taught them, this sort of batshitinsane nonsense will only grow in popularity. The middle-class liberalism of the mid-20th-century is an anomaly; anti-birth-control attitudes will dominate for a long, long time, in numbers if not in influence among the literati. Welcome back to the Dark Ages; we've missed you.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:32 PM on May 9, 2006

Oh yah, one of the other batshitinsane things I heard was that "there simply isn't any health condition that would make it dangerous for a woman to carry a baby to term, it doesn't exist, believe me, this is my 'field.'" (She had plans to go to nursing school at the time.) Since that conversation I've compiled a list of at least 20 health conditions, but it just doesn't seem worth it...
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 9:46 PM on May 9, 2006

Thomist, nobody called you a cretin or a nutjob. You have inferred this by identifying yourself with the sets of people who have been called cretins and nutjobs.

But if it makes you feel better, I will state outright: if you think that contraception should be illegal, you are a cretin and a nutjob and frankly, have no place in any civilized society.
posted by solid-one-love at 9:48 PM on May 9, 2006 [1 favorite]

Many fundamentalist have and will cross the picket lines and walk into the clinic because their situation is different, they're not like all those sluts sitting in the waiting room.

This article describes the different attitudes of pro-life women who have abortions. Some find themselves swayed to be a bit more understanding by their experience; others don't.

I believe the latter is what you would call "cognitive dissonance."
posted by anjamu at 10:03 PM on May 9, 2006

I hereby invite all these nutjobs -- er, I mean fine upstanding highly moral people -- to live in a land where there are no abortions and no contraceptives and certainly no promiscuous sex. It is called Antarctica. Alternatively, they could relocate to the moon, which would have to be closer to Heaven than where they currently reside and has similar benefits.

Damn, I pity their daughters.
posted by ilsa at 10:23 PM on May 9, 2006

"I don't appreciate being called a cretin and a nutjob."

And I don't appreciate cervical cancer. I also don't appreciate little kids being told they'll burn in hell for using their minds, or teaching them fairy tales instead of science.
If that shoe doesn't fit, nobody asked you to wear it.
And spare me the thin skin act, Mr. "Quit your whining, bitches!" .
posted by 2sheets at 11:41 PM on May 9, 2006

Dr. Hager said he feared that if Plan B were freely available, it would increase sexual promiscuity among teenagers. [...] Meanwhile a government report later found that Dr. Janet Woodcock, deputy commissioner for operations at the F.D.A., had also expressed a fear that making the drug available over the counter could lead to "extreme promiscuous behaviors such as the medication taking on an 'urban legend' status that would lead adolescents to form sex-based cults centered around the use of Plan B."

Wow. I mean ... wow.
posted by oncogenesis at 11:47 PM on May 9, 2006

Contraception aside, anyone who believes that withholding a vaccine that can prevent cancer is a good thing is a cretin and a nutjob indeed, and should probably be institutionalized for the good of society. It's really hard to imagine how those against the HPV vaccine are anything other than insane, dangerously so because of what their success would mean.

I can see why contraception is a different issue (I am certainly in favor of unrestricted contraception, but there is a big difference between pregnancy and cancer).
posted by wildcrdj at 12:22 AM on May 10, 2006

Tolerance of religion is like taking a half course of antibiotics.
posted by srboisvert at 12:22 AM on May 10, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "I don't appreciate being called a cretin and a nutjob."

You know what will really suck? When you realize your grandchildren are ashamed of you. You'll feel absolutely worthless, like you've wasted your life and history has left you behind. Either that, or you'll just get angry and bitter and die with the taste of bile in your mouth.

Just to give you something to look forward to.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:32 AM on May 10, 2006

anyone who believes that withholding a vaccine that can prevent cancer is a good thing is a cretin and a nutjob indeed, and should probably be institutionalized for the good of society.

And by anyone I assume you mean the present administration...

The Administration's opposition runs so deep that at one point federal health officials replaced pages from a National Cancer Institute Web site with information that suggested, without evidence, that there might be a correlation between abortion and breast cancer.

posted by missbossy at 1:42 AM on May 10, 2006

From TFP: "I personally object to vaccinating children when they don't need vaccinations, particularly against a disease that is one hundred per cent preventable with proper sexual behavior,"

What brilliant logic! Let's apply it to other life-saving technologies, like seat-belts:

"I personally object to ~~vaccinating~~ tying up children when they don't need ~~vaccinations~~ tying up, particularly against a ~~disease~~ collision that is one hundred per cent preventable with proper ~~sexual~~ driving behavior,"

See? If you start out with the conclusion you want to reach first, and then make up a plausible-sounding argument, you can convince yourself of anything.
posted by spazzm at 4:13 AM on May 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Anjamu's link is fantastic.

"In 1990, in the Boston area, Operation Rescue and other groups were regularly blockading the clinics, and many of us went every Saturday morning for months to help women and staff get in. As a result, we knew many of the 'antis' by face. One morning, a woman who had been a regular 'sidewalk counselor' went into the clinic with a young woman who looked like she was 16-17, and obviously her daughter. When the mother came out about an hour later, I had to go up and ask her if her daughter's situation had caused her to change her mind. 'I don't expect you to understand my daughter's situation!' she angrily replied. The following Saturday, she was back, pleading with women entering the clinic not to 'murder their babies.'" (Clinic escort, Massachusetts)

Somehow it had never occurred to me that pro-life women (especially the grown-up ones) would choose to have an abortion (or help their daughters have one) and choose to continue to be pro-life. Now I'm starting to wonder about the spokeswomen for these groups (like the one above) and whether or not they ever had "the only moral abortion."
posted by mosessis at 5:03 AM on May 10, 2006

Finger, Dobson, Screwtape, Wormwood.
None of these are different.

Hating sex is very unGodly. Regressive policies towards women is very unChristian.
posted by nofundy at 6:02 AM on May 10, 2006

Using contraception predisposes toward abortion? Withhold a vaccine because it might cause promiscuity?

How do the certifiably insane rise to positions of power? These people make me wish their parents had practiced more abstinence.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 6:32 AM on May 10, 2006

This article made me wonder about what the cretins and nutjobs would say about women who are naturally infertile, through some medical reason-

"We are opposed to sex before marriage and contraception within marriage. We believe that the sexual act is meant to be a complete giving of self. Of course its purpose is procreation, but the church also affirms the unitive aspect: it brings a couple together. By using contraception, they are not allowing the fullness of their expression of love. To frustrate the procreative potential ends up harming the relationship."

By this logic, infertile couples are doomed to have less fulfilling relationships. WTF?
posted by Oobidaius at 6:43 AM on May 10, 2006

Paging Dr. Finger. Paging Dr. Woodcock.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

Sorry. I'll stop channeling Butthead now.
posted by selfmedicating at 7:00 AM on May 10, 2006

mr_roboto, what you describe is nothing like what I have observed over the years happening to people like me as they grow older. What I have observed are happy extended families. Of course I have seen some young people fall away from the principles of their upbringing and into depraved lifestyles, but I've also seen most of those young people eventually return to the faith of their fathers. As for my own family, I don't yet have grandchildren, but I expect that will happen soon enough, and I don't anticipate that anything like what you describe will happen, either with respect to my own children or my (future) grandchildren.

Anyway, I find the level of contempt and disrespect shown in this thread pretty impressive. It won't surprise you to learn that my explanation for the uncivil tone of this conversation is that many people are oversensitive about this topic because they do not have clear consciences about it. For such people, having this topic even mentioned feels like someone pressing on an abcessed tooth. Absent a better explanation, that's my understanding of why so many people howl whenever the question is raised of whether contraception is ethically OK.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:41 AM on May 10, 2006

It won't surprise you to learn that my explanation for the uncivil tone of this conversation is that many people are oversensitive about this topic because they do not have clear consciences about it.

It may surprise you to learn that many people take their right to have consensual sex with a significantly decreased risk of having a child very, very seriously, and think that ignorant fuckwads who want to shove their backward morality down a whole nation's collective throat should fuck off and die. If you're actually insinuating that I or anyone else do not have a clear conscience about contraception, you really, really deserve to be called a cretin and a nutjob.
posted by graymouser at 7:58 AM on May 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

It won't surprise you to learn that my explanation for the uncivil tone of this conversation is that many people are oversensitive about this topic because they do not have clear consciences about it.

I guess it woludn't surprise me if this were the case, but really gets my goat is that some would rather 5000 women a year die (this is an empirical certainty) than some unspecified number of women have some unspecified decrease in sexual inhibition.

If you don't understand why such a belief makes people uncivil, maybe you should pick up a New Testament and read why Jesus disliked the pharisees so much. It's hard for me to imagine the cruelty of a mind that wants a death penalty for sex.
posted by Llama-Lime at 8:01 AM on May 10, 2006

Ryvar - while the people you know may be fine with sex & contraceptions as long as there're no abortions, it is my impression that they're increasingly unrepresentative of much of the "pro-life" crowd, who've picked up Pope John-Paul II's "culture of life" idea and made it their own. It's certainly not just Catholics - note that in the article, it states that "American Catholics have overwhelmingly disagreed: a Harris Poll in 2005, for instance, found that 90 percent of Catholics (as compared with 93 percent of all Americans) support the use of contraception." Catholics don't account for all or most of the abstinence-only sex-education initiatives, or the pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control... many of those incidents and programs have been associated with fundie Protestant or non-denominational Christian groups.

As the article itself states: "For years — especially since Pope Paul VI's 'Humanae Vitae' encyclical of 1968 forbade "any action which either before, at the moment of or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation" — being anti-contraception was largely a Catholic thing... But no longer. Organizations like the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, which inject a mixture of religion and medicine into the social sphere, operate from a broadly Christian perspective that includes opposition to some forms of birth control... [and more examples.]" Your family and their fellow churchgoers may still be fine with condoms and the Pill, but people in their demographic are increasingly leaning towards the "sex is for reproduction, not pleasure" viewpoint.
posted by ubersturm at 8:21 AM on May 10, 2006

If I intend to use contraception, but umm...haven't...err, had a chance to use it yet, am I going to hell?
posted by NationalKato at 8:28 AM on May 10, 2006

Well this just about sums it up.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 8:36 AM on May 10, 2006

Llama-Lime: It's hard for me to imagine the cruelty of a mind that wants a death penalty for sex.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I thought this thread was about contraception. What are you talking about?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:58 AM on May 10, 2006

If I intend to use contraception, but umm...haven't...err, had a chance to use it yet, am I going to hell?

Thought crimes are just as deadly a sin as physical crimes. Repent sinner, and ye shall be saved.
posted by caddis at 9:04 AM on May 10, 2006

I don't appreciate being called a cretin and a nutjob.

Easy solution: stop being one.
posted by jon_kill at 9:14 AM on May 10, 2006

peeping_Thomist, unless you clarify that every person who has sex in less than optimal circumstances (impulsive, intoxicated, or even those who are mentally unwell) deserves an increased possibility of infection or even death from a STD (AIDS, cervical cancer), does not actually deserve whatever fate may befall them, some people will argue you're dooming them by denying education or proper contraception and innoculation. I don't agree with that point, but I think it is a much better rhetorical strategy than claiming that abstinence-only education is effective.

As for the claim that there needs to be civil discourse, I'd be glad to speak my part. I wasn't particularly outgoing or sexually active in high school, despite having a good knowledge of specifics and contraception. Since that time, I've had sexual relations that have been responsible (contraception, shared expectations, understanding of what could happen should contraception fail) according to my beliefs. I don't believe I have been emotionally or spiritually harmed by my actions, and I haven't made any enemies or made anyone else feel hurt beyond the normal borders of breaking off a relationship. I have a good relationship with my family and friends and tend to avoid "relationship drama."

I absolutely have a clear conscience. I feel that sex is much more likely to result in pregnancy without intervention by modern means, but I also believe that with our current society that marriage, having children, and having a lifelong partner may not be necessary for every person. I think all of those things sound like something I may want to do at some point, but only when I am comfortable with my life circumstances -- when I'm able to say that I will live in one city for the forseeable future and have a level of financial stability.
posted by mikeh at 9:31 AM on May 10, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "Anyway, I find the level of contempt and disrespect shown in this thread pretty impressive."

This is how good people respond in the face of evil. Get used to it.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:46 AM on May 10, 2006

peeping_Thomist, I'll attempt to put it in terms you understand. Let's pretend for a moment that telling kids about STDs, contraception, and innoculating them for a virus that can cause cancer encourages sex outside of marriage. (I'd say pre-marital sex, but that's a biased phrase as it implies that everyone plans on marriage.) Even so, those who feel it is immoral will not have sex or seek out religious guidance. If you believe that the material taught by schools -- material that is aimed at directly stating consequences and precautions -- can lure students away from the right choice because of convenience and the fact that it backs up a behavior that they're inherently drawn to, then it is a drawback of their moral education that they ignore their beliefs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of religions will accept those who have sinned or done things that are thought to be wrong. Anyone who has, as you would put it, strayed, is welcome to return. Would you want those individuals to have a STD as some sort of consequence or punishment for their behavior? What about a condition that can cause cancer that could have been easily prevented by an innoculation? By pretending it's only other, corrupt people who end up with these problems you're discouraging and possibly dooming those who may share your views at some point. That, to me, is morally reprehensible from any belief system that teaches forgiveness and love for the individual.
posted by mikeh at 9:59 AM on May 10, 2006

It won't surprise you to learn that my explanation for the uncivil tone of this conversation is that many people are oversensitive about this topic because they do not have clear consciences about it.

It may surprise you to learn that I personally get extremely tetchy when anyone tries to impose their own purely moralistic, quite possibly religion-based, view of the world on my body and my actions. I'd have the exact same furious reaction if you told me I couldn't work a nine-to-five job because it made me morally reprehensible and worth "less" than another, unemployed woman. And if you tried to impose that stance on me through the law? Heaven help you. Having someone else's personal beliefs about anything forced upon you feels like violation. Just as you wouldn't like it if I lobbied for mandatory contraception, so I don't like it when you try to take my option of contraception away.

(I think every woman who conceives a child because of the unavailability of contraceptives or abortions should go in and have that child on their representative's desk. "Miracle of birth this, asshole, I'm going to get placenta all over your papers!")

Also, what about rape? If I am raped, and contract HPV from the rapist, and then cervical cancer sets in because of it, is that "promiscuity"? Do I deserve it? Or is my life on the line because nutjobs hanging on to unhealthy belief systems wouldn't let me have one vaccine that would have prevented a life-threatening disease, on the offchance that it might lower my inhibitions towards a perfectly natural biological function?

Oh, right, I forgot. ..... If I "let myself" get raped, I deserve it.

In all honesty, I think the right-wing's "promiscuity is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad" rhetoric and stance does more to promote promscuity than anything else. I don't know about you guys, but it makes me want to go out and have sex while I still can. "Well, I was going to wait until marriage, but I thought it'd be best to take advantage of condoms while they're still here!"
posted by WidgetAlley at 10:02 AM on May 10, 2006

I just want to second ND¢'s link to that fantastic Onion piece.
posted by funambulist at 10:08 AM on May 10, 2006

Personally I'd like to see the religious right tie abortion and contraceptives (excuse me - I meant "pre-emptive abortion") together. Go for it. It's hard arguing for abortion - it's not a position anyone wants to have to take, as much as many of us feel that the choice is a necessary option - but when you lump abortion and contraceptives together as one package, all you're doing is making it that much easier for the rational, sane members of society to finally be able to call for a vote against the opression of women without necessarily being labeled a "baby killer" in the process.
posted by caution live frogs at 10:08 AM on May 10, 2006

mr_roboto: in point of fact, manifesting contempt and disrespect is not how good people characteristically respond in the face of evil. Displays of contempt and disrespect are a pretty reliable indicator that something is going on other than good confronting evil.

mikeh: It's difficult for me to know what I am supposed to clarify, because I can't make much sense of the notion of humans judging that some other person especially "deserved" to fall ill or die. I would have thought the Book of Job settled that point pretty decisively, but in any case Jesus says some clear things about it. I've never personally known an opponent of contraception (and I've known thousands) who believed that we could make reliable judgments about who "deserved" what. I hope you can see why it is hard to credit the good faith of people who make such accusations against those of us "ignorant fuckwads" who should "fuck off and die" who raise ethical objections against contraception.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:10 AM on May 10, 2006

I'm glad this article was posted; I read it over the weekend, and found it to be a horrifying confirmation of what I'd long suspected is the motivation behind most 'ant-abortion' rhetoric: the desire to exert control over women's sexuality.

Thanks for bringing it to a wider audience. Let's get this social offal out into the open and look at it for what it is.
posted by Miko at 10:13 AM on May 10, 2006

Sorry, what are the ethical objections against contraception? I've only seen moral ones here so far and that's not the same thing at all. In what way is being "anti-child", in the sense of being personally against having children, intrinsically and objectively negative and unethical?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:19 AM on May 10, 2006

I speak here as someone who has been personally involved in the issue of contraception and abortion.

Six months ago, after much deliberation, my wife and I had an abortion.

We were well educated in issues of birth control, abstience, etc. We were at the time a long-term exclusive couple, but not yet married. I had previous partners, however limited, but she did not. We were using the standard OrthoTriCyclen birth control pill, but were in the tiny fraction for which it was unable to be sufficient to prevent conception.

We were both people who considered ourselves morally opposed to abortion. But we still did it.

Since then I have had many long and sleepless nights, and had nightmares for much of the first two months afterward. There's something for which all the literature in the world can't prepare you.

But it's done now, and there's no going back. Looking back on it, the issues we were concerned with were:

A 30% chance of birth complications with real risk to my wife's survival of which the doctor informed us.
The very real likelyhood that we would not be able to financially support the child.
The knowledge of how difficult separation would be if adoption were permitted.
The trouble in dealing with her traditional family, which would disown her for a child not aborted that was born or conceived out of wedlock.

We wrestled with these issues for weeks, and finally decided it was in the overall best interests of us to go through with the abortion.

We did not consider ourselves a special case, but rather represenative of troubles that many couples routinely go through when confronting these issues. Although we are morally opposed, and have vowed never again to do so except for the possibility of rape/healthOfTheMother, we believe ourselves to understand the faceat of this problem that fundamentalists will never admit: This is a very real problem facing very real people regularly. No matter what your moral stance, it is not proper to legislate against it. Abortion and contraception should be discouraged when possible, but never illegal and always presented as an option.
posted by mystyk at 10:21 AM on May 10, 2006 [2 favorites]

Correction: In the last sentence, contraception should not be discouraged. I lumped two sentences into one, and warped the context because of it.
posted by mystyk at 10:23 AM on May 10, 2006

Displays of contempt and disrespect are a pretty reliable indicator that something is going on other than good confronting evil.

So now I have to respect and honor child molesters, murderers, rapists, and other such ilk? Or can I disrespect them and hold them in contempt because I think they are evil?

Do you understand why so many here are upset? Do you see why these doctrines cause pain, disease, and death?
posted by NationalKato at 10:29 AM on May 10, 2006

ignorant fuckwads who want to shove their backward morality down a whole nation's collective throat should fuck off and die.

Worth repeating, over and over again.

I feel no guilt at all -- none -- for using contraception. I feel no guilt at all -- none -- for being involved in two partners' abortions. No guilt. None.

And I would feel no guilt -- none -- shovelling lime into a pit filled with ignorant fuckwads as described above.

This is how good people respond in the face of evil.

Also worth repeating. Over and over again.

in point of fact, manifesting contempt and disrespect is not how good people characteristically respond in the face of evil

What colossal bullshit. That's exactly what good people respond, right before they do everything in their power to destroy that evil.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:39 AM on May 10, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "In point of fact, manifesting contempt and disrespect is not how good people characteristically respond in the face of evil. "

Nonsense. If evil is deserving of anything, it is contempt.

These people are advocating mass murder. They must be treated with the utmost contempt and disrespect, lest they gain more power than they already have.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:46 AM on May 10, 2006

NationalKato: Or can I disrespect them and hold them in contempt because I think they are evil?

I find it more fruitful to treat evil people with love and respect, even if only love and respect for the human nature in that person that has become twisted by their evil choices. I don't see how calling people "cretins" and "offal" and helps anything. The fact that so many of you resort so quickly to such name-calling is, to my mind, the most intriguing feature of this discussion so far.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:50 AM on May 10, 2006

I merely wish to say: Bravo, mystyk, bravo. Thank you for your words and your insight into the meaning of what we're reading here.
posted by mephron at 10:51 AM on May 10, 2006

mystik: We wrestled with these issues for weeks, and finally decided it was in the overall best interests of us

Thanks for sharing your story.

Were you thinking of "us" as including your child? I ask because some people who get abortions convince themselves that the child would be better off dead than being given up for adoption. Or was the "us" you and your girlfriend? In either case, here's what is to me the more interesting question: how did you decide which "us" was the appropriate one to be deliberating about?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:00 AM on May 10, 2006

I'd like to know what the fuck makes peeping_Thomist think he has the right to ask mystyk those questions.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:12 AM on May 10, 2006

Seconded.
posted by NationalKato at 11:14 AM on May 10, 2006

I hope you find it intriguing that you and the rest of the backwards fanatics should fuck off and rot.
posted by puke & cry at 11:17 AM on May 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Faint of Butt and NationalKato, I am trying to understand what mystyk was saying. I quoted what he said, and I asked for clarification about what he meant by what he said. Isn't that just what a conversation is?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:18 AM on May 10, 2006

peeping_Thomist, he listed the issues he and his wife dealt with in this decision. You merely need to read his post carefully. Your question is phrased in such a way as to insinuate that mystyk and his wife did not consider the topic of their decision: the child. Which is just naive....or confrontational, which is how I read your question.
posted by NationalKato at 11:30 AM on May 10, 2006

"The fact that so many of you resort so quickly to such name-calling"

Actually it took me about 32 years or so before I realized that quietly tolerating other people's insane rantings and attempts to replace the constitution with the bible was irresponsible and perhaps un-american.
I was raised in the bible belt with the attitude that I was free to choose my path, and you could choose yours, attend the church of your choice and raise your family as you see fit. But that wasn't good enough for a vocal minority who want to inject their beliefs into every aspect our lives.
And now that this element is in a position of power and actively crafting policy that will result in more death and degradation, you damn well better expect to be confronted on it.
So drop the cry baby conservative act; it's getting old.
posted by 2sheets at 11:32 AM on May 10, 2006

NationalKato, I've heard lots of people give explanations of their abortions. They often differ on precisely the point I was asking about. mystyk's account was ambiguous, and he seemed interested in being as clear as possible, so I've asked for a clarification. I don't think my question was confrontational or naive. I'm interested in hearing how he came to the conclusion he reached, which is what I understood him to be trying to communicate to us.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:35 AM on May 10, 2006

Anyway, I find the level of contempt and disrespect shown in this thread pretty impressive.

Me too!

In particular, I am very cheesed at the level of contempt and disrespect you show toward others. Somehow, you seem to have conceived the idea that you should have a right to interfere with what I do in a consensual adult relationship.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:36 AM on May 10, 2006

five_fresh_fish, I don't know what you're talking about.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:37 AM on May 10, 2006

I hope you can see why it is hard to credit the good faith of people who make such accusations against those of us "ignorant fuckwads" who should "fuck off and die" who raise ethical objections against contraception.

If you want your ethical objections to bind me as law, then as far as I'm concerned you can and should go play in traffic. Seriously. If you think that your morality gives you the right to legislate the sex lives of others, you can in fact fuck off and die. If you have a personal "ethical objection" and your significant other genuinely agrees with you and you practice what you think in your own bedroom then I honestly don't care what you do or think or say. But keep the fuck out of my bedroom. Reproductive rights are phenomenally important as basic human rights. If you think birth control is immoral for personal use, I may think your ideology is full of shit, but I don't care. If you want to outlaw birth control, then you've got a fight on your hands.
posted by graymouser at 11:39 AM on May 10, 2006

PT isn't naive; he's very canny. He's just absolutely convinced that any view on sexuality that is outside his archconservative, deviant belief system is not merely wrong but that anyone who holds such differing views are somehow mentally deficient.

It isn't intriguing, though. It's just kinda sad. But I feel just a little warmer inside knowing that his grandkids will try very hard to pretend that he didn't exist.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:39 AM on May 10, 2006

Arguing with teleological types about sexuality is like wrestling with a pig in shit, but I give you guys credit for trying.

Also, I hear if you hum "Every Sperm Is Sacred" while reading the Summa backwards, Jesus will reappear on earth, drippin' with glory, to provide us with a PowerPoint presentation concerning the "final cause" of the human appendix. Film at eleven.

The 11th century, that is.
posted by joe lisboa at 11:45 AM on May 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

graymouser, you can fight people without treating them contemptuously. Demonizing the enemy is not a tactic of which to be proud.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:45 AM on May 10, 2006

It won't surprise you to learn that my explanation for the uncivil tone of this conversation is that many people are oversensitive about this topic because they do not have clear consciences about it.

It would not surprise me at all: I'm quite certain that that is precisely how you justify your interference with my private life.

In essence, you regard my life choices with contempt and disregard any assertion I make that does not jive with your pre-conceived rationale for my behaviour. Doesn't actually matter that you're wrong, because you don't believe me when I tell you that. You somehow know what drives me, more than I do!

And yet you wonder why I might react hostilely to your unwanted attention, your outrageous lies, your stupid suppositions, your encroachment on my personal rights.

In all honesty the only response I feel truly sums it all up is this: fuck off and die, creep. Ain't your business what I do.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:45 AM on May 10, 2006

Demonizing the enemy is not a tactic of which to be proud.

And yet, religions have done this since their creation.

peeping_Thomist, I'm not going to go back and forth with you over mystyk's post - his comments are not 'ambiguous.' He states, in order of importance, the factors weighing upon his and his wife's decision. Each of them, if you actually consider them for a moment, reflect a different facet of what 'us' he's referring to, from the health of the mother and child, to the child alone, to his family.

Your question intends to pick apart one word and use it to place unnecessary judgement on the unfortunate experience. It's a poor tactic, and in doing so you miss the point of his post.
posted by NationalKato at 11:58 AM on May 10, 2006

Christian Fundamentalism is a mental disorder.
posted by stenseng at 11:59 AM on May 10, 2006

This kind of evil disgusts me. Particually the blocking of a working cancer vaccine. Utterly disgusting behaviour.

To me, the greatest achievement of humanity was not man on the moon, or any of the other usual suspects, but the elimination of smallpox from the face the planet. The vaccine. The toll and suffering of millennia of smallpox was beyond measure. History.

Now, for the first time, a safe and effective vaccine that protects women against a cancer, and WHAT THE FUCK?!!?!

Evil. Indescribable evil.

Draping itself with the name of Jesus no less.

Utterly disgusting.
posted by -harlequin- at 12:03 PM on May 10, 2006

Demonizing the enemy is not a tactic of which to be proud.

And yet, religions have done this since their creation.

Heh, hence the existance of the word demonizing.
posted by -harlequin- at 12:04 PM on May 10, 2006

graymouser, you can fight people without treating them contemptuously. Demonizing the enemy is not a tactic of which to be proud.

I choose not to. The opponents of reproductive rights haven't taken the gloves off, ever, and they've gone from fringe groups in the wake of Roe v. Wade to a sizeable minority. Fuck the theocrats. I'll fight fire with fire if that is what is going to keep your morality out of my bedroom.
posted by graymouser at 12:08 PM on May 10, 2006

NationalKato, I read mystik's post carefully before I asked my question, and I've reread it carefully since then. I still think the passage I quoted was ambiguous, and that my request for clarification was reasonable, not in any way mean-spirited or judgmental, let alone confrontational. I didn't (and don't yet) understand who he meant by "us".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:10 PM on May 10, 2006

graymouser, you can fight people without treating them contemptuously. Demonizing the enemy is not a tactic of which to be proud.

But it is an often powerful technique that can bring incredible good into the world: Tom Paine, perhaps the most ideologically important (certainly purest) and angrily confrontational of this nation's founding fathers jumps to mind.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:11 PM on May 10, 2006

I'd like to ask peeping Thomist why he thinks that we should have more cases of cervical cancer rather than fewer.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:15 PM on May 10, 2006

graymouser, apparently many people on your side of this fight think name-calling brings credit to your cause. I think in the long run it's a tactic more likely to alienate potential allies than to rally new recruits to your side. Since apparently appeals to civility regarding this matter are destined to fall on deaf ears, I guess we'll just have to wait to see which of us is right about the utility of name-calling.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:18 PM on May 10, 2006

“I genuinely believe that people like this are evil. Not mean, or small-minded, or what-have-you, but evil. Intrinsically and irredeemably evil.” - posted by aramaic

Well, one of many things I’m opposed to is promiscuity. I believe there are certain behaviors people engage in that can be detrimental to their health and it’s been my experiance that commited relationships are healthier mentally and physically.

However I am also opposed to forcing certain kinds of behavior on someone else. There is a spectrum of behaviors where I believe there should be involvment and degrees of that involvement.
I’m sure we can all agree that if someone breaks into someone’s home and murders them, the police should be involved to prevent and redress that.
I’m also certain we can agree - with certain irrational and thus ignorable exceptions - that what goes on between two married people in the privacy of their home is inviolate (given no abuse, and other such qualifications, etc.).

In between there lay certain legal and social concerns and questions of our degree of involvement in them.

While we can agree that younger people often make mistakes, we can also agree that we cannot always be there to prevent them from doing so.
We can also agree that in some cases overprotecting an individual can weaken them.

In cases like this there are certain fundimental truths. Some people are going to have sex outside of marriage. Some people are going to get pregnant (well, the female half of some people, the other half is getting them pregnant).

It is also a fact that human sexuality is in part a social interaction, not solely intended for the creation of a child.
As I eschew promiscuity, I recognize the component of sexuality that binds two people together and builds feelings and associations.
I recognize that as part of a normal and healthy committed relationship. It is when someone engages in sex devoid of any feeling at all that it is unhealthy (nymphomania/satyriasis comes to mind - but there are lesser non-compusive social degrees).
The admonishment here could be considered similar to that on the love of money being the root of all evil. Certainly one can engage in one night stands or casual sex without egregious harm, just as one can build wealth and become rich without suffering overwhelming attachment to money - it is very dangerous to maintain as a standard practice however.

So the dichotomy here is between this recognition that some kinds of sex can be harmful and see a child as a negative unwanted outcome and some kinds of sex is positive and - given a committed relationship - could handle the possibility of a child although that is not necessarialy the aim.

The question then is to what degree are we willing to create pressure towards the latter situation.

I would argue that given the nuances of social sexual behavior, the kind of pressure being brought to bear by the American Life League is (loosely) similar to fetishistic sadistic domination in a sexual relationship. Which is itself very unhealthy as an obsession.

If the aim here is for healthy productive relationships, than the focus would be on modeling those as well as providing adoptive services to families within that model.

Instead the focus is on ego driven denial of other’s sexual desires which in fact brings more attention to those relationships than the healthy productive ones and creates a sort of guilt driven desire for those kinds of relationships and that kind of pleasure bound to guilt.
(Anyone who’s been in the S&M scene sees this as a matter of course*).

So I would argue that, if we’re talking evil and if we’re using Judeo-Christian symbols, pride is the worst of sins, not lust. These people are accusing the lustful from a position of pride, and their pride demands that there must be a lustful.
They interfere with the aims of those of us who actually want healthy stable relationships because we recognize those as conducive and supportive of our own (sort of the ‘plague’ model - if everyone else is disease free, you have less of a chance of contracting anything yourself), not because we want to reveal ourselves as (again, using Judeo-Christian symbols) more worthy or more aware of the word of God.

But with or without the symbols, with or without the sex, that is what this particular business is about. Passing moral judgement upon another.

“Let the Priests of the Raven of dawn, no longer in deadly black, with hoarse note curse the sons of joy. Nor his accepted brethren, whom, tyrant, he calls free: lay the bound or build the roof. Nor pale religious letchery call that virginity, that wishes but acts not!
For every thing that lives is Holy.” -William Blake (Marriage of Heaven and Hell)

*long story as to how I’m aware of this.

My sympathies mystyk
posted by Smedleyman at 12:20 PM on May 10, 2006

I would also like to ask peeping Thomist if he believes that women with cervical cancer who contracted HPV from anyone but their spouse deserves it, and if he sees that disease as God's righteous punishment.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:23 PM on May 10, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: I thought this thread was about contraception. I don't have any developed opinion about a HPV vaccine.

Are there any other examples where we have mandatory vaccination for a disease that can only be contracted as the result of lifestyle choices? I could certainly see making an HPV vaccine optional (much as you get malaria shots if you choose to travel to certain countries), but mandatory? That does seem questionable, especially if there are any side effects to the vaccine. But I'm open to being convinced that mandatory HPV vaccination is the way to go.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:23 PM on May 10, 2006

peeping_Thomist:

I do not make it a point to take courses in tactics from the advice offered by political opponents, especially when their actions (and the anti-reproductive rights camp is a great example of this) belie those tactical niceties. My concern in this particular area is to see this camp's political hopes destroyed completely. This is not accomplished by engaging in a farce of rational debate with the irrational opponents of personal rights.
posted by graymouser at 12:24 PM on May 10, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: I already addressed the question about who "deserves" what. I've never personally known an opponent of contraception who believes that it makes any sense to talk about particular people especially "deserving" to fall ill or die. I think this is a slur against us.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:26 PM on May 10, 2006

graymouser, calling obviously rational people irrational is beneath your dignity.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:26 PM on May 10, 2006

NationalKato, I read mystik's post carefully before I asked my question, and I've reread it carefully since then. I still think the passage I quoted was ambiguous, and that my request for clarification was reasonable, not in any way mean-spirited or judgmental, let alone confrontational. I didn't (and don't yet) understand who he meant by "us".

Bull-fucking-shit you don't.
posted by agregoli at 12:27 PM on May 10, 2006

A calm tone does not a rational person make.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:28 PM on May 10, 2006

I already addressed the question about who "deserves" what. I've never personally known an opponent of contraception who believes that it makes any sense to talk about particular people especially "deserving" to fall ill or die. I think this is a slur against us.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:26 PM PST on May 10

So then you would agree that, if safe, the HPV vaccine needs to be approved by the FDA?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:28 PM on May 10, 2006

agregoli, what do you think he meant by "us"?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:30 PM on May 10, 2006

Ah, in the heat of the thread, I missed your response. I am glad to see that we are all on the sane, rational side here.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:31 PM on May 10, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: certainly as an optional vaccine, along the lines of the malaria vaccine. I'm not yet convinced (thought I haven't thought much about it) that it would make sense to have it be mandatory. But if you're just asking about FDA approval for a safe vaccine that would protect against HPV, with the question of whether it is optional or mandatory to be settled later (or perhaps at the local level), that sounds reasonable enough to me.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:32 PM on May 10, 2006

agregoli, what do you think he meant by "us"?

What the fuck does it matter what I think? I have more taste than to speculate on his post - he can clarify for you if he wants, although I don't know why he should respond to someone as callous and disrespectful as you.

The point of your post was to pick at someone who was openly hurting about the situation, and to bring up in some horribly round-about way the anti-choice idea of the fetus as not being complicit in the choice made.

Your little "I don't understand" game isn't fooling anyone.
posted by agregoli at 12:38 PM on May 10, 2006

agregoli, what do you mean by "complicit"? Seriously, I don't understand what you are trying to say.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:40 PM on May 10, 2006

peeping_Thomist:

Let me make this abundantly clear. If you want to make contraception illegal, I do not consider you a rational person. I do not have any interest in affording you the courtesy of a rational debate, since your premise in this argument is that I should not have control over what goes on in my bedroom, and neither should my girlfriend. If you have personal ethical objections to contraception but are willing to respect others' right to use and access of it, then we have room for a respectful debate. If you do not respect that right, then fuck off and die.
posted by graymouser at 12:50 PM on May 10, 2006

solid-one-love: what do you think "complicit" means? I looked it up, and all I can say is that what agregoli said doesn't make any sense to me. Do you all have some other dictionary I don't know about?

As for mystyk's use of "us", he could have meant either himself and his girlfriend, or all three of them. Both are very common among people who get abortions, and it wasn't clear which he meant.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:50 PM on May 10, 2006

graymouser, my own view is that right now outlawing contraception would rightly be received by most people as an arbitrary and irrational imposition on their private lives. I think that's a regrettable and mistaken reaction, and I hope the time will come when that reaction is no longer a reasonable one, but so long as it is a reasonable reaction, I think it would be unreasonable to outlaw contraception, even if (as isn't right now the case) it were politically possible to do so.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:54 PM on May 10, 2006

Agregoli, he doesn't understand what "us" means, or "complicit". I suspect that if you answer him, he'll get confused by the word "means" or "decision" or "it" or "the". You're absolutely right: his game is fooling nobody.

YOU are absolutely right. Joke is on me for even bothering to engage with someone like that.

PT - I used it correctly, that I can see. I can't give you clarity, nor do I need to explain further - figure it out yourself.

As for mystyk's use of "us", he could have meant either himself and his girlfriend, or all three of them. Both are very common among people who get abortions, and it wasn't clear which he meant.

One has to wonder why you deem it so important to find out what he meant. What does it matter?
posted by agregoli at 12:54 PM on May 10, 2006

Hey Thomist, don't you have some witches to waterboard or something?
posted by stenseng at 1:03 PM on May 10, 2006

Here's my bottom line, PT:

Regardless whether you religionists get your way in having abortion and birth control banned, there is no way you will ever prevent my wife from doing exactly as she wishes as regards sex and pregnancy. It is simply beyond your means to do so.

I will put my very life on the line to ensure she gets what she needs.

Are you going to put your life on the line to stop her?
posted by five fresh fish at 1:03 PM on May 10, 2006

peeping_Thomist = dhoyt
posted by Floydd at 1:03 PM on May 10, 2006

agregoli, could you refer me to a dictionary where I could find a definition of "complicit" as you used it? I haven't been able to find an entry that makes sense of it. See, for example,
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=complicit

The idea of a fetus being complicit in a choice (or not) doesn't make any sense to me.

Once again - it is not my problem if you don't understand the word or the useage. I don't even understand why you are belaboring this point, except to be a total prick, but you haven't answered that for anyone. So fuck off and figure it out yourself.
posted by agregoli at 1:06 PM on May 10, 2006

Good for you five fresh fish. I feel the same way. Fuck anyone who would stand in my way - I WILL get what I want for my own body and life.
posted by agregoli at 1:07 PM on May 10, 2006

One has to wonder why you deem it so important to find out what he meant. What does it matter?

It's quite obvious why peeping_Thomist deems it important: it's the chink in the defense he's hoping to break through. It's the basis of an argument on his lips just waiting to come out.

It's confrontational and naive to think that the couple did not consider the child in their decision - since the child is the decision.

It's like asking someone who just removed a loved one from life support whether they included said person in the consideration of their actions. It's fucking obscene.
posted by NationalKato at 1:07 PM on May 10, 2006

Of course it's callous, of course it's obscene. Because conservatives - fundies, are fucking nuts. They don't give two shits about the "life of a child." They fucking HATE people. These are the selfsame assclowns that cut free and reduced lunches, fight against nationalized healthcare, and subsidized childcare for single moms.

They don't give two shits about you, your kids, or your wellbeing.

They just want to make sure that no one is having any fun. God forbid you should be able to fuck for pleasure.
posted by stenseng at 1:11 PM on May 10, 2006

To them, god is a big fucking stodgy prick who looks like Chuck Heston, and hates anyone who has a good time. Even their version of heaven is sucky and boring.

They hate themselves, they hate their world, and they're not even sure that the afterlife they're WASTING THEIR REAL LIVES for is all it's cracked up to be, and they sure as shit hate you for getting laid, listening to good music, and smokin' the reefer, while they sit around playing Pinochle and wait for the fucking Rapture.
posted by stenseng at 1:13 PM on May 10, 2006 [2 favorites]

NationalKato, many times people make the decision very much against the baby: us versus the baby. I've heard women say exactly that: it was me or the baby, and I chose me. Other times people make the abortion decision and think of it in terms of what is best for all, including the child. It was not clear from what mystyk said which of these two different ways of thinking about "us" he had in mind. Mystyk seems like a decent, articulate fellow, and he certainly sounded like he wanted to tell us what his deliberations were like. I don't see how it's confrontational for me to ask for clarification; I'm certainly not probing for a chink in his defense, and I have no intention of pursuing an argument against aboriton in this thread.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:14 PM on May 10, 2006

agregoli, I don't think you know what "complicit" means.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:16 PM on May 10, 2006

Enron Hubbard: How do the certifiably insane rise to positions of power?

By having lots of children?
Ironically, this is exactly what evolution predicts.

peeping_Thomist, I'm pretty fed up with your attitude.
You come in here and obliquely criticise people who give honest accounts of their most personal, intimate experiences, yet you take no stand so that you can feign innocence when someone questions your motives.

Riddle me this, peeping_Thomist:
Are you opposed to the vaccine for cervical cancer?
Do you encourage the use of the vaccine for cervical cancer?
Do you lend your support to groups that oppose a vaccine for cervical cancer (apart from the US govt, of course)?
posted by spazzm at 1:17 PM on May 10, 2006

So you hope that at some point, people would not be averse to not being allowed contraception. HOwever, you say that *right now*, they are rightly averse. First, if it's objectively *right* now, woudln't it be objectively *right* later? Second: you seem to imply that outlawing contraception is not arbitrary, but rather rational? How would it be rational?

Third, what kinda fucked-up theocratic (and therefore unamerican, yeehaw that's fun) utopia do you envision that contraception isn't available, and everyone's ok with that?
posted by notsnot at 1:17 PM on May 10, 2006

It's quite obvious why peeping_Thomist deems it important: it's the chink in the defense he's hoping to break through. It's the basis of an argument on his lips just waiting to come out.

Duh, I already said as much. Follow along.
posted by agregoli at 1:19 PM on May 10, 2006

Somehow, I got on agregoli's nerves. Time for me to step out.
posted by NationalKato at 1:22 PM on May 10, 2006

agregoli, I don't think you know what "complicit" means.

I think YOU really don't know what it means, even after looking it up. Stop fucking talking to me about a stupid word you don't understand. I don't care if you understood what I was talking about because you know full well what you were driving at with your comments and they indicate your asshole-ness quite nicely.
posted by agregoli at 1:22 PM on May 10, 2006

notsnot: I draw a distinction between reasonability and truth. I'm a relativist about rationality, but not about truth. So long as there are people for whom a ban on contraception would be unreasonable, it would be unreasonable to impose such a ban. But as spazzm rightly points out, demographic trends are likely to radically transform this discussion in coming years.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:23 PM on May 10, 2006

Is there anyone other than agregoli who can explain what "complicit" means as he used it?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:24 PM on May 10, 2006

But as spazzm rightly points out, demographic trends are likely to radically transform this discussion in coming years.

Not enough so that contraception for anyone would cease to be reasonable.
posted by agregoli at 1:25 PM on May 10, 2006

As SHE used it. I'm a woman, thanks.
posted by agregoli at 1:25 PM on May 10, 2006

Is there anyone other than agregoli who can explain what "complicit" means as she used it?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:28 PM on May 10, 2006

The answer is right in your response:

The idea of a fetus being complicit in a choice (or not) doesn't make any sense to me.

Which is the point it appeared you were trying to make - did they consider the feelings of the fetus on the matter? Which, I am 99% sure is the kind of question you were asking, is about the rudest thing ever, and why you are getting the responses you are.
posted by agregoli at 1:32 PM on May 10, 2006

The demographic trends toward more children being born to the religious nutjobs, yes, but not to those children continuing to be religious nutjobs. Thank you very much, can personally attest that one can be born to radically "pro-life" parents and yet think quite differently.

There will always be people for whom a ban on contraception would be unreasonable. In fact, I'd bet you a Snickers bar that a majority of people, from any time period since contraception became a widespread feasibility, would find such a ban unreasonable. Your point, then, is moot.

Oh, and knock off with the minutiae. It's irritating. I could nitpick the shit out of your use of "rightly" and "radically", but I won't. Don't even fucking ask.
posted by notsnot at 1:35 PM on May 10, 2006

Is there anyone other than agregoli who can explain what "complicit" means as she used it?

Is there anyone other than agregoli who can explain what "complicit" means as she used it?

Is there anyone other than agregoli who can explain what "complicit" means as she used it?

Is there anyone other than agregoli who can explain what "complicit" means as she used it?

*zzzzzrt*

Is there anyone other than complicit who can explain what "agregoli" means as she used it?

*bbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzrrrrrt*

SYSTEMS OVERLOAD - PEDANT MELTDOWN

BOOP BOOP BOOOP
posted by stenseng at 1:37 PM on May 10, 2006

*fwap*fwap*fwap*fwap*fwap*
posted by Floydd at 1:39 PM on May 10, 2006

But as spazzm rightly points out, demographic trends are likely to radically transform this discussion in coming years.

I did no such thing. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
posted by spazzm at 1:40 PM on May 10, 2006

DON'T WASTE THAT IT'S GOD'S.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:40 PM on May 10, 2006

*uuughhh*

Too late....
posted by Floydd at 1:41 PM on May 10, 2006

Several people have objected to my asking what mystyk meant by "us". To the people who objected: do you think his decision would be less reasonable if he had meant by "us" him and his girlfriend, or if he had meant all three of them? Is it that you think I'm trying to get mystyk to make some damning admission? My own view is that it's no worse for a person to reason the one way than the other. Some people who get abortions reason the one way, others reason the other way. Some believe they are doing what is best for all, including the baby, while others believe they are sacrificing the baby to do what is best for the mother (and whoever else the mother is taking into account). Since both of those lines of thought seem to me equally unreasonable, it hadn't before occurred to me that people might see a significant moral difference between them. Does the person who says "it was me or the baby" strike people as doing something worse than the person who says "I really think this abortion is what is best for the baby"? I can't quite get my mind around this distinction, but it seems to offer a good explanation of the vehemence of people's reaction.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:41 PM on May 10, 2006

spazzm, sorry about that.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:42 PM on May 10, 2006

My own view is that it's no worse for a person to reason the one way than the other.

Then why ask?
posted by NationalKato at 1:43 PM on May 10, 2006

Oh no, stenseng is crashing! Call the technicians!
posted by agregoli at 1:44 PM on May 10, 2006

Uh, if you consider both lines of thought reasonable and acceptable, why the third degree, Sgt. Friday?
posted by stenseng at 1:44 PM on May 10, 2006

Damn, I pity their daughters.

And their sons-in-law.

I have seen some young people fall away from the principles of their upbringing and into depraved lifestyles, but I've also seen most of those young people eventually return to the faith of their fathers.

These are, of course, not the only two options, nor are they necessarily opposites (or even that far apart). Withholding a vaccine that prevents cancer because it might increase promiscuity is the essence of depravity.

graymouser, calling obviously rational people irrational is beneath your dignity. [emphasis mine]

Source bias.

Regardless whether you religionists get your way in having abortion and birth control banned, there is no way you will ever prevent my wife from doing exactly as she wishes as regards sex and pregnancy. It is simply beyond your means to do so.

Well, you also have the advantage of living in Canada, where your crazies are less crazy, and less powerful.
posted by oaf at 1:44 PM on May 10, 2006

NationalKato has it - YOU'RE the one who is trying to make the distinction - it doesn't matter to the rest of us, and if it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't be asking. I can think of no reason why you'd ask otherwise.
posted by agregoli at 1:45 PM on May 10, 2006

Are there any other examples where we have mandatory vaccination for a disease that can only be contracted as the result of lifestyle choices? I could certainly see making an HPV vaccine optional (much as you get malaria shots if you choose to travel to certain countries), but mandatory? That does seem questionable, especially if there are any side effects to the vaccine. But I'm open to being convinced that mandatory HPV vaccination is the way to go.

The problem, Thomist, is that HPV is not always the fault of the woman. If their partner was promiscuous previous to this relationship and the woman was not, and the woman contracts HPV and then develops the cancer, this is not her fault.

The absolute bottom line is this: there is a vaccine that can almost completely wipe out a form of cancer within two generations (assuming a 45 year period from menarche to menopause). That is an unqualified reason to give this vaccine: that it will remove something that kills people.

The idea that it will somehow give people the OK to have sex is, on the surface, ludicrous. Those who want to have it will continue; those that want to wait will continue to wait. At the age of 15, few hormonally-charged personages will, in fact, consider HPV; look at how few consider the problems of pregancy.

One of my mother's friend has been in chemotherapy for a metastized cervical cancer. Wouldn't it be good if her granddaughter had no idea what it was? Why is the idea of STOPPING A FORM OF CANCER so wrong?

That's the part that I don't understand. Explain to me that part.
posted by mephron at 1:46 PM on May 10, 2006

Does the person who says "it was me or the mass of tissue" strike people as doing something worse than the person who says "I really think this abortion is what is best for the mass of tissue"?

Fixed that for you.
posted by Floydd at 1:48 PM on May 10, 2006

Oaf, keep in mind that abortion wasn't made legal in Canada until 1988, which is 15 years after it was made legal in the US, and that it wasn't freely available in all Canadian provinces until 2004. Whether or not Canadian fundies are less powerful or less crazy than American fundies is debatable.

Like FFF, I will defend to the death my girlfriend's right to choice. My death, if necessary. The fundies' deaths, preferably.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:49 PM on May 10, 2006

Metafilter: young people fall away from the principles of their upbringing and into depraved lifestyles
posted by stenseng at 1:54 PM on May 10, 2006

stenseng rebooted!
posted by

Political Science & Promiscuity May 9, 2006 7:01 PM Subscribe

Political Science & Promiscuity
May 9, 2006 7:01 PM Subscribe