Political Science & Promiscuity

May 9, 2006 7:01 PM

"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)

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 [1 favorite]

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

"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

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.
posted by 2sheets at 7:25 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

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:

(in order of importance to us at the time)
• 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

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.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:44 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

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.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:00 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 NationalKato at 1:54 PM on May 10, 2006

Several people have objected to my asking what mystyk meant by "us".

OK, I'll attempt to guess:

• A 30% chance of birth complications with real risk to my wife's survival of which the doctor informed us. Presumably, since the complications are at birth, it's the wife's concerns that are being taken into consideration here. A 30% chance of possibly deadly complications is nothing to sneeze at. Even as safe as it's been made, carrying a baby to term is still more dangerous than the abortion pill that was pulled off the market due to several women taking it and dying.
• The very real likelyhood that we would not be able to financially support the child. The potential parents' concerns are taken into account here, but so are those of the child—should the child have to suffer the effects of its family not having enough money to raise it properly?
• The knowledge of how difficult separation would be if adoption were permitted. A concern for all three, but probably less of a concern for the child, unless he/she were to develop some sort of complex about being adopted later in life.
• 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. A concern for all three, as they would be shunned by the wife's family for an indeterminate period of time (possibly forever). The child would most likely have to deal with it for a longer period.

So they're not being as selfish as you might like to think, peeping_Thomist.
posted by oaf at 1:55 PM on May 10, 2006

WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME?
posted by stenseng at 1:57 PM on May 10, 2006

I'm sorry, stenseng, I think you missed it. Queen to bishop three, bishop takes queen, knight takes bishop, mate.
posted by Floydd at 2:01 PM on May 10, 2006

oaf, I wasn't trying to suggest anyone was being selfish.

And I don't understand: does this mean that you people think a person who says "it's the baby or me" is being selfish?

Several people have asked why I asked mystyk about his use of "us". I asked because I wanted to understand what he was trying to tell us. It sounded like it was important to him to be understood, and I wasn't clear on something he was saying. I don't think it makes that much of a difference one way or the other as far as evaluating his action is concerned, but my goal wasn't to evaluate it, my goal was to understand it. Which I still think is a worthy goal.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:03 PM on May 10, 2006

stenseng, do a systems check, make sure no data was lost!
posted by agregoli at 2:03 PM on May 10, 2006

SCANNING LOGIC SUBROUTINES - - -

Logic Subroutines Corrupted! Logic board fails! Checksum Fails!

Revert to Catholic/Protestant/Baptist/Evangelical? Y/N
posted by stenseng at 2:05 PM on May 10, 2006

Whether or not Canadian fundies are less powerful or less crazy than American fundies is debatable.

Well, at least they're polite fundies, right?
posted by oaf at 2:10 PM on May 10, 2006

ABORT/RETRY/FAIL?
posted by Floydd at 2:11 PM on May 10, 2006

C:\>
posted by agregoli at 2:13 PM on May 10, 2006

Microsquash(R) JebusOS
(C)Copyright Microsquash Corp 1990-2001.

C:\DOCUME~1\BLESSED~1>c:

C:\DOCUME~1\BLESSED~1>dir\p
Volume in drive C has no label.
Volume Serial Number is 7471-CF7D

Directory of C:
File Not Found

C:\DOCUME~1\BLESSED~1>
posted by stenseng at 2:19 PM on May 10, 2006

WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY AGAIN? > |
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:28 PM on May 10, 2006

GLOBAL THERMONUCLEUR WAR
posted by agregoli at 2:30 PM on May 10, 2006

WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY AGAIN? > |
posted by oaf at 2:31 PM on May 10, 2006

posted by stenseng at 2:32 PM on May 10, 2006

posted by stenseng at 2:34 PM on May 10, 2006

peeping_Thomist: I forgive you.
posted by Sparx at 2:41 PM on May 10, 2006

DOES NOT COMPUTE
posted by stenseng at 2:45 PM on May 10, 2006

Let's do this silliness thing earlier next time. The talibanesque jerks from religionist sects don't deserve the time of day, let alone a forum in which to promulgate their odious religous rule.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:47 PM on May 10, 2006

YOU ARE CORRECT!
posted by stenseng at 2:48 PM on May 10, 2006

Aw, Speak 'N Spell.
posted by agregoli at 2:53 PM on May 10, 2006

five_fresh_fish, you should be more circumspect about declaring that certain people don't "deserve" to be treated with respect. One of the great advantages of American democracy (as opposed to other forms of liberalism) is that we are committed to respecting even views that put in question our most fundamental commitments. If you give up that principle, you've given up quite a lot, and for not much benefit other than the thrill of being able to call people names.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:35 PM on May 10, 2006

Whoa, buddy- I LOVE calling people names!
posted by 235w103 at 3:49 PM on May 10, 2006

I feel neglected. I guess my RFC didn't pass.
posted by mephron at 3:50 PM on May 10, 2006

I'm getting into the thread a bit late today, and I honestly thought I couldn't be more appalled at this administration until I read it. I lost my fiance 5 years ago to cervical cancer, likely attributable to HPV (although honestly we never knew for sure...just that she had the end result). I nearly cried when Merck announced they had discovered a possible vaccine because I knew in my heart that it had the chance to keep a lot of people from having to go thru what Sarah had to. Anything to fight that horrible sickness is welcome in my book, and I'll shout it from every rooftop.
posted by rhythim at 3:52 PM on May 10, 2006

Oh, god, rhythim, I'm sorry. I don't know what kind of a monster would willfully fight against a vaccine. It's sickening.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:56 PM on May 10, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "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."

I tend to think it works the other way around. It's not hard to wonder about the consciences and motivations of the people who obsess about the righteousness of other people's sex lives. Who made it your business?
posted by krinklyfig at 3:59 PM on May 10, 2006

If elected as your benevolent dictator I promise anyone against the distribution of contraception or the HPV vaccine qualifies for immediate sterilization.

I also promise retro-active abortion will remain painless, safe, and legal through-out my tenure as your benevolent dictator.
posted by tkchrist at 4:24 PM on May 10, 2006

five_fresh_fish, you should be more circumspect about declaring that certain people don't "deserve" to be treated with respect.

No I shouldn't.

One of the great advantages of American democracy (as opposed to other forms of liberalism) is that we are committed to respecting even views that put in question our most fundamental commitments.

No you aren't.

If you give up that principle, you've given up quite a lot, and for not much benefit other than the thrill of being able to call people names.

No I haven't.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:50 PM on May 10, 2006

I've been gone for several hours. Sorry.

Since I've somewhat accidentally become a major topic in this thread, I thought I'd go ahead and answer the question.

What do I mean by my use of "us"? That changes depending on what you examine. Part of it was the best interests of my wife. Part was the best interests of us as a couple. Part of it was the best interests of us as a nuclear family (child and all) and part of it was the best interests of us as an extended family. It doesn't have to mean only one, super defined thing. I would say that the particular instance of the word you were referring to means all of those simultaneously. Why? because all of those were our legitimate concerns.

If I had to guess, based on a particular comment of yours, I do not think that any embryo would want to be aborted, assuming you magically imparted on it the cognitive ability to comprehend the action. Even then I still think we made the best choice possible. There's a lot more to consider than just what a child would theoretically want.

I'll leave the thread soon, but there's a bit more I wanted to share. We were looking into the possibility that the birth control, and continued use of it before we knew she was pregnant, could have been the cause of the possible complications. I never did get a definitive answer on that from the doctor. Also, we are planning to try to have children in a while, once we're better situated. We have decided that all of our children deserve the right to know about their unborn sibling, once they get old enough to really comprehend the whole situation. Maybe I'll just show them this thread.
posted by mystyk at 5:07 PM on May 10, 2006

Let me summarize:

peeping_Thomist: You are all going to burn!!! Don't put your penis there!! don't put that into/pull that out of your Vagina!!!



Everybody else: FUCK OFF!! YOU FUCKING FUCK!!

oh, and bad Joshua/WOPR impersonations


Have I got that about right?
posted by Megafly at 5:09 PM on May 10, 2006

The seat belt analogy is spot on and is exactly what popped into my mind as I read the Unruh quote.
posted by bz at 5:19 PM on May 10, 2006

mystyk: We have decided that all of our children deserve the right to know about their unborn sibling, once they get old enough to really comprehend the whole situation.

How old do you envision that being?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:29 PM on May 10, 2006

One of the great advantages of American democracy (as opposed to other forms of liberalism) is that we are committed to respecting even views that put in question our most fundamental commitments. If you give up that principle, you've given up quite a lot, and for not much benefit other than the thrill of being able to call people names.

Uh... No. Nope, sorry, wrong.

We are committed to accepting and allowing any cockamamie form of speech you and other screwballs out there wish to foist upon us.

Ain't nowhere says we have to respect it, you backwards, cretinous little nincompoop. =)
posted by stenseng at 5:34 PM on May 10, 2006

How old do you envision that being?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:29 PM PST on May 10

Describe to me in detail your wife's favorite sexual positions and if you've done anal, since it's apparently Inappropriate Personal Questions Hour.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:35 PM on May 10, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "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. "

Hey, if thinking that gives you the warm snuggly sense of self-righteousness you so obviously live for, knock yourself out. It does not, however, give you any real insight into why any of us feel so strongly about this issue.

I have used birth control for most of my adult life because I believe that it is the most moral choice I could realistically make. I wasn't emotionally or mentally stable enough to make a good mother. I drank alcohol, smoked cigarettes, ingested recreational substances and had a crappy diet. I dated a lot of jerks. Not having access to birth control would not have been an incentive for me to straighten up my act, contrary to what you might believe. The child that a lack of access to birth control would have eventually produced would have been stuck with me as a mother and one of my loser ex-boyfriends as a father. The person I was 15 or 20 years ago would have been a terrible parent.

On a more positive note, I have been in a stable, monogamous relationship with a wonderful man for 8 years. Late last fall, my husband and & decided to get pregnant. I was ready to get pregnant much earlier in the relationship, but respected my husband's desire to wait. Again, I made this choice because I believed that it was the most moral one - I wanted him to be fully ready to be a father.

Two reasons to use birth control - preventing the creation of a child I couldn't adequately physically or emotionally nurture, and respecting another person's right to fully choose when they were ready to be a parent. My conscience is absolutely clear.

The world that you and your ilk want to create would rob me of the ability to make the choices that I feel were the most moral I could make, all the while with the smug self-assurance that *you* know what's best for me and everyone else who would be affected by a lack of access to birth control. You're not the person who would have to deal up close and personal with the consequences of an unintended pregnancy in the midst of an already miserable and chaotic life, and somehow I doubt that you're the type to try to intervene in another's misery for any reason other than to quote platitudes or clearly establish that you are their moral better. Hope that adequately explains my "uncivil tone".
posted by echolalia67 at 5:37 PM on May 10, 2006

stenseng, shouting down views you don't agree with, calling people names, and repeatedly lying about people (e.g. saying that they hate sex, or that they are insane, or that they believe people who get sick "deserve" it) is incompatible with minimal civility.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:45 PM on May 10, 2006

Optimus_Chyme, how about this: just as a general question for anyone to answer who cares to, how old do you think a child would need to be before it would be a good idea for his or her parents to tell him or her that he or she had an older sibling who was aborted? No doubt there's going to be a range, but what would you think would be the factors that would determine when it was appropriate?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:50 PM on May 10, 2006

"...is incompatible with minimal civility."

You don't say.

Sorry, screwhead.
posted by stenseng at 6:00 PM on May 10, 2006

how old do you think a child would need to be before it would be a good idea for his or her parents to tell him or her that he or she had an older sibling who was aborted?

Well, if it were my kid - because that's the only one whose upbringing I should have any control over - I wouldn't tell him or her. I also wouldn't tell him or her the details of his or her conception, if you follow. If pressed, I'd wait under he or she were an older adolescent who had been thoroughly instructed on human sexuality and birth control, and the pitfalls of sexual behavior. I hope that answers your question and that it concludes your efforts to pry into the lives of people like mystyk who have a lot more to offer MetaFilter than you do.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:12 PM on May 10, 2006

amen to that.
posted by stenseng at 6:36 PM on May 10, 2006

All this handwringing is for naught. Abortion is one thing; even many in the right to choose camp are uncomfortable with the act itself, they just are more uncomfortable with taking away a woman's control over her own body. However, when it comes to birth control I think the right to lifers are going to find it an awful lot harder to put this genie back into the bottle. It dilutes their message and shows them to be rather narrow minded.
posted by caddis at 6:48 PM on May 10, 2006

how old do you think a child would need to be before it would be a good idea for his or her parents to tell him or her that he or she had an older sibling who was aborted?

You're question seems to imply there should be some generalized rule. Why? What's wrong with trusting the parents, who one would reasonably expect to know the child and their circumstances better than the rest of us, to decide when and if it's appropriate? In other words, it's none of our business.
posted by normy at 6:52 PM on May 10, 2006

You're Your
...must ...make...coffee ...
posted by normy at 6:57 PM on May 10, 2006

normy, I wasn't thinking of there being some general rule. I guess I'm more interested in what sorts of considerations would make someone think their child either was or was not yet ready to learn of such a thing. If you had decided you wanted to tell your children, what sorts of factors would push you in the direction of thinking "now" is the right time to tell them.

With regard to human sexuality in general, there's a lot of variation, but I feel like I had a grip on how to decide when to start talking with my children about sex. But the "you had an aborted sibling" message strikes me as significantly different.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:16 PM on May 10, 2006

However, when it comes to birth control I think the right to lifers are going to find it an awful lot harder to put this genie back into the bottle. It dilutes their message and shows them to be rather narrow minded.

Absolutely. And those in favor of reproductive freedom can and should demonize the "right to life" movement because of this opposition to birth control, which reveals the underlying hostility toward sex and a woman's right to control her body that underlies the whole edifice. The politics of anti-choice lead right down the path of anti-birth control, and the pro-choice movement can and should hammer this point whenever and wherever possible.
posted by graymouser at 7:19 PM on May 10, 2006

graymouser: which reveals the underlying hostility toward sex and a woman's right to control her body

Apparently the idea is that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:25 PM on May 10, 2006

The people on your side, Thomist, clearly believe that a woman does not have a right to control her body. In addition, they spread misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of condoms, promote abstinence pledges that don't work, and call for abstinence-only sex education, which also does not work. You can't get much more hostile to sex than that.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:59 PM on May 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

"you had an aborted sibling"

Yeah, I'm not sure this conversation ever needs to happen. An aborted fetus is not a 'sibling'.

My grandmother had three miscarriages before having my mother and aunts. We don't call the miscarraiges 'siblings'.
posted by Miko at 8:32 PM on May 10, 2006

Just for the record, here at the two posts that started this entire peeping_Thomist idiocy:

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.
posted by 2sheets at 7:25 PM PST on May 9 [+fave] [!]

I don't appreciate being called a cretin and a nutjob.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:49 PM PST on May 9 [+fave] [!]

Buddy, you laid claim to that title.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:32 PM on May 10, 2006

Peeping Tom=voyeur.

Voyeurism is a practice in which the individual derives sexual pleasure from secretly observing other people.

I guess that out buddy Thomist's sexual predilections ensure that birth control and abortion will always be uneccessary in his life. Good for him.

(I'm fully aware that Thomism is a philosophy bases on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. It's still a pretty racy handle for such a non-racy guy)

Seriously, though, rather than spending time and energy debating the creepy little sedated woman-hater, why don't we just pretend he's not here? He'll scuttle off soon enough.
posted by cilantro at 8:38 PM on May 10, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: The people on your side, Thomist, clearly believe that a woman does not have a right to control her body.

Unless this is code for opposition to abortion, it is false. And if it is code for abortion, it can hardly be what underlies opposition to abortion, which was the slur against us.

they spread misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of condoms,

There have been cases of misguided people doing that, but I don't see what that has to do with hostility to sex.

promote abstinence pledges that don't work,

My understanding is that abstinence pledges have been shown to delay the onset of sexual activity though not to decrease the likelihood of premarital sexual activity. Have you heard something different?

and call for abstinence-only sex education, which also does not work.

I guess everything turns on what counts as "working".

You can't get much more hostile to sex than that.

That would be true if hostility to contraception were equivalent to hostility to sex. But it's not, and in any case if you claim that it is, then you have to give up the claim that hostility to sex underlies hostility to contraception, since something can't underly itself.

Seriously, the "hates sex" and "don't want women to control their bodies" lines are outright lies, sheer propaganda. Given that more than 95% of the population endorses contraception, it's hard to see why some people feel the need to lie about the few of us who oppose it. When I see such lies--over and over and over again, and apparently taken as a dogmatic article of faith immune to revision in the face of contrary evidence--it makes me wonder what is really going on.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:52 PM on May 10, 2006

Thomist, based upon what I've seen of your cockeyed worldview, you're going to wonder what is really going on for some time to come.
posted by stenseng at 9:05 PM on May 10, 2006

That would be true if hostility to contraception were equivalent to hostility to sex.

You can see your own tonsils, can't you?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:16 PM on May 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

peeping_Thomist is simply using rhetoric that undermines the beliefs of the majority in very obvious terms, by disrespecting views that are fairly obvious by wording but contentious to him. To question a plain use of English is, to me, more insulting than yelling epithets at a stranger.

As for the ethics of denying a HPV vaccine, read the FPP. It was the second link, at least attempt to notice what's going on before starting up your agenda. This is about crappy "anti-child mindset" rhetoric and HPV.

I'm great that your life choices have worked for you. As the recent ask.mefi post about empathy explained, there's a good in understanding that others are not like you and that there are benefits to understanding other perspectives. I can understand the idea of waiting until marriage for sex, not using contraceptives, and sticking with your spouse through thick and thin. I have friends and relatives who have done that, some with more success than others. Where are your friends who have been promiscuous then come around to a religious view? Do you have friends who followed your own formula yet still had a failed marriage? They may be in the minority according to your uncited studies, but they're still people and worthy of consideration.
posted by mikeh at 10:09 PM on May 10, 2006

I have to wonder - since Thomist seems to think it would be okay to force people to live without contraceptives, I wonder how he would feel if society forced him to use contraceptives.
posted by rougy at 10:31 PM on May 10, 2006

mikeh: peeping_Thomist is simply using rhetoric that undermines the beliefs of the majority in very obvious terms, by disrespecting views that are fairly obvious by wording but contentious to him.

I don't have a clue what you are saying here.

As for HPV, about which I think I do understand what you're trying to say, I found the second link in the FPP both biased and uninformative. A HPV vaccine sounds like a good idea to me, assuming that it is safe. I'd be interested in hearing actual details about the ongoing controversy rather than an attack piece in a liberal publication.

In response to your questions: I have friends who have been promiscuous and have then come around to a Catholic view of human sexuality. I also have friends who have tried to live according to the Church's teaching but have ended up with a failed marriage. I'm not sure what your point was in asking, but yes, I know a pretty wide range of people. I don't know what would lead you to think that I don't think of them as "people and worthy of consideration".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:33 PM on May 10, 2006

rougy, I don't think the conditions exist in any modern nation-state that would make it reasonable to outlaw contraception, not because of opinion polls, but because of the modern nation-state's lack of moral authority in such matters. Simply getting "enough" people to agree to such a proposal wouldn't suffice to give the state moral authority to implement it. And while I think it is possible that there could, at least in principle, be a political order that had the moral authority to outlaw contraception, I don't, for obvious reasons, think any political order could ever have the moral authority to impose contraception upon its citizens. But the discussion is moot, since the modern nation-state isn't going anywhere any time soon.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:41 PM on May 10, 2006

Gosh - Thomist - which passage of the Bible did you pull that from? Maybe we should outlaw the Bible instead....
posted by rougy at 11:01 PM on May 10, 2006

"And while I think it is possible that there could, at least in principle, be a political order that had the moral authority to outlaw contraception, I don't, for obvious reasons, think any political order could ever have the moral authority to impose contraception upon its citizens."

Moral authority? What difference does that make?

Does the word "overpopulation" mean anything to you?

You'r an eloquent, albiet shallow person, Thomist. You're looking at the world through what appears to be a small hole.
posted by rougy at 11:06 PM on May 10, 2006

rougy: Moral authority? What difference does that make?

It makes this difference: recognizing inherent limits on the state's authority to impose its will at gunpoint is the only way to avoid a political order that is arbitrary and irrational.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:45 PM on May 10, 2006

"You're looking at the world through what appears to be a small hole."

Yeah, guess which one...
posted by stenseng at 11:51 PM on May 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

: 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.

...earlier:

: And while I think it is possible that there could, at least in principle, be a political order that had the moral authority to outlaw contraception, I don't, for obvious reasons, think any political order could ever have the moral authority to impose contraception upon its citizens. But the discussion is moot, since the modern nation-state isn't going anywhere any time soon.

But you really wouldn't mind if it did go, wouldn't you?
posted by uncle harold at 1:20 AM on May 11, 2006

"...recognizing inherent limits on the state's authority to impose its will at gunpoint is the only way to avoid a political order that is arbitrary and irrational."

Like denying people access to birth control, for instance?
posted by rougy at 1:27 AM on May 11, 2006

rougy: Like denying people access to birth control, for instance?

Given the current political order, yes. But in itself having a state deny people access to birth control can be a perfectly fine thing.

uncle_harold: But you really wouldn't mind if it did go, wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't mind if modern nation-states passed away, so long as they were not replaced with chaos (which is the only obvious available candidate right now).

I wouldn't mind living (heck, would love to live) in a political community in which contraception had been reasonably banned. But there's no straightforward path from here to there, and if there were an attempt to ban access to contraception given our current situation, that would be a very bad thing. Not just because people would be angry (though clearly they would), but because they would have good reason to be angry.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:13 AM on May 11, 2006

Unless this is code for opposition to abortion, it is false. And if it is code for abortion, it can hardly be what underlies opposition to abortion, which was the slur against us.

Well, braniac, if you oppose a woman's right to abortion, you oppose a woman's right to control her body. Would you force people to donate blood under penalty of jail time? Would you force them to donate their kidneys while they still live? It would save lives, after all.

There have been cases of misguided people doing that, but I don't see what that has to do with hostility to sex.

Don't be coy. Any informed person knows that the scientific consensus is that condoms are safe and effective. Anti-contraception advocates spread lies about their effectiveness because they feel that lying is an appropraite tactic to stop sex outside of marriage or sex for any reason other than procreation.

My understanding is that abstinence pledges have been shown to delay the onset of sexual activity though not to decrease the likelihood of premarital sexual activity. Have you heard something different?

Do you have your head in the ground? You might try reading something: (1, 2)

I guess everything turns on what counts as "working".

If it doesn't prevent teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs, it doesn't work. How's that for a handy definition?

Seriously, the "hates sex" and "don't want women to control their bodies" lines are outright lies, sheer propaganda.

Mmm, nope. Maybe you don't hate all sex - but you definitely hate all sex that is not procreative and within a heterosexual marriage. That is definitely true.

it makes me wonder what is really going on.

Yeah, why would we be mad? The conservative Christian right is against an HPV vaccine, wants to ban sex toys from being sold, are teaching kids that condoms don't work, oppose distributing condoms in the most AIDS-ravaged countries in the world, and promote sexual education that may be worse than no sexual education at all and is certainly worse that a rational, scientific education that takes into account the realities of adolescence. Now why would we be mad?

You're not stupid. But you are incredibly ingorant and deeply misinformed. The fact that I had to bother looking up the Columbia-Yale study and the Guttmacher study for you is deeply depressing, as anyone advocating the kind of world you advocate should probably take into account what's going on in the real world. But how stupid of me to give you the benefit of the doubt.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:37 AM on May 11, 2006

peeping_Thomist, having just read mystyk's explanation for his use of the term 'us' and seeing how several of us picked up on this waaayy prior to having mystyk explain it (and since a few of us broke it down for you), do you now see why your repeated nitpicking was a bit much?
posted by NationalKato at 7:09 AM on May 11, 2006

Good on PT for representing the nigh on indefensible position of the anti-contraception christian mind set.

I would respect Christians (and I hope I am not assuming too much here as regards PTs faith) a whole lot more if they practiced what he (Christ) preached. Christ seemed to be fairly into living a modest life, caring for others, giving up any possesions, spreading god's love. He didn't seem to have much to say on the subject of contraception, abortion or anti-cancer drugs.

I mean, if you are going to believe the story of Christ and examine your faith and seek out the true meaning of love go for it. Just shut up about it.

I am ignoring the bulk of the book, which I think shares similar themes to the other Abrahamic religions and as such is kind of manual for keeping the faith when your tribe is having a particularly difficult time of it for a few generations. They certainly kept the faith, but then some came to the conclusion that it was the faith that kept them. Difficult times can bring on strange mental contortions; witness the conspiracy theories associated with any recent event in American history.

Personally, I think the ideas that people should be ashamed of their naked bodies, enjoying sex, drugs and rock and roll have not been beneficial to the mental well-being of the human race.
posted by asok at 7:11 AM on May 11, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: The fact that I had to bother looking up the Columbia-Yale study and the Guttmacher study for you

I was aware of both those studies before you "looked them up for me". I did not say anything about the efficacy of abstinence-only education other than it all depends what counts as "working". The claim I made was about abstinence pledges, and how they have been shown to delay but not reduce the incidence of premarital sex. (Did you notice that people who take abstinence pledges have fewer sexual partners and marry earlier?) Your claim that I am "incredibly ignorant" and "deeply misinformed" is baseless, but just the sort of slur that is to be expected in this forum, where name-calling substitutes for reasoned discourse.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:48 AM on May 11, 2006

Did you notice that people who take abstinence pledges have fewer sexual partners and marry earlier?

Heck, if I'd taken a pledge of abstinence I'd want to hurry up and get married, too. Quickest way for me to have some sex. The human species is hardwired to want to procreate.
posted by NationalKato at 7:55 AM on May 11, 2006

The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life
posted by caddis at 7:55 AM on May 11, 2006

The claim I made was about abstinence pledges, and how they have been shown to delay but not reduce the incidence of premarital sex.

The point is not if it reduces or delays premarital sex, because that being a good thing is your personal contorted moral view (that you are perfectly entitled to).

What counts is lives saved and less STDs, and when you have proper sex-ed and no artificial inhibitions against condoms or talking about sex, you can have all the premarital sex you want and still save lives and lower teen pregnancy and spread of STDs. See also: pretty much the rest of the developed world outside the US.

Did you notice that people who take abstinence pledges have fewer sexual partners and marry earlier?

Chicken, meet egg, egg, meet chicken.
posted by uncle harold at 8:03 AM on May 11, 2006

uncle_harold: The point is not if it reduces or delays premarital sex [...] What counts is lives saved and less STDs

But of course your views about what "the point is" and of "what counts" aren't the product of "your personal contorted moral view (that you are perfectly entitled to)", but are instead the unambiguous verdict of pure common sense. Right?

Is there no limit to how unreflective is it possible for people to be?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:13 AM on May 11, 2006

PT, what counts more to you: lives saved or less sex?
posted by caddis at 8:15 AM on May 11, 2006

Thanks, caddis. Because if people having less sex is more important than saving people's LIVES, then I fail to see how that is a fantastic moral position to have.
posted by agregoli at 8:20 AM on May 11, 2006

(Did you notice that people who take abstinence pledges have fewer sexual partners and marry earlier?)
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:48 AM PST on May 11

I'd rather marry someone who used a condom with ten parters than someone who didn't use a condom and had only two partners. But hey, less sex and more STDs must be great. I hope that works out for you.

Check this shit out: Among virgins, boys who have pledged abstinence were four times more likely to have had anal sex, according to the study. Overall, pledgers were six times more likely to have oral sex than teens who have remained abstinent but not as part of a pledge.

The pledging group was also less likely to use condoms during their first sexual experience or get tested for STDs, the study found.

Last year, the same research team found that 88% of teens who pledge abstinence end up having sex before marriage, compared with 99% of teens who do not make a pledge.

Hmm, 11% more don't have sex before marriage, but those who do are less likely to use protection or get tested for STDs. I can't possibly see how you feel that the benefits outweigh the risks here.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:28 AM on May 11, 2006

caddis: what counts more to you: lives saved or less sex?

Your question has faulty assumptions. Ethics isn't primarily about counting things. Given a straight choice between two outcomes, one in which more people die and another in which more people have illicit sex, I'd rather more people have illicit sex. But in performing actions we don't directly choose between outcomes, we have to actually bring about those outcomes by doing things. Much turns on what we are willing to do in order to achieve desirable outcomes. Counselling people on how to do things that are immoral is not something it's OK to do, even though there would be some good consequences from it. I think the evidence is still ambiguous about how good the consequences of promoting contraception are, and am inclined to think there are many very negative consequences that people are inclined to gloss over. But my opposition to teaching contraception to children doesn't turn on the state of that evidence. The perversion of treating one's own body and the bodies of others the way contraception requires one to treat them is what makes contraception an unacceptable means to whatever ends you think it will help you achieve.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:34 AM on May 11, 2006

Counselling people on how to do things that are immoral is not something it's OK to do, even though there would be some good consequences from it.

You think that sex is immoral because of your religion. Kindly keep it out of my life, thanks.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:36 AM on May 11, 2006

The perversion of treating one's own body and the bodies of others the way contraception requires one to treat them is what makes contraception an unacceptable means to whatever ends you think it will help you achieve.


Oh, please do elaborate on why using contraception creates a situation where there is a perversion of treatment towards the body. Please, oh please.
posted by agregoli at 8:45 AM on May 11, 2006

The perversion ... is what makes contraception an unacceptable means to whatever ends you think it will help you achieve.

We're not making soylent green here. We're not doing some truly heinous SciFi movie Nazi medical experiment. This isn't the work of Dr. Frankenstein on his "monster." We're teaching people who are going to do these things either way (a fact, as shown repeatedly in study after study that you even acknowledge) how to do them safely, and we're not removing abstinence as an option to be taught.

You've already stated that you think it's morally acceptable for a country to outlaw contraception, just not technically feasible at present. You've also said that you think it's morally unacceptable for a country to similarly mandate contraception, regardless of circumstances. This is where you give up your inherent hypocritical bias. You think that government intrusion is overstepping bounds when it goes the way you don't like, but is perfectly ok when the same level of intrusion goes the way you do.

I don't care if you tried to pick at my story or not. Really, I don't mind, because my goal was to relate my experiences so others can learn from it, not care if others disagree. All comments made to or about me aside, the cognitive dissonance you're showing for the issue overall is simply pissing me off.

That's it. We're done. You've lost all legitimacy with these inane arguments.
posted by mystyk at 9:15 AM on May 11, 2006

I think the evidence is still ambiguous about how good the consequences of promoting contraception are,

... as is the evidence that teaching people about contraception increases sexual activity. In your opinion teaching someone how to protect themselves and their partner in immoral activity is wrong, while I am of the opinion that it is perfectly acceptable to counsel them to act morally and avoid the behavior, but that if they are weak and succumb to temptation to at least take some precautions. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

Another question for you, do you think it is acceptable for married couples to use contraception?
posted by caddis at 9:24 AM on May 11, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: You think that sex is immoral because of your religion.

That's not true, and I've told you it's not true, but you keep saying it anyway.

Optimus_Chyme: Kindly keep it out of my life, thanks.

Yes, let's do talk about keeping things out of people's lives. You all want to take money from me, at gunpoint, to pay for things that are immoral. Please explain to me how that's not a clear case of your "religion" infringing on my life. Do I get to opt out of paying property taxes if you get your way and schools are required to teach my neighbors' children how to defile their own bodies?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:29 AM on May 11, 2006

caddis: do you think it is acceptable for married couples to use contraception?

Of course not.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:31 AM on May 11, 2006

Do I get to opt out of paying property taxes if you get your way and schools are required to teach my neighbors' children how to defile their own bodies?

It's called the social contract, PT. If you don't like it, you get to leave the society. You don't get to opt out of parts of the contract.

Please explain to me how that's not a clear case of your "religion" infringing on my life.

You don't know what "us" or "complicit" means, so I guess it was too much to suppose that you knew what "religion" meant, too. Or "defile". Or "immoral".
posted by solid-one-love at 9:35 AM on May 11, 2006

solid-one-love, if you'd told the founders of the United States that the "social contract" included taxing people to pay other people's children how to use contraceptives, they'd have laughed you to scorn. The principle you are operating on is clearly "might makes right": you have enough people on your side to oppress a small minority, so the act of oppression stands in no further need of justification. "Social contract" my ass.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:38 AM on May 11, 2006

if you'd told the founders of the United States that the "social contract" included taxing people to pay other people's children how to use contraceptives, they'd have laughed you to scorn.

Trans-temporal telepathy is a wonderful thing. James Randi will pay you a million American dollars for a demonstration under scientifically-controlled conditions.

I think it's much more likely that the deists who made up the majority of your founding fathers would have gladly beaten the shit out of you for your narrow-minded, anti-freedom idiocy.
posted by solid-one-love at 9:43 AM on May 11, 2006

caddis: do you think it is acceptable for married couples to use contraception?

Of course not.

Which goes to show that your argument is all along about your dislike of contraceptives in general. I suppose my wife and I are going to burn in hell for that, huh?

So, then, if you just want to stop all contraceptives, why bring up issues of abstinecne? Was it a red herring?

You proceed to claim it's wrong on moral grounds. A religious perspective, and nothing more. Who are you to decide another person's morality, if it doesen't effect you personally? That would be akin to mandating their religion.

Since you brought up payment coming out of taxes, let's continue that thread. You claim it's immoral to tax you, but the government isn't working from a point of morality. You know, that pesky wall of separation that Jefferson used to spout off about. The one he made clear must exist, but that you want demolished (as long as your religion is the one controlling things). The government is operating under the ideas of social goods, and the facts have been in for decades now that contraception has many, many social benefits (detailed pretty well in this thread) even if you consider it immoral. It has also been proven conclusively that abstinence-only education and blocking contraceptives has many social drawbacks, even if you consider it moral. Get off your high horse and look at what these programs actually do and you'll realize why so many people view your ideas of what's moral on this issue to be completely off-the-wall.
posted by mystyk at 9:45 AM on May 11, 2006

That's not true, and I've told you it's not true, but you keep saying it anyway.

Then what the fuck are you talking about when you say "Counselling people on how to do things that are immoral is not something it's OK to do, even though there would be some good consequences from it"?

So sex is not immoral, but contraception is? You think it's better for teenagers not to use condoms than to use them? You're all over the place.

Do I get to opt out of paying property taxes if you get your way and schools are required to teach my neighbors' children how to defile their own bodies?

Teaching adolescents - the vast, vast majority of whom will have sex whether you like it or not, no matter what you tell them - that condoms are a safe and effective way of preventing pregnancy and STDs is not defilement.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:45 AM on May 11, 2006

I think I've witnessed some of the best trolling MeFi has ever experienced.

I say this because it would really upset me to learn that PT is for real. I know his particular breed of religious lunacy exists; I just prefer to deny that it can make its way to MeFi.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:24 AM on May 11, 2006

We're not being trolled, FFF. Reading from his posting history is like listening to Pat Robertson, without the charm, humour, insight or intelligence.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:32 AM on May 11, 2006

mystyk: Who are you to decide another person's morality, if it doesn't effect you personally? That would be akin to mandating their religion.

I haven't proposed any such thing. I haven't proposed taking away your ability to get access to your precious contraception. Yet you guys want to point a gun at me (which is how governments ultimately enforce laws) and make me pay for other people's kids to use contraception. Real open-minded, folks.

I haven't asked for the government to prohibit the use of contraception, and I don't have any problem with an optional HPV vaccine. You people are freaking out because someone in your midst actually believes that contraception is wrong. The image I used earlier seems apt: you guys are howling as though I'd pressed on an abcessed tooth.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:42 AM on May 11, 2006

ACLU Decries Congress’s Failure to Make Emergency Contraception Available to Military Women
posted by homunculus at 10:47 AM on May 11, 2006

Yet you guys want to point a gun at me (which is how governments ultimately enforce laws) and make me pay for other people's kids to use contraception. Real open-minded, folks.


Huh? That doesn't make any sense. How is teaching kids how to use contraception the same as buying it for them with your tax dollars?
posted by agregoli at 10:48 AM on May 11, 2006

Yet you guys want to point a gun at me (which is how governments ultimately enforce laws) and make me pay for other people's kids to use contraception.

Yeah, and I help pay to bomb Iraqi children. Doesn't mean that I'm going to pull some bullshit whiny crap about not paying taxes.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:51 AM on May 11, 2006

agregoli, you're taking money from me, at gunpoint, to pay teachers to teach perversion to other people's children. What gives you the right to take that money from me for that immoral purpose?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:52 AM on May 11, 2006

Optimus_Chyme, how do you feel about your tax dollars being used to bomb Iraqi children?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:53 AM on May 11, 2006

That's the funniest thing I've been told I'm doing ever.

I can't even respond. For real. Oh my god that is hilarious.

I'm sorry, but this is starting to be too surreal and hysterical to continue talking about - I can't take PT seriously any more at all. From now on I'll be laughing from the sidelines.
posted by agregoli at 10:53 AM on May 11, 2006

Out of interest, peeping-Thomist, what are your views on natural birth control?
posted by kar120c at 10:56 AM on May 11, 2006

Have a seat by me, agregoli.
Here, have a beer.
posted by Floydd at 10:57 AM on May 11, 2006

Optimus_Chyme, how do you feel about your tax dollars being used to bomb Iraqi children?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:53 AM PST on May 11

It sucks.

But in contrast to the contraception "debate," at least there are good reasons for teaching adolescents the basics of human sexuality. Public health costs will be decreased, and lives will be saved, and fewer children will be born to unprepared parents.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:59 AM on May 11, 2006

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. How is teaching kids how to use contraception the same as buying it for them with your tax dollars?

I guess teaching it is not only the same, but even worse: educated children might, one day, start to think for themselves. The horror!
posted by uncle harold at 11:03 AM on May 11, 2006

Aw, thanks, Flyodd.
posted by agregoli at 11:04 AM on May 11, 2006

Optimus_Chyme, I agree that it does suck. And there's no reason for me to be any happier about being forced to pay for teaching perversion to children than I am about being forced to pay for killing innocent children.

If you all want to engage in perversion in the privacy of your bedrooms, by all means feel free; we live in a society in which we've agreed to allow each other to make such decisions. If you want to teach your children to engage in perversions, that's your responsibility, just as it's my responsibility to teach my own children how to respect their own bodies and the bodies of other people. But if you want to point a gun at me and make me pay for your perversions, or to pay people to teach your children how to indulge in your perversions, I say you are overstepping the bounds of the social contract, and not by a short distance, either.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:16 AM on May 11, 2006

What gives you the right to take that money from me for that immoral purpose?

It's not an issue of 'rights'. You have given your consent by your choice to remain a citizen. Seriously, are you that stupid?
posted by solid-one-love at 11:18 AM on May 11, 2006

"I wouldn't mind living (heck, would love to live) in a political community in which contraception had been reasonably banned."

I'd be more than happy to start a collection to send you to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. I can't really think of another place on earth that would live up to your standards of purity.
posted by 2sheets at 11:27 AM on May 11, 2006

solid-one-love: seriously, do you see any constraint on a government's power to tax for abritrary purposes?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:35 AM on May 11, 2006

2sheets, neither Afghanistan nor Saudi Arabia is "a political community in which contraception has been reasonably banned". Banned, yes. Reasonably, no.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:37 AM on May 11, 2006

seriously, do you see any constraint on a government's power to tax for arbitrary purposes?

If there is one single purpose at all that is not arbitrary for a government to raise taxes for, it's public health.
posted by uncle harold at 11:42 AM on May 11, 2006

Of course there are restraints. Those restraints are determined by elected bodies, and you have the franchise to vote for who makes up those bodies. And I'm pretty sure you also don't know what "arbitrary" means.

In any case, complaining that you're being forced at gunpoint to fund perversion is, at best, merely ignorant. Whatever homeschooling you got was worth what you paid for it.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:44 AM on May 11, 2006

Using words like "immoral," "defile," and "perversion," doesn't square with peeping_Thomist's claims to not be arguing on religious grounds.

Oh, please do elaborate on why using contraception creates a situation where there is a perversion of treatment towards the body.
Well, condoms do look pretty silly [SFW].
posted by kirkaracha at 11:49 AM on May 11, 2006

How is contraception perverse?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:54 AM on May 11, 2006

PT- so what would constitute a "a political community in which contraception has been reasonably banned"?
posted by InfidelZombie at 11:54 AM on May 11, 2006

IZ: one in which everyone thought as he did, I imagine, where secular thought had been bred out of the populace or some such nonsense fantasy.

But we're arguing with a guy who on the one hand advocates some Bizarro-world strict constitutionalist view where Roe v Wade was decided by activist judges giving people rights that they don't have, while out of the other side of his mouth he maintains that children have the right to live in a household with two married parents of different genders.

Where it suits his paleo-xtian mindset, he'll cling to the most fucktarded argument like a tapeworm egg clinging to a dried turd. And when the holes in his "reasoning" are pointed out, he relies on forgetting the meanings of simple English words.

Can I pull up a seat, agregoli?
posted by solid-one-love at 12:07 PM on May 11, 2006

InfidelZombie, it would have to be a political community in which the government did not see itself as implementing a divinely commanded law, but instead through a rational dialogue the community became aware of the ways in which contraception undermines human flourishing and decided to take appropriate steps to guard against it. It would have to be something other than an imperialist modern nation-state.

Taliban types are scary, and the repeated accusations that I am some kind of religious fanatic are evidence of pretty poor reading skills on some people's part.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:08 PM on May 11, 2006

*comes back in and hoists a case of beer*

What'd I miss?
posted by NationalKato at 12:16 PM on May 11, 2006

...it would have to be a political community in which the government did not see itself as implementing a divinely commanded law, but instead through a rational dialogue the community...

In other words, a represenative democracy with a strict separation of church and state? I wonder where we may find a country with a constitution like that...(I guess as I look at it, under the current administrators and with the strong push of religion behind it, ours fails to qualify any more. Perhaps there is a political party in this country that actually opposes religious interference in government affairs)

...the ways in which contraception undermines human flourishing and decided to take appropriate steps to guard against it.

human flourishing includes issues of public health. By allowing contraceptives, they are taking exactly the appropriate steps to guard public health.
posted by mystyk at 12:18 PM on May 11, 2006

Can I pull up a seat, agregoli?

Solid-one-love, I'm thinking of making margaritas. This is too incomprehensible to miss. I'm starting to think that PT's favorite word is "perversion" because he's used it like 50 times. It's like some gross fetish.

Those dirty lawmakers forcing a gun to my head to make me pay to teach perversions to children!

Doesn't it sound naughty?

I've never heard anyone talk in this way about these subjects, ever. Even with all the fucktard fundie shit I've read over the years. It's fascinating.
posted by agregoli at 12:20 PM on May 11, 2006

What does Kirk Cameron think about all this?
posted by NationalKato at 12:20 PM on May 11, 2006

*starts slicing limes*
posted by Floydd at 12:24 PM on May 11, 2006

Once again, NationalKato asks the REALLY important questions...
posted by agregoli at 12:30 PM on May 11, 2006

but instead through a rational dialogue the community became aware of the ways in which contraception undermines human flourishing

There are 6.5 billion humans alive on this planet. We are the most successful species of our size to have ever lived. We use forty percent of the planet's terrestrial net primary productivity. The last thing we need is for all of us to forgo birth control, especially when it means there are children who will be born only to die desperate and hungry. How many people is enough for you? Ten billion? Twenty billion? A hundred billion? The planet does not have the resources to support all of humanity at the current growth rate. You can have it two ways: sane policies on family planning and contraception, or a world torn by wars for fresh water, land, and energy, where 95% of the children born will know nothing but thirst, starvation, and misery.

You pick.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:34 PM on May 11, 2006

OC,

Amen to that!
posted by mystyk at 12:56 PM on May 11, 2006

contraception undermines human flourishing

!!

!

*pulls up another seat*
posted by funambulist at 12:56 PM on May 11, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: How many people is enough for you?

There are effective ways to regulate family size without resorting to contraception.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:03 PM on May 11, 2006

Coming on her tits for one.
posted by longbaugh at 1:04 PM on May 11, 2006

I've heard that called "The Sin of Ohhhh-Man!!!"
posted by Floydd at 1:07 PM on May 11, 2006

Effective? Not as effective as contraceptives.
posted by agregoli at 1:11 PM on May 11, 2006

(I think we're back to the ol' abstinence, agregoli, since it's so easy for peeping_Thomist. Besides, he'd rather just watch)
posted by Floydd at 1:15 PM on May 11, 2006

Oh, I hope not. That's so sad - to think of a married couple not having sex because it's not for a baby.

It makes me want to run home and do my husband right now. Hooray for birth control pills! I can't wait until I get off of them though, and do something permanent about the situation. Hooray for no kids and tons of sex always!!!
posted by agregoli at 1:18 PM on May 11, 2006

There are effective ways to regulate family size without resorting to contraception.
posted by peeping_Thomist 15 minutes ago

This is the real world. Try telling the undeveloped countries with a boom in the younger population that because a few fat, wealthy, spoiled American Christians think condoms are a perversion that they should just stop fucking. When you have a realistic alternative that acknowledges that people will fuck no matter how often you tell them not to, and no matter what threats you make, then maybe I'll give half a shit about what you have to say.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:22 PM on May 11, 2006

instead through a rational dialogue the community became aware of the ways in which contraception undermines human flourishing and decided to take appropriate steps to guard against it.

I find it hard to concieve of a society where everyone would come to that conclusion through discussion, at least one of more than a few hundred people at best.

Personally, I think contraception contributes to human flourishing by allowing us to control our fertility. This creates opportunities for personal development that would otherwise be unavailable due to the necessity of child rearing. It also allows us to be more responsible in choosing when and with whom to create a new life, without having to sacrifice sexuality.

From your posts, I doubt you would be swayed by arguments along this line. I have found your position above to be equally unconvincing.

If we both agree that a free society is what we want, isn't a little "live and let live" appropriate? That is best served by allowing people the opportunity to make "moral" decisions themsleves, and would mean that things like contraception should remain legally available for those who reach different conclusions than you.
posted by InfidelZombie at 1:24 PM on May 11, 2006

Atta girl, agregoli!! Take one for the team!!!
Apparently, according to peeping_Thomist's philosophy, God made it feel so good just so He could punish us for doing it.
Like any good parent would, of course.
If by "good" you mean "psycho nutjob."
posted by Floydd at 1:24 PM on May 11, 2006

It actually disturbs me more than pt claims to have no religious basis for his confused position - it means he came up with it all on his lonesome.
posted by agregoli at 1:30 PM on May 11, 2006

There are effective ways to regulate family size without resorting to contraception

You could kill your grandparents rather than let them waste valuable resources in the nursing home. You might also consider drowning your kids in a bucket if they don't maintain a steady 4.0 GPA. Alternatively I could go and kill some people at random to ensure that their families don't grow too large. I hear those Mexicans breed like rabbits. Wouldn't want them to outbreed the white-people-who-believe-in-one-particular-version-of-a-supreme-being*.

*'cos that's basically what the biblical reason is to be fruitful and multiply is about. Outbreed the "others", ensure your children's mindspace is infected with one particular meme-set. It's like God needs to have supporters to ensure his existence. Just for that I am worshipping Odin because he needs some more support in this day and age.
posted by longbaugh at 1:30 PM on May 11, 2006

It actually disturbs me more than pt claims to have no religious basis for his confused position -
Actually, agregoli, peeper's being disingenuous in this thread. (surprise)
He's an admitted Roman Catholic, who also seems to think "The Internet is great if you want porn..."
posted by Floydd at 1:45 PM on May 11, 2006

Oh ok. So he's a liar too. How can you have a conversation with someone that constantly whines that civil discourse is not possible with us because we called names, yet outright lies about the basis for his beliefs?
posted by agregoli at 1:49 PM on May 11, 2006

Aha! I get it! Our batshitinsane friend here is recommending that we practice bad mothering!

Don't use contraceptives, kids: eat your young instead!

Honestly, how do people ever develop such looney damned ideas? I mean, it must take some sort of special effort to be so clueless. Is it a deliberate act, or accidental? Nature or nurture? Idiocy or insanity? And is it curable, or is PT doomed for the remainder of his life?

Any which way you slice it, it is a sad and unfortunate thing.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:50 PM on May 11, 2006

Ah, now I get it, the perfect society in which contraception could reasonably be banned would be one in which everyone is Mel Gibson. And Mel Gibson self-reproduced by parthenogenesis. So that perfect society would be full of little and big Mel Gibson clones. And the only films in the theatres would be Braveheart and What Women Want.

Come on admit it, human flourishing never sounded so good!
posted by funambulist at 2:02 PM on May 11, 2006

Floydd: God made it feel so good just so He could punish us for doing it.

Do you realize you just said that having children is a punishment? Everyone was outraged when the FPP said that contraception is anti-child, and here you are, confirming it.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:03 PM on May 11, 2006

agregoli: So he's a liar too.

More name-calling.

I never claimed to have no religious basis for my beliefs about contraception. I said that religious beliefs should not be a basis for government policy. Which I assume you agree with.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:06 PM on May 11, 2006

...
posted by NationalKato at 2:06 PM on May 11, 2006

Nice try, peepers, but oh so wrong.
Actually, no. Not even a nice try.
With the wonderful God-given gift of contraception we rational people can separate the act of love from the act of childbearing.
posted by Floydd at 2:07 PM on May 11, 2006

Do you realize you just said that having children is a punishment?

Uh, I think he meant that God supposedly views non-procreative sex as a sin in certain backward interpretations of christianity, the punishment being hell, not children.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:07 PM on May 11, 2006

Do you realize you just said that having children is a punishment?

That's not what he was talking about, retard.

You can't even discuss this any more. You just latch onto one thing and misinterpret it until you've derailed the whole fucking thread again.

Would you care to tell us your brilliant methods of population control without contraceptives? Maybe you could explain how contraceptives are "perverse." You could tell us how contraception prevents humans from flourishing.

Or instead, you could take someone else's sentence out of context and run with it like the torchbearer at the Special Olympics.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:07 PM on May 11, 2006

Honestly, how do people ever develop such looney damned ideas? I mean, it must take some sort of special effort to be so clueless. Is it a deliberate act, or accidental? Nature or nurture? Idiocy or insanity? And is it curable, or is PT doomed for the remainder of his life?

1. Not every crayon is the brightest one in the box.
2. Nobody develops views like this by accident. They have to want to believe it.
3. Nature doesen't indoctrinate, nurture doesn't know much else.
4. Can't it be a bit of both?
5. Only if the victim wants to be cured. Sort of like addiction to brain-rotting drugs

posted by mystyk at 2:09 PM on May 11, 2006

agregoli: Hooray for no kids and tons of sex always!!!

Because maybe we can all pretend that we'll never get old and unattractive and then die! Or maybe we can re-engineer human nature so that we don't have to get old and unattractive and die after all! Hooray for no kids and tons of sex always!!! Awesome plan!
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:14 PM on May 11, 2006

I said that religious beliefs should not be a basis for government policy.

And yet you advocate for changes in government policy about contraception availability based on nothing more than *gasp* your religious beliefs!

Get over it. You want the government to stop allowing something because you consider that thing immoral, but refuse to acknowledge the fundamental religious nature of that view of what's immoral. Then you also claim that government should not be influenced by religion.

The only way to do that is to allow a separate standard for your morailty. A double standard. Hypicritical.
posted by mystyk at 2:17 PM on May 11, 2006

Correction: hypocritical.
posted by mystyk at 2:18 PM on May 11, 2006

More name-calling.

Yep. When the shoe fits...You know you're being disingeneous when you say you never claimed to have no religious basis for your beliefs. You have dodged all sorts of questions in this thread, whined about "proper discourse" instead of explaining your positions, and framed the debate in hysterical rhetoric like "perversions" and "holding guns to your head." Please explain why we should respect you or your beliefs or take them seriously considering how you've behaved.

Metafilter might be a little harsh sometimes, but it's a fair place. I've seen tons of respect given to people with logical arguments who will engage with others instead of repeating odd points. Your arguments simply don't make sense, and you seem bent on not explaining them or being honest about the basis of your beliefs, although you've been asked about it several times.
posted by agregoli at 2:19 PM on May 11, 2006

Most couples who use contraception eventually have children, Thomist. The contraception is for the times when they're young or poor or emotionally immature or all three. The human race is in no danger of extinction from the availablity of contraceptives, and we do children a disservice by having them when we're not prepared for the cost and commitment.

Now, can you answer the question I posed to you?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:20 PM on May 11, 2006

agregoli: Hooray for no kids and tons of sex always!!!

Because maybe we can all pretend that we'll never get old and unattractive and then die! Or maybe we can re-engineer human nature so that we don't have to get old and unattractive and die after all! Hooray for no kids and tons of sex always!!! Awesome plan!


Thanks, it IS an awesome plan. =) I love my life. I never said I pretended that death isn't inevitible. I've faced that just fine. I don't care that I'll get old and unattractive. I don't mind that I'll die. We all die.

How will kids prevent me from dying? Or from becoming old and unattractive?

Oh, that's right, they won't. So pardon me if I'm going to have fun while I'm here.

It really bugs you that I won't have kids and will have all the sex I want, doesn't it?
posted by agregoli at 2:21 PM on May 11, 2006

I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this.
I'm leaving to have some fun non-procreative sex and a margarita.
(on preview) What, you think old folks don't enjoy a full and vigorous sex life, peepie?? You ARE ignorant!
posted by Floydd at 2:21 PM on May 11, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: Would you care to tell us your brilliant methods of population control without contraceptives?

Sure. Natural Family Planning is very effective, and promotes mutual respect between spouses. If you don't want to have a child, you make it a point not to have sex during the time when the wife is likely to be fertile. There are several methods of monitoring fertility, and many of them are more effect than contraceptives. Precious little research money has been directed into research on NFP, but there's been enough to establish its effectiveness. For an objective discussion (with several conclusions with which I do not agree), see
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/rt21/race/HARTMANNCh14.html
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:24 PM on May 11, 2006

Sure. Natural Family Planning is very effective, and promotes mutual respect between spouses.

Do you think there can't be mutual respect between spouses when there is contraception involved? Because that's ludicrous.

We've got all the mutual respect we need.
posted by agregoli at 2:26 PM on May 11, 2006

At this point I think I'm pretty much reduced to pity for peeping_Thomist. At first I was annoyed, then disgusted, then a little frustrated.

But now it's just pity: it surely must be a living hell to have the beliefs he has, particularly in this modern world. And more's the shame that it's all for naught.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:28 PM on May 11, 2006

Floydd, yes, many old people do enjoy full and vigorous sex lives. (I'm becoming one of them myself.) But that wasn't my point. agregoli's response did a good job of highlighting what I was getting at. She asks, "how will kids prevent me from dying?" Amazing.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:29 PM on May 11, 2006

What's amazing about it?

Kids won't prevent death. You acted like they would with your sarcastic response to my post. May I ask what on earth you meant instead then?
posted by agregoli at 2:30 PM on May 11, 2006

Sure. Natural Family Planning is very effective, and promotes mutual respect between spouses.

There's no difference between that and a condom. With a condom, the sperm are contained in the reservoir tip, and you throw it out. With NFP, the sperm wind up in either your bedsheets or pajamas after a week without ejaculation. So why not use condoms instead?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:36 PM on May 11, 2006

Thomist -

"Given the current political order, yes. But in itself having a state deny people access to birth control Bibles can be a perfectly fine thing.

Get the picture?
posted by rougy at 2:36 PM on May 11, 2006

Oh, this I can't resist: "If you don't want to have a child, you make it a point not to have sex during the time when the wife is likely to be fertile."

That "likely" bit is where the whole scheme falls apart around your ankles, buddy.

I prefer my solution: got knackered and now there's absolutely no chance I'll ever procreate. And thank small miracles (and the doctor's knife) for that: another one of me would be a terrible thing for this world.

Colour me as another who doesn't understand what you mean by "agregoli's response did a good job of highlighting what I was getting at." I can not make sense of that any which way I try to think about it.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:38 PM on May 11, 2006

Hey, seeing as we had an "inappropriate questions" meme going on earlier in this thread, I gotta ask this:

Peeping_Thomist, does your wife have orgasms?
posted by five fresh fish at 2:40 PM on May 11, 2006

"I said that religious beliefs should not be a basis for government policy."

peeping, I'd just like to point out that since your definition of "perversion" is religiously-founded, that legislating or enforcing it is beyond the purview of a non-religious democratic state - and from your statement, you agree with me.

Since those things you consider to be "drawbacks" of this "perversion" are not clearly quantifiable, they cannot be acted on or restricted by a non-religious democratic state.

However, the benefits to the state, that is to the entire citizen population, of educating people about contraception and sex are indeed quantifiable, and have been quantified in clear and unambiguous terms - and this is something the state, for the good of all the people, can, should, and IMO must act upon.

I'd say you should remove the beam from your own eye before you go after the motes in ours. Also, since you seem willing to cast that stone, you must be free of sin, eh?

That said, I'm all for allowing religious nuts who want to home-school to get a break on their local property taxes, which pay for most of public schooling, and a bit on their Federal taxes, proportionate to how much money the Fed puts into public education. That seems fair to me.

Then again, I'm also for fundies being divested of all benefits of modern science, since they refuse to acknowledge the sciences of biology, chemistry, and geology...

----------
Last night my girlfriend and I once again avoided creating an unwanted child (well, 99.5% sure of that) by using a condom... and boy, did it feel gooooooooood. Yeahhhh. :)
posted by zoogleplex at 2:42 PM on May 11, 2006

DAD:
Wait! I've got something to tell the whole family.
MUM:
Oh, quick. Go and get the others in, Gordon.
CHILDREN:
What could it be? Shhh...
DAD:
The mill's closed! There's no more work. We're destitute.
CHILDREN:
[talking]
DAD:
Come in, my little loves. I've got no option but to sell you all for scientific experiments.
CHILDREN:
[whining]
DAD:
No, no. That's the way it is, my loves. Blame the Catholic church for not letting me wear one of those little rubber things. Oh, they've done some wonderful things in their time. They preserved the might and majesty, the mystery of the Church of Rome, and the sanctity of the sacraments, the indivisible oneness of the Trinity, but if they'd let me wear one of those little rubber things on the end of my cock, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
BOY:
Couldn't Mummy have worn some sort of pessary?
DAD:
Not if we're going to remain members of the fastest growing religion in the world, my boy.
MUM:
Ehhh, he's right.
DAD:
You see, we believe--
[piano music]
Well, let me put it like this. [singing]
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

[music]
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

CHILDREN: [singing]
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

GIRL: [singing]
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

CHILDREN: [singing]
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

MUM: [singing]
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

MEN: [singing]
Every sperm is sacred.
[clunk]
Every sperm is great.
WOMEN: [singing]
If a sperm is wasted,...
CHILDREN: [singing]
...God gets quite irate.

PRIEST: [singing]
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM: [singing]
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES: [singing]
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS: [singing]
...In your neighbourhood!

CHILDREN: [singing]
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE: [singing]
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!

NUN: [singing]
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES: [singing]
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

EVERYONE: [singing]
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaate!

DAD:
So, you see my problem, little ones: I can't keep you all here any longer.
GIRL:
Speak up!
DAD:
I can't keep you all here any longer! God has blessed us so much, I can't afford to feed you anymore.
NIGEL:
Couldn't you have your balls cut off?
DAD:
Hohh, it's not as simple as that, Nigel. God knows all! He'd see through such a cheap trick. What we do to ourselves, we do to Him.
GIRL:
You could have had them pulled off in an accident.
CHILDREN:
[talking]
DAD:
No. No, children. I know you're trying to help, but, believe me,...
CHILDREN:
Ohh...
DAD:
...me mind's made up. I've given this long and careful thought, and it has to be medical experiments for the lot of you.
CHILDREN:
Ohh. Oh. Oh...

CHILDREN: [singing mournfully]
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,...
MR. HARRY BLACKITT:
Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.
MRS. BLACKITT:
What are we dear?
MR. BLACKITT:
Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.
MRS. BLACKITT:
Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?
MR. BLACKITT:
Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.
MRS. BLACKITT:
But it's the same with us, Harry.
MR. BLACKITT:
What do you mean?
MRS. BLACKITT:
Well, I mean, we've got two children, and we've had sexual intercourse twice.
MR. BLACKITT:
That's not the point. We could have it any time we wanted.
MRS. BLACKITT:
Really?
MR. BLACKITT:
Oh, yes, and, what's more, because we don't believe in all that Papist claptrap, we can take precautions.
MRS. BLACKITT:
What, you mean... lock the door?
MR. BLACKITT:
No, no. I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue.
MRS. BLACKITT:
What d'you mean?
MR. BLACKITT:
I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with you,...
MRS. BLACKITT:
Oh, yes, Harry.
MR. BLACKITT:
...and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could insure... that, when I came off, you would not be impregnated.
MRS. BLACKITT:
Ooh!
MR. BLACKITT:
That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas,... [sniff] ...and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom! Oh, no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
MRS. BLACKITT:
You what?
MR. BLACKITT:
French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.
MRS. BLACKITT:
Have you got one?
MR. BLACKITT:
Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'
MRS. BLACKITT:
Well, why don't you?
MR. BLACKITT:
But they-- Well, they cannot, 'cause their church never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien episcopal supremacy.
NARRATOR #1:
But, despite the attempts of Protestants to promote the idea of sex for pleasure, children continued to multiply everywhere.
posted by caddis at 2:51 PM on May 11, 2006

But if you want to point a gun at me and make me pay for your perversions, or to pay people to teach your children how to indulge in your perversions...

So I guess that means you won't be putting an envelope in the basket at Sunday mass ever again, huh? According to my biology professor back in college, the catholic school system does a far better job of providing comprehensive sex ed to it's students than public school does. My catholic high school gave us very detailed information on birth control methods, always followed by "and the church oppposes the use of this method for the following reasons...". That in combination with the NFP training ensured that didn't get pregnant until I wanted to. Thank you, catholic school system!
posted by echolalia67 at 2:53 PM on May 11, 2006

fresh_fish_five: it's not your business, but yes. Did you know that married people have better (and more) sex than unmarried people? Sadly, according to studies, evangelical married women have it best of all, but Catholic women do OK as well, and the answer to your question is yes.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:54 PM on May 11, 2006

Floydd: we rational people can separate the act of love from the act of childbearing.

Unless it works out like it did for mystyk.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:55 PM on May 11, 2006

zoogleplex: since your definition of "perversion" is religiously-founded, that legislating or enforcing it is beyond the purview of a non-religious democratic state

Unless there's a secular version of that concept. Which there is.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:57 PM on May 11, 2006

I swear I never understood the kind of religious people who would oppose contraception but think "natural" methods are fine. First, what's so "natural" about it? It's still a conscious human choice not to have children! It's only much less effective and more limiting than condoms or pills etc. What's the big difference that makes one kind of family planning Wholesome and Respectful and the others a Perversion? The higher risk and restriction? Does it all boil down to that kind of sadomasochism once again?
posted by funambulist at 2:57 PM on May 11, 2006

Did you know that married people have better (and more) sex than unmarried people? Sadly, according to studies, evangelical married women have it best of all, but Catholic women do OK as well, and the answer to your question is yes.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:54 PM PST on May 11

Local Lutheran Minister Loves To Fuck His Wife

November 19, 1997

NASHUA, NH—Pastor Bob Snowdon, of Holy Christ Almighty Lutheran Church in Nashua, is a man of deep religious and moral convictions. He derives great satisfaction from his various parish duties—reciting the liturgy, giving holy communion, and performing the sacrament of baptism. But nothing delights him quite like his favorite activity of all: fucking Emily Snowdon, his holy-wedded wife of 19 years.

"The Holy Bible sanctifies the bond between a man and a woman in matrimony as a sacred union," Snowdon said. "And there is nothing so smiled upon by our Lord than the love and caring that is shared when a man fucks his lawfully wedded bride. Just thinking about it makes me want to zip home for a few minutes and fuck Emily right now."

According to the 53-year-old "Pastor Bob," even though he typically fucks his wife twice each morning, he still very much looks forward to fucking her again when he gets home.

"After a long, hard day of worshiping in the house of our Lord, tending to the emotional needs of my parishioners, and visiting the sick and elderly so that they too might know in their hearts the light of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," Snowdon said, "there is nothing in this world I enjoy more than coming home and fucking the red out of my wife's hair. I love to give it to her any way she wants it, as hard as she can take it. My favorite is when she climbs on top and jerks her hips up and down on me as she fucks."

What's more, it seems that Emily enjoys the fucking almost as much as her husband. "I've got to admit it," she said, "I love to get fucked."

Emily stressed, however, that the sort of wild fucking in which she and her husband regularly partake is only acceptable when performed within the confines of a church-sanctioned marriage. "I am saddened, deeply saddened, when I hear of the young girls of today, engaging in sexual activities such as heavy petting or necking before they are wedlock-bound," she said. "It is so sad to see the beauty and purity of the act of fucking despoiled by this sort of premarital impropriety. If only these young girls would wait until they have taken the marriage vows and then, and only then, start fucking like there was no tomorrow."

According to Snowdon, some of his favorite places to fuck his wife include the pantry, shower, woodshed, basement laundry-room area, living-room sofa, and even, he added with a sly wink, the bedroom. "All of our children are grown now and have families of their own, God bless them," he said, "so we can pretty much fuck anywhere we please in the whole darn house."

So enamored is he of his wife-fucking hobby, Snowdon said he would recommend fucking to just about anyone. "So long as the fucking is done within the sacred bond of matrimony, I say, 'Fuck away.'" Snowdon said. "But if you're not married, please, whatever you do, don't fuck anybody. An eternity of sin and punishment await those who fuck without church sanction."

Though fucking has been a lifelong interest for Snowdon, he stressed that he had faithfully abstained from sex and resisted the intense urge to fuck women until his bond with Emily was formally cemented with marital vows before the eyes of God 19 years ago.

"Naturally, before my marriage, I wanted to fuck other women: Sally Lindemier, my senior-year prom date; Susan Helgstrom, the receptionist at my parents' church; even Sheila Bernhauser, my old Bible-study teacher. I would have gladly fucked any one of those lovely, God-fearing women. Yet I knew that my fuck-urges were impure and sinful, and that it was my duty as a Christian to resist them until the day of my wedding to my beloved Emily."

"But once I was married, my lust became sanctified in my heart and in the eyes of the Lord," he said. "And, from that day forth, I began fucking the holy heck out of my wife whenever and wherever I could, as often as possible. It is a practice I continue to this day."

"Emily is a good, kind, Christian woman," Snowdon added. "But let there be no mistake: She is also one furious fuck-mama, as well."

Pastor Bob and his wife both stressed that, of course, abortion is a terrible sin, as is homosexuality, group sex, anal sex, oral sex, phone sex, pornography, and all forms of contraception.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:02 PM on May 11, 2006

"Unless there's a secular version of that concept. Which there is."

Here is the contents of the dictionary.com lookup page for the word "perversion:"

per·ver·sion Audio pronunciation of "perversion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-vûrzhn, -shn)
n.

1.
1. The act of perverting.
2. The state of being perverted.
2. A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant.

per·versive (-sv, -zv) adj.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

per·ver·sion (pr-vûrzhn, -shn)
n.

A practice or act, especially one that is sexual in nature, considered abnormal or deviant.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Main Entry: per·ver·sion
Pronunciation: p&r-'v&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the action of perverting or the condition of being perverted
2 : an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

perversion

n 1: a curve that reverses the direction of something; "the tendrils of the plant exhibited perversion"; "perversion also shows up in kinky telephone cords" 2: an aberrant sexual practice that is preferred to normal intercourse [syn: sexual perversion] 3: the action of perverting something (turning it to a wrong use); "it was a perversion of justice"

You can see, I'm sure, that any definition of "perversion" then depends on what one's definitions of "abnormal" and "deviant" are.

I'll just go after "abnormal" here:

ab·nor·mal Audio pronunciation of "abnormal" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-nôrml)
adj.

Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant.


[Alteration (influenced by ab-1), of obsolete anormal from Medieval Latin anormlis, blend of Late Latin abnormis(Latin ab-, away from; see ab-1 + Latin norma, rule; see gn- in Indo-European Roots), and anmalus; see anomalous.]ab·normal·ly adv.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Main Entry: 1ab·nor·mal
Pronunciation: (')ab-'nor-m&l
Function: adjective
1 : deviating from the normal or average; especially : departing from the usual or accepted standards of social behavior
2 : characterized by mental retardation or disorder —ab·nor·mal·ly /-m&-lE/ adverb

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Main Entry: 2abnormal
Function: noun
: an abnormal person

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

abnormal

adj 1: not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm; "abnormal powers of concentration"; "abnormal amounts of rain"; "abnormal circumstances"; "an abnormal interest in food" [ant: normal] 2: departing from the normal in e.g. intelligence and development; "they were heartbroken when they learned their child was abnormal"; "an abnormal personality" [ant: normal] 3: much greater than the normal; "abnormal profits"; "abnormal ambition"

It seems the operative definition of "abnormal" is "departing from the usual or average."

So, since it's abundantly clear that having sex is in fact "normal," for humans at any age past puberty, then obviously NOT having sex is abnormal, and therefore a perversion.

Also, since the desire to not have a child right now is also "normal," since most people would like to be in a proper place in life (as they define it) before they have children, then it follows that a desire to have a child immediately, no matter what the circumstances, is abnormal and a perversion.

Therefore following this line of thought, the use of contraceptives can be called not only "normal," but darn prudent as well.

However, I'm just logic-chopping (for fun and profit).

The reality is that there can be no objective "secular" definition of "perversion," because there has to be a "norm" to judge it against - and everyone's got a different idea about what that "norm" is.

Some people think oral sex is perversion; they're in a small minority. Some people thing anal sex is perversion; that minority is larger, but still pretty small. Some people think any sex outside of marriage is perversion; another minority. And some people think teaching children socially responsible sex practices is a perversion! Imagine that!

And if you stick to rigid and quantifiable definitions of these words, based on the study of how humans actually behave, then you have to admit that since most humans have sex quite a lot, that it's normal and not perverted at all.

Your OPINION of what's perverted - even if it's shared by lots of people you know - cannot be applied to everyone.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:22 PM on May 11, 2006

I've always thought of condoms less like birth control and more like sperm wranglers.
posted by 235w103 at 4:55 PM on May 11, 2006

PT: Cool. My partner and I also have great sex.

The bottom line for me is simply this: whatever it takes for someone to have as good a time as I do, so long as it involves consensual, informed adults, is a-ok with me. I have experienced nothing finer than orgasmic sex, and I wish everyone to have plenty of it.

And that, at least, seems to be one thing we can agree on: sex is damn fine stuff, to be wholly enjoyed in a responsible manner.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:22 PM on May 11, 2006

"according to studies"

Citations please. You can argue semantics all day but if you want to claim scientific support for your views let's have a link right here, right now.
posted by 2sheets at 5:28 PM on May 11, 2006

Something occured to me: Peeps says that teaching kids how to use rubbers is to teach them how to "defile" their bodies. Assuming most people are gonna have sex anyway, how is it that a means to *not* get cooties is defilement, but letting them get cooties is not defilement? Whattafuck?
posted by notsnot at 5:35 PM on May 11, 2006

These folks like to bask in the comforting but entirely fictional idea that if people aren't given any information about sex outside the "moral" instruction provided by their religion, they won't actually have any sex other than that which is condoned by their religion.

Which is a complete fantasy. There are too many people on Earth now, too many sources of information. There's no way to eliminate the knowledge.

They don't even remember their own Bibles; Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, not just some random apple. Once knowledge is known, even God can't take it away from someone... otherwise he could have erased Adam and Eve's memories and put them back in the Garden to be his loyal little sheep.

What they think they want is impossible, but they're going to try to make it happen anyway, the stubborn arrogant moralistic hypocrites.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:17 PM on May 11, 2006

Those dirty lawmakers forcing a gun to my head to make me pay to teach perversions to children!

Like that dude on The Sopranos.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:18 PM on May 11, 2006

zoogleplex: These folks like to bask in the comforting but entirely fictional idea that if people aren't given any information about sex outside the "moral" instruction provided by their religion, they won't actually have any sex other than that which is condoned by their religion.

What an idiotic claim! I've never known anyone who believed that. People are free. There's probably never been a generation born that didn't have some significant incidence of premarital sex.

I guess it's just easier to pretend that people who disagree with you are idiots.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:48 PM on May 11, 2006

Still looking for those studies. Over 60 posts in 2 days on this subject - now are you going to back up your claims?
posted by 2sheets at 9:11 PM on May 11, 2006

funambulist: What's the big difference that makes one kind of family planning Wholesome and Respectful and the others a Perversion?

Here's a longish passage from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html that addresses your question:

Now, a lot of people say, “What's the difference?” You have two couples who don't want to have a baby and want to have sex and they're doing the same thing. They're trying to have sex without trying to have babies or without wanting to have babies. They're doing the same thing. And that's a very common confusion and a very common complaint, and I'm going to try and help you think about it.

The first thing I want to say to such couples, such people, is, “Well, if contraception and Natural Family Planning are the same, why not just use Natural Family Planning?” And you know what they say, “But that would be completely different. I'd have to change everything.” I say, “Wait a second. You just told me there's no difference and now you tell me it'd be completely different.” But, of course, what they mean is no moral difference, but they recognize that there'd be an enormous lifestyle difference. I say, “But wait a second. If there's an enormous lifestyle difference, then that may be a hint that there's some kind of a moral difference as well.” At first, I try to point out to them this simple principle in ethics that the ends do not justify the means. Stated another way: “You must have good means to good ends. Not only your goal must be good, but also the way you get there must be good.” So consider a couple who doesn't want a child for probably a very good reason. A couple who is contracepting. Another couple using Natural Family Planning. Consider two men, or individuals, who both want to support their family. One robs a bank and one gets a job. They're both doing the same thing — they're both supporting their family, but they've chosen very different means.

I've tried to indicate why I think contraception is wrong. It says no to God in His creative act. It says fertility is a bad condition as opposed to a wonderful condition. It puts a wedge between the giving between a husband and wife. And it has dreadful consequences for society. I want to claim that Natural Family Planning is not open to those same kinds of objections. It does not do those same things.

Most couples are frightened about using Natural Family Planning, and frightened is the right word. They are frightened of using Natural Family Planning and largely for two reasons. One is they think it doesn't work. But they are wrong. In an article in the British Medical Journal, September 18th, 1993, a doctor reviews the evidence on Natural Family Planning and says it's more effective than the most effective contraceptive. More effective! He cites studies from, of all places, Calcutta. And you know who it is who is teaching Natural Family Planning in Calcutta? A diminutive Catholic nun. The author has found out that most of those whom she teaches are Muslims and Hindus. Natural family planning has what is called, a virtual zero pregnancy rate, .004 pregnancy rate.

Still, such information doesn't seem to convince people. Many confuse NFP with the old 'rhythm method', which was some 27% ineffective. There is a huge difference between the 'rhythm method' and the modern methods of Natural Family Planning. I will give a review course on them in a minute.

The second reason that couples are afraid is the abstinence that is required. They think the abstinence will just be too hard. It's mostly the women who are afraid of it and they're afraid of it because of the males. They think, “My husband will get too irritable, he'll get too grumpy. He'll be removed and distant and won't be affectionate and will stay away from me during that time. And, how will we make up our fights? And, how will we talk? And I'm nervous about what's going to happen.” Men think they will feel greatly deprived. “Who can go that long; who can go seven to twelve days. It's not right. That's not what I got married for.” These fears are most common among those who have contracepted before marriage. Those who have used contraception before marriage and used contraception within marriage are very frightened of the abstinence because sex has become key to their relationship. They think that when you take the sex out of a relationship, where's the love going to be? Where's the intimacy going to be?

Couples who've abstained before marriage, have little or no problem with Natural Family Planning. Little or no problem. In fact, they think that abstinence is a way of expressing love. It's not this huge deprivation. The reason that they abstained before marriage was not because they weren't attracted to each other, not because the hormones weren't raging, but because they loved each other. They said, “I'm not going to have sex with you before marriage because I love you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to have a stronger commitment than I've made here. I don't want to put us in danger of having a baby when we haven't really prepared for that baby. Marriage is preparation for those bonds and marriage is preparation for that baby. And I love you and I can wait. That's how much I love you.” Within marriage, abstinence has that same aspect. “It's not a good idea for us to have a child right now. We can abstain. We did it before. We know how to show our affection at this time. We know how to be loving to each other at this time because we've done it before.” And they can do it.

Women who use Natural Family Planning have an amazing sense of self-respect and well-being. They think that their fertility is revered by their husbands and they think that they've got themselves particularly good husbands. “I've got my husband who's particularly good. He's a wonderful man. He's got high moral standards. He doesn't treat me like a sex object. I can trust him. He likes me even when we're not having sex together. He's a great guy. I got myself a good one.” And males have a great reverence for their wives, for their fertility. They don't want to damage her body. The don't want her to take all these pills and use these devices. They say, “No. I love her. I wouldn't put her through those risks. And this willingness to have a baby for me, that's a wonderful thing. What a woman puts herself through! And I am going to respect that.” So, there is this deep bond between the two of them.

And NFP doesn't say no to God. You see, NFP respects a woman's fertility, has no bad social consequences (in fact wonderful ones — there's almost a non-existent divorce rate among couples using Natural Family Planning) and NFP doesn't say no to God because God has said, “I want to be there at the fertile time. I made the fertile time for bringing forth new human life. If you engage in the sexual act, I want My option of making new human life. But I gave you a half of a month, three quarters of a month, where you're infertile and if you want to pursue the bonding power of the sexual act without babies, do it then. I'm asleep. I'm out of town. I don't expect to be invited at that time. I'm not around. You can't even make Me come. I won't come. I can't. I made your body in a certain way.” There's no saying no to God. NFP couples respect the fertile period as if they're on sacred ground. You don't walk there unless you're prepared for the consequences.

People say Natural Family Planning is like dieting. We have this phenomenon now of bulimia. People eat and they throw up. That's a bit like contraception. You want the pleasure but you don't want the consequences. You engage in the act and you violate the act. Whereas Natural Family Planning is a lot like dieting but a lot better. When you diet, you can't eat the chocolate cake; you have carrots and celery. Sex during the infertile time apparently is a lot better than carrots and celery. The options are better. There's a pinch in it. It's difficult, but it's not impossible and it does great things for marriage.

Couples will tell you, they've always told me this, you read this in all the NFP literature: Those who use Natural Family Planning communicate better with each other. I've always wondered what that meant. Does it mean that people are either having sex or talking, but not both and because they're not having sex during the fertile time does that mean they're talking more? But there's something to that. I read somewhere that couples, I'm not married and, of course, I'm envious in many respects of marriage, especially for companionship, but you read something like people say there's twenty-seven minutes a week on the average that couples talk to each other. And I say, “Gosh, if that's all it is, it's not worth it.” Twenty-seven minutes!

But, anyway, these Natural Family Planning couples must use that twenty-seven minutes well. I've figured this out, what they're talking about. It goes something like this. They have this conversation once a month maybe twelve times a year. And it happens on that weekend when the mother-in-law takes the children or you have a nice little business trip and you're looking forward to this nice weekend together. A little quiet lunch, maybe some shopping, a movie, a romantic dinner, and a nice evening of relaxed lovemaking with no children, no stress, just a nice night. And the woman gets up in the morning and says, “Darling, I'm afraid I've entered the fertile phase.” So, there's this deflation, this disappointment. The weekend is not going to be everything they thought it would be.

This little conversation ensues which usually starts with the question, “Why are we doing this? Why are we abstaining?” And sometimes that provokes a conversation about contraception and why or why not, but usually that's settled. And usually the question means, “Why did we decide it's not a good idea to have a baby? Why are we abstaining?” And the husband might say, “Well, you know, the reason we decided not to have a baby right now is you said you're too tired. You've got too many little ones or you've got a job now and you're really fatigued and you really can't imagine having another child. Are you still tired?” And she might say, “Well, no. As a matter of fact, I'm not too tired right now. The younger ones are a little bit older and you know I think I may be able to handle another baby. Let's take a risk. Let's really enjoy this day in the way we planned.” Or she might say, “Of course I'm still tired. You never help. You said you'd give the kids a bath; you don't give them a bath. You said you'd let me have Saturday afternoons free; I've never had a Saturday afternoon free. Of course I'm still tired.” And he might say, “I'll start bathing them tomorrow, dear.” Or she might say, “The reason we're not having a child right now is you said your financial burdens are too great. You can't imagine supporting the family we already have, let alone any more. Are you still financially burdened?” And he might say, “Well, no, I'm not. We refinanced the house and I was kind-of panicking. I'm getting a promotion. Things are OK. Let's take a risk.” Or he might say, “Of course I'm still financially burdened. Your friend, Jane, gets a fence around the house, you have to have a fence around the house. Your friend, Jane, gets a new kitchen, you need a new kitchen. Your friend, Jane, gets new dishes, you need new dishes.” And she might say, “I don't need those new dishes.” But the important thing is that they're having this conversation and it's a conversation that's focused around the most important things, which is why they're having babies and why they are not having babies. And how their life is going together and are they sharing the burdens or not.

Couples using contraception tell me they can go for a very long time without having that conversation. They can say, “We're not going to have babies for another three to five years and we'll talk about it then,” and that's when they talk about it. And they go apart. They go to their jobs and come back for dinner and go to their jobs and come back for dinner. And that's about all there is.

So I'm saying Natural Family Planning does not have bad social consequences. It's very difficult to use outside of marriage. It does not say no to God in His procreative act. It treasures a woman's fertility and it enhances, not alienates, the relationship between spouses. It is not subject to the same objections as contraception.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:13 PM on May 11, 2006

So tell us, PT, what exactly is it that makes contraceptive use so perverted?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:14 PM on May 11, 2006

Whoa. Nebbermind, I'll read that first.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:14 PM on May 11, 2006

2sheets, you sure didn't look very hard. It was in all the mainstream media. E.g. http://www.slate.com/id/56724/
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:18 PM on May 11, 2006

addressed as if it accurately represents what you wish to write yourself

One robs a bank and one gets a job. They're both doing the same thing — they're both supporting their family, but they've chosen very different means.

Blink.

That's a non-sequitor. It's simply absurd to interject that. One of the acts harms no one non-consenting, non-informed, or non-adult person. The other does. It's apples and small gemstones from the third moon of Jupiter. A complete non-sequitor.

I've tried to indicate why I think contraception is wrong. It says no to God in His creative act.

Except that you've absolutely failed to present an even halfway rational argument, instead favouring the use of irrelevent shock analogy in an attempt to distract us from critical thinking.

Fortunately, you reveal yourself in the second sentence: this is all about your interpretation of what you want your God to be. Or whatever. Any which way you care to present it, it has every bit as much validity to me, as my faith in pink unicorns have to you.

Honestly. You probably can not believe how absolutely irrelevent the very concept of a diety is to me, let alone the one you're so convinced is The Right One.

And then it rambles on and on. And, sure, I get the point: for those couples that choose it, NFP can be a wonderful way for a couple to engage in a form of bonding.

I'm happy for them.

My participation in this silly-assed pile-on can be terminated very quickly:

Simply state for the record that you have no desire to force your religious moral structure and practices upon me, and do not care to use your political vote to do accomplish the same goal, and I'll be perfectly happy to live and let live.

Honest to your god, I have absolutely no desire to force my morals and beliefs upon you. I only ask that as you use our community resources — including education, because all those public school pagan kids are the ones who are going to invent the stuff that our community requires as this world changes — you pay into the tax system, abide by public law, and try to be nice to others.

If we're in the same headspace regarding that, we're cool. We'll both have very good lives.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:31 PM on May 11, 2006

five_fresh_fish: I have absolutely no desire to force my morals and beliefs upon you. I only ask that as you use our community resources — including education, because all those public school pagan kids are the ones who are going to invent the stuff that our community requires as this world changes — you pay into the tax system, abide by public law, and try to be nice to others.

Sorry, dude. You're trying to use our community resources to promote evil.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:07 PM on May 11, 2006

Sorry, dude. You're trying to use our community resources to promote evil.

As I said before: you will not stop my wife from obtaining the health services she requires. You had best be willing to personally die for your cause, because I am ready to die for mine. I will not be forced to toe your religious line.

All else stems from that. If you won't die for your personal beliefs regarding abortion, you do not get to control our schools.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:14 PM on May 11, 2006

Actually, that's all a lot of huffery, given that I've been snipped and thus will never be in a position to have to fight you mano-a-mano for my rights.

But the spirit lives on.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:19 PM on May 11, 2006

And, yes, I do sincerely and honestly believe that people with your attitude toward private acts between consenting adults is the very definition of evil.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:20 PM on May 11, 2006

five_fresh_fish: I do sincerely and honestly believe that people with your attitude toward private acts between consenting adults is the very definition of evil.

Now that we've got that clear, the question is how people who regard each other as promoting evil policies (I don't think _you_ are evil, of course, because I assume your ignorance isn't your fault) manage to live together. And the answer isn't that the larger group imposes its will on the smaller group. Yet that's just what you are claiming is the right solution. Get the government out of the business of promoting perversion, and I won't complain about private parties engaging in such actions and corrupting their children. Spend all the private money you like promoting contraception. But that's not a tolerable solution for you: you require that the government take money from me at gunpoint to promote your (evil) agenda.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:33 PM on May 11, 2006

I said, I won't complain about private parties engaging in such actions and corrupting their children.

Sorry, of course I'll still complain about it. I just won't (as I don't in any case) try to use governmental power to stop people from privately engaging in contraceptive acts.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:37 PM on May 11, 2006

So wait, in all that patronizing verbiage from the Catholic Sex Ed manual, I missed the part that established why Natural Family Planning (TM) is dandy but other contraceptive methods are a sick perversion.

Unless it had something to do with the dieting/bulimia analogy. By which I take it that dieting is like giving something up for lent, but bulimia isn't a dangerous disease/eating disorder but some sort of willful, hedonistic self-indulgence?

In my experience, birth control requires quite a bit of self discipline and sacrifice--men seem to complain about the loss of sensitivity from the use of condoms, and for a girl who's a bit disorganized and forgetful, remembering to take a pill every day three weeks on and one off can be a supreme exercise in discipline. Or did I miss the part that explained how an STD barrier and a pill are a dangerous disease/sexual disorder?

I'm so confused now.
posted by cytherea at 10:52 PM on May 11, 2006

cytherea, there are two main points, both of which were implicit in the passage I quoted.

First, contraception involves a kind of dualism. Our fertility is seen as a merely biological reality that is made human by being brought under the rational control of a disembodied will. (Recall the person in this thread who said we rational people split apart love-making from reproduction; the splitting implies a faulty anthropology.) This is a perverted way of relating to one's own body, and to the bodies of others. It leads us to see bodies as mere objects to be used for whatever ends we happen to have.

Second, the ethical theory advocated by defenders of contraception is a form of consequentialism, which claims that any means are permissible so long as they lead to desirable outcomes. Consequentialist theories are seriously in error.

NFP differs from contraception on both these points. I quoted the longer passage instead of simply saying what I just said because I thought it was a more accessible statement of these two points.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:22 PM on May 11, 2006

PT, here's some food for thought that's been said before, but you avoided making the mental links like toxic waste:

• Providing contraception is a recognized social good.
• The government has a direct stake in providing social goods, for which financing comes from the citizen taxpayer.
• Social goods are an amoral issue. That's amoral, as in not tied to morality either way.
• Morality is subjective and religious.
• You claim that blocking contraceptives is proper of the government because of your subjective religious claims to its supposed immorality.
• You claim that the government should stay out of religious matters.

Are you seeing the disconnect yet? This is, quite literally, a textbook case of cognitive dissonance. You want the government out of all religious matters, except for the "special case" of your moral claims. You try to mask the claims from their inherent religious ties in order to slip them past.

The dissonance comes in because your choice of words suggests that you genuinely don't feel you have a "special case" but rather the only acceptable one. You view your subjective morality as objective when it is not, and try to use that view to push it on others. People correctly disagree with the universality of your personal moral views, and to continue pushing them is no less than religious persecution.

Oh, and keep in mind that this contraceptive availability that is being "held to your head like a gun" (now that is some impressive bullshit for you to spout roughly 50 times) is nothing more than the availability. The government does not use your tax dollars to hand out condoms. Non-profits fund those. Shut the fuck up about being made to pay for something that you're not.
posted by mystyk at 12:59 AM on May 12, 2006

I think I'm starting to get it. Well, I'm still not quite sure how your points derive from the text, but I'll take your word for it. But I find your points to be much more accessible.

As to your second point, I'm in complete agreement. The ends do not justify the means. I appreciated that argument from my Catholic high school and your words “You must have good means to good ends. Not only your goal must be good, but also the way you get there must be good” echo one of my favorite teachers with a wistfull nostalgia. Is that a famous phrase?

But I take from your first point that I was to wrong to have just brushed my teeth with a fluoridated toothpaste (and fluoridated tap water, no less!), or worn shoes today (I always suspected the inherent evil in high heels, dammit!)

Or, wait. I may not be quite getting it. Because my teeth really want to decay, and I have to take active steps that involve a distinction between by body and my mind to prevent that--brushing and flossing twice a day is a huge pain my mind could live without and I wish my body could as well. And while my feet want to be free, I've got to take care of them living in the city unless I want bloody stubs at the end of my legs. Is the distinction because actively preventing disease and discomfort is okay as long as my activity isn't sinful? We're talking about good means to a bad end in point number one? But if my sex is within Holy Matrimony, isn't it a good (or at least okay) end? What is the difference between time-based contraception and barrier- or hormone-based contraception for a married couple if I'm still allowed to brush my teeth with fluoride and wear shoes?

And let's not even get into tampons.

If God had really wanted me to get into heaven, you'd think he would have made me smart enough to understand these incredibly subtle distinctions between my body and mind--I mean, do we even have a workable definition of life? I just don't understand why a condom is sinful, or whether "Thou Shalt Not Kill" includes the little HPV thingies.
posted by cytherea at 1:11 AM on May 12, 2006

And before you say that teaching proper sex-ed counts as the perversion, the "gun", or the mis-use of tax dollars, I'm going to say a bit more.

1. It is a fact that abstinence-only sex-ed does not change the likelihood of an individual engaging in pre-marital sex, simply the age at which they do so.

2. It is a fact that those who engage in pre-marital sex after abstinence was their only training are significantly less likely to take any precautions.

3. It is a fact that those who engage in pre-marital sex after abstinence was their only training are significantly more likely to get STD's.

4. It is a fact that the increase in #3 is directly related to #2.

5. It is a fact that those who engage in pre-marital sex after abstinence was their only training are significantly more likely to have unwanted pregnancies.

6. It is a fact that the increase in #5 is directly related to #2.

7. It is a fact that those who engage in pre-marital sex after abstinence was their only training are significantly more likely to seek abortions.

8. It is a fact that the increase in #7 is directly related to #5.

So, simply put, abstinence-only training is an overall social ill, for which the government has a good reason to block. It even increases the rates of some of your moral no-no's, which should make you pause if you bother to connect all the dots. If you need articles, look back through all the things others have linked for you in this thread; that's where I got all of it.

By the way, rational minded people aren't arguing for abstinence training to vanish. They only want it aside real-world training that has been proven to save lives.
posted by mystyk at 1:19 AM on May 12, 2006

Here's a longish passage from http://www.catholiceducation.org

Hehehe...

We have this phenomenon now of bulimia. People eat and they throw up. That's a bit like contraception.

!!

And you know who it is who is teaching Natural Family Planning in Calcutta? A diminutive Catholic nun.

Right...

The second reason that couples are afraid is the abstinence that is required. They think the abstinence will just be too hard. It's mostly the women who are afraid of it and they're afraid of it because of the males.

Okay...

Well, thanks, that was very enlightening!
posted by funambulist at 1:56 AM on May 12, 2006

mystik, none of the facts to which you point supports the conclusion that the government should be in the position of taking money from some of its citizens to pay for educating the children of other people about how to use contraception. That is what the people in the "batshitinsane" FPP links are opposed to, and none of you has even tried to address it.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:07 AM on May 12, 2006

Tolerance of religion is like taking a half course of antibiotics.

That... is beautiful. And it sums up the situation perfectly. To allow a form of profound, seductive irrationality rights and respect beyond that of other ideas, opinions and beliefs is to suckle a viper. This shit is insidious and pernicious. We tolerate it at the risk of it growing into what we're now seeing: the disturbing first shoots of a new dark age. And meanwhile Bob Jones sends its well-programmed little robots into our institutions and laboratories and offices of government, and we nice, tolerant liberals smile and nod and say, "Hey, aren't we so tolerant?" while they strip away our hard-won rights.

Latest Harris poll shows that 47% of Americans oppose Roe v Wade. Meanwhile, I get shit for relentlessly abusing the religious. Because that's, you know, uncivil of me. And nice liberals really don't like incivility.
posted by Decani at 6:38 AM on May 12, 2006

Decani: profound, seductive irrationality

Oh grow up. You can disagree with people without calling them insane.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:51 AM on May 12, 2006

Oh grow up. You can disagree with people without calling them insane.
You're right.
But when disagreeing with the insane it's sometimes helpful to let them know you know just how crazy they are.
posted by Floydd at 7:19 AM on May 12, 2006

Floydd, what strikes you as the advantage of calling insane people who clearly are not insane? Apparently there's some deep satisfaction to be had from it. But how do you see it helping to defeat your enemies? Are you that insecure that you have to call insane anyone who disagrees with you?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:23 AM on May 12, 2006

It's like you live in Bizarro World, PT. It's as if the truth is the opposite of everything you say. You and your kind are clearly irrational and insane. There's nothing insecure about saying this. We're not the ones who are insecure or riddled with issues. We're not the ones who need to grow up. We're not the ones living unreflective lives.

So, where is it you're from? Bizarro World? Mirror Universe? Acirema? Or is there a physical cause to your inability to distinguish truth from reality? Brain lesion? Weird tropical disease of some kind?

You're not rational. There's no point debating you. Marginalizing your kind and working towards legalized game hunting of your kind is likely to be a much more effective solution.

In conclusion, fuck you and everyone who looks like you.
posted by solid-one-love at 8:03 AM on May 12, 2006

solid-one-love: It's like you live in Bizarro World, PT. It's as if the truth is the opposite of everything you say.

Dude, welcome to living in a pluralistic society. This is the problem American democracy was designed to solve. You clearly didn't get the memo.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:44 AM on May 12, 2006

Natural Family Planning:rhythm method::Intelligent Design: creationism

I'm still interested to know the difference between semen ending up in a condom v. it ending up in your bedsheets or pj's, Thomist. Don't forget to spin us a tale about how you never have nocturnal emissions and that you never masturbate.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:47 AM on May 12, 2006

Oh grow up. You can disagree with people without calling them insane.

Sure you can. But it's kinda hard to when they believe patently insane things - as in this case of religious believers.

Another "grow up" jibe, is it? Ah well, makes a change form "sophomoric", I suppose. It really is endlessly amusing how the apologists and defenders of belief in sky pixies and magical mystery powers seem to be so devoid of the sense of irony that they happily suggest those who disrespect such notions are being immature. Kinda like being called childish by someone who still believes in Santa. Oh, it burns, it burns!
posted by Decani at 8:50 AM on May 12, 2006

Kudos to you peeping_Thomist for your contributions to this thread. Effort alone probably earns you kudos, but I found your discussions here interesting. I hold a contrary view, and many of your responses were more verbal Ju-Jitsu than direct responses, but there is lots of good stuff. I think we often learn more from people who's views differ from our own than from the echo of our own opinions.

By the way, did you ever address the issue of why you oppose contraception within marriage? This thread has become huge and I may have missed it. I assume based upon your moniker that you feel it to be against nature to interrupt natural process of creating life. I never really quite understood this line of reasoning. If it is yours, would you be so kind as to expound upon it and its basis?
posted by caddis at 8:53 AM on May 12, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: NFP is a great boon for many couples, many of whom are not religious. I have known lots of secular Birkenstock-and-granola-types who don't appreciate ingesting chemicals or separating themselves from their beloved by barrier methods who have found NFP fits quite well in their lifestyle. People who use NFP are required to communicate about their feelings a lot more and a lot more frequently than people who use contraception, and many couples find this strengthens their relationship. Some women who use the pill (obviously not all, but enough that it's not an isolated phenomenon) feel that they are being treated with chemicals like farm animals to make them more suitable for meeting the desires of the men in their lives, but they are afraid of what would happen if they didn't.

Anyway, as to your question about nocturnal emissions and masturabation, your idea that I would have to "spin you a tale" about how I don't masturbate or have nocturnal emissions shows just how limited is your awareness of the full range of the human experience. I've talked to and known intimately many people who live the way you do. You clearly don't know intimately anyone who lives the way I do. So here it is, and it's not some tale I'm spinning: no, I don't masturbate, and I don't have nocturnal emissions. And, in case you are wondering, yes I have a very strong sex drive. But there have also been times in my marriage when for health reasons we've had to refrain from having sex for several months at a time. It has been difficult, but the idea that it would be so intolerable that I'd be driven into masturbating is just not how I have experienced sex in my life.

But apparently if you can't imagine yourself living a certain way, you can't imagine anyone living that way. And you want to use the coercive power of the government to act as though I don't exist.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:08 AM on May 12, 2006

Much of this discussion reminds me of why the constitutional separation of church and state is so incredibly important to the health and survival of our nation.

There are theocracies in the world - the ones which Bush has accused of "hating freedom." In this case he hits the nail on the head - a theocratic government inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, and further abuses of human rights.

The more people wake up and realize that there are a great many people in our country working hard to take our nation down this road to theocracy, and realize what that will mean for our children and our children's chlidren's freedoms, the better chance we will have to not face a certain kind of hell on earth.

Of course, our constitution also guarantees that the people working to make the government an arm of their preferred church can work within the system to try to make that happen - I can only hope and pray that our system will self-correct as it is meant to, and the people will stop the slow erosion underway before too many have to suffer for it.

The most important thing is to not give up, and to keep fighing for what we believe - whatever we believe. The system isn't completely broken yet.
posted by JAHxman at 9:08 AM on May 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

And you want to use the coercive power of the government to act as though I don't exist.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:08 AM PST on May 12

No, I'm interested in the government having a rational plan toward reproduction and population rather than rely on some cockamamie ideas that ignore reality and endanger public health.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:20 AM on May 12, 2006

I still want to know the difference between time-based and all other forms of contraception.
posted by cytherea at 9:31 AM on May 12, 2006

caddis, among Catholic thinkers, there have been some who have tried to argue that using contraception in acts of fornication or adultery does not make the acts worse. All sexual acts outside of marriage are immoral, of course, so these thinkers have argued that since the act is already bad, maybe contraception doesn't make it worse, and in any case it has some good effects, such as preventing disease transmission.

Those arguments haven't carried the day, but they do highlight that the main point of the Catholic teaching about contraception has always been to condemn using contraception within marriage.

Think of it this way: if people are fornicating or committing adultery, they have much more serious moral problems in their lives than whether or not they are using contraception. This is true even though contraception, in my view, does make acts of fornication and adultery worse. If someone has a severed arm (fornication or adultery) and a broken toe (contraception), you work first on reattaching the arm, and worry later about fixing the toe.

So, what's so bad about contraception within marriage? Here's one kind of argument that many people find they can understand pretty easily: in the marital act, I say with my body that I am entirely for my spouse. I say with my body that I give myself completely to my spouse: I am here before you, and everything that I am is for you. The very way the male and female body come together signifies this mutual self-giving; it has led some people to talk about the "language of the body": our bodies are so constituted that in the marital act we fully become gift to the other person.

Contraception makes this act of self-gift into a lie. With the bodily meaning of the marital act I say "everything I am is for you", but with my act of contraception I say "well, not quite everything: everything except my fertility is for you". An act of total self-gift is transformed into a lie.about contraception has always been to condemn using contraception within marriage.

Think of it this way: if people are fornicating or committing adultery, they have much more serious moral problems in their lives than whether or not they are using contraception. This is true even though contraception does make acts of fornication and adultery worse. If someone has a severed arm (fornication or adultery) and a broken toe (contraception), you work first on reattaching the arm, and worry later about fixing the toe.

So, what's so bad about contraception within marriage? Here's one kind of argument that many people find they can understand pretty easily: in the marital act, I say with my body that I am entirely for my spouse. I say with my body that I give myself completely to my spouse: I am here before you, and everything that I am is for you. The very way the male and female body come together signifies this mutual self-giving; it has led some people to talk about the "language of the body": our bodies are so constituted that in the marital act our very bodies declare that we fully become gift for the other person.

Contraception makes this act into a lie. With the bodily meaning of the marital act I say "everything I am is for you", but with my act of contraception I say "well, not quite everything: everything except my fertility is for you". What looks like an act of total self-gift is transformed into a lie.

People who deny that there is a language of the body typically deny that the body has any intrinsic human significance; they believe that the body is mute, and that whatever meaning it has is the result of our decisions. This is what I meant earlier when I spoke of dualism. They distinguish between their bodies (the "mute" object to be used for whatever purposes they happen to have) and themselves (a disembodied rational will). This profound error is what gives rise to contraception. In my experience, most people who contracept eventually can be brought to acknowledge that they are dualists about human nature.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:33 AM on May 12, 2006

crap, sorry about the mixed up paragraphs above. I hope it's clear how it was supposed flow.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:36 AM on May 12, 2006

But by your argument, NFP should be even worse than a condom or a pill.
posted by cytherea at 9:44 AM on May 12, 2006

I wouldn't say worse, but it's not any better: the rhythm method is saying everything I have is for you except on those days when we're both likely to conceive. Same difference.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:52 AM on May 12, 2006

Furthermore, if my parter catches a cold, is it wrong for them to cover their mouth when they cough or take an anti-biotic? Or would that be "Well, not quite everything; everything except my cold for you?"
posted by cytherea at 9:53 AM on May 12, 2006

Worse because they're not just denying me their fertility, but also their hot, holy sex for a week at a time.
posted by cytherea at 9:57 AM on May 12, 2006

I like to wrap my feces in sparkly paper and a nice big bow and leave it on the breakfast table for my beloved.
What better way to say: "everything I am is for you"
posted by Floydd at 10:01 AM on May 12, 2006

PinkStainlessTail and cytherea, to stick with the "language of the body" idea, those who contracept perform an act that says one thing (they perform the marital act that says I'm all for you), while denying that very meaning by their act of contraception. The couple who use NFP simply refrain from performing that act when it would say something they wouldn't mean. The users of NFP refrain from performing an act that would say something they aren't in a position to say, while the contraceptors lie.

It's certainly possible to use NFP badly (i.e. immorally), but it's not possible to use contraception well, because it is an intrinsically disordered act.

cytherea, you speak as though our procreative powers were only accidentally related to the marital act. More dualism.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:03 AM on May 12, 2006

The reason you are being tagged as batshitinsane, PT, is that you have such obvious and unresolvable contradictions in your worldview that you literally have to be insane — or at least incapable of simple logical thinking — to maintain them simultaneously.

And one fundamental difference between us is that I do not want to force you to use any particular birth control method, while you very much want to restrict my access.

Further, my wife DOES NOT WANT ALL OF ME. We are in complete agreement on this point: she does not want my sperm in her fallopian tubes.

Yet you would have us forced to share it. You want to force us to become pregnant.

For the umpteenth time, we do not buy into your cockamamie religious bullshit. Each and every one of your religious arguments is absolutely and wholly rejected: you may as well be telling us pink unicorns want us to do things in a certain manner.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:11 AM on May 12, 2006

The users of NFP refrain from performing an act that would say something they aren't in a position to say, while the contraceptors lie.

I still don't see the difference: the rhythm method is saying "I'm all for you except when we're fecund" and contraception is saying "I'm all for you except for my fecundity". The body and it's qualities are being deliberately withheld in both cases for reasons outside of sharing love.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:12 AM on May 12, 2006

Another kind of argument about contraception that some people find helpful has to do with the contraceptor's volitional relation to the possible fruit of the marital act. The contraceptors have done something to "unwant" their child, if they have one. They have performed an act that projects forward toward a possible child, and they have done something to say "no" to the existence of that child. If they accidentally become pregnant, they may, like mystyk, follow up their initial "no" with something much more definitive, namely murder.

The couple that uses NFP refrains from performing an act that is likely to result in a new life, and when they do come together in the marital act, if the gift of new life is given, they have not done anything to say "no" to that gift. A child conceived by people who use NFP (to avoid conception) is a surprise, a child conceived by people who contracept is an accident.

Contracepting says "no" to the possibility of a gift; every child conceived as the result of a contracepted act is necessarily an "unwanted" child, because the couple has literally done something to "unwant", to be inhospitable to, the gift that is that particular child.

Many people who see nothing wrong with contraception find it almost impossible to make sense of the idea of human life as a gift. They think of children as products, and many of them think of children as consumer items. Contraception makes this kind of confusion unavoidable.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:13 AM on May 12, 2006

So, it would be just as wrong to take an antibiotic pill before sex as an estrogen pill? I'm trying to be holistic here.
posted by cytherea at 10:14 AM on May 12, 2006

that the government should be in the position of taking money from some of its citizens to pay for educating the children of other people about how to use contraception.

See, the thing is, anyone - including you, as you made abundantly clear - can hold whatever views about sex and contraception and family planning and they are rightly free to act as they best please according to their ideas. There is no coercion being advocated there.

When you're talking about education, though, the "children of other people" are not the exclusive property of those people, as if they were a thing, with no individuality and no rights of their own, at the complete whim of their parents and their beliefs, otherwise, the law would allow parents to do all sorts of things by taking advantage of their legal status as parents. Say someone believes any form of education and any form of contact with the outside world itself is a corruption, and they refuse to provide it to their children, and lock them up in a room all by themselves. Should other people, as represented by "the state", just stand by and watch?

Those children will one day become adults and legally autonomous citizens of their society too.

If you accept there are some limits to parental authority and that there is a good case for making education compulsory, then you accept two principles at issue here: the children have a right to be provided with the means to choose their own path in preparation for adulthood; the rest of society has an interest in providing those means as much as possible.

In this case of contraception, this means teenagers have a right to be informed of all the options and means available to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STD's if they have sex; and society has an interest (in terms of health, social consequences, economic consequences, etc.) in providing that information because it has an interest in having less unwanted pregnancies and STD's.

There is no coercion being advocated there, either.

Parents who believe all contraception is perversion and sex without marriage is wrong are still free to educate their children according to those beliefs, what is unethical is for them to demand the right to deny their children access to information that takes into account not just beliefs but realistic possibilities and "in case of" scenarios in the public interest and in the interest of health and autonomy of those teenagers.

I don't see the big THREAT of making that information available, if your beliefs are so strong and you trust them so much you should trust your ability to persuade your teenage kids to follow them, but they possibility they may not be persuaded or that despite their persuasion they may act differently is always there, and it's in their best interests to be informed and prepared should that happen.

It's also sorry idea of parenthood to expect those kids just accept your beliefs without question and without reaching their own conclusions after getting all the information you won't give them. It's also a sorry idea of society to expect to be given special treatment in considering kids like robot clones of their parents, against their own best interests.

Actually, I do understand why sex ed can be seen as a "threat" with that kind of beliefs, precisely because teenagers are seen as easily brainwashable idiots, and the two things - parents religious beliefs and sex education - are seen as equal and competing means of brainwashing. There's no other reason to oppose it.
posted by funambulist at 10:15 AM on May 12, 2006

The couple that uses NFP refrains from performing an act that is likely to result in a new life, and when they do come together in the marital act, if the gift of new life is given, they have not done anything to say "no" to that gift.

They were deliberately trying to avoid conception. They were very much saying no to that gift.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:15 AM on May 12, 2006

PinkStainlessTail: The body and it's qualities are being deliberately withheld in both cases

But they aren't. Contraceptors are still performing the very act that _says_ "I'm all for you", even though they don't mean it! There's nothing equivalent in the case of NFP.

The only way I am aware of to resist this conclusion is to declare that the body is in fact mute, that whatever meaning it has is the result of my projecting meaning onto it, but that in itself it is just an object to be used as "I" (apparently a disembodied rational will) see fit.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:16 AM on May 12, 2006

PinkStainlessTail: They were deliberately trying to avoid conception.

How am I trying to avoid conception when I fuck my wife during her infertile period? What am I doing to avoid conception?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:17 AM on May 12, 2006

But they aren't. Contraceptors are still performing the very act that _says_ "I'm all for you", even though they don't mean it! There's nothing equivalent in the case of NFP.

Refraining during ovulation is equivalent.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:19 AM on May 12, 2006

How am I trying to avoid conception when I fuck my wife during her infertile period?

And if you miscalculate, or fall victim to the very common variances in fertile periods and conceive when you had no intention of doing so? It is absolutely no different from a condom breaking or the pill failing.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:20 AM on May 12, 2006

And exactly how does NLP not say no to a child? That's much more of a willful act than taking a pill.
posted by cytherea at 10:22 AM on May 12, 2006

fresh_fish_five: my wife DOES NOT WANT ALL OF ME.

Of course she doesn't. She wants something from you, and you want something from her. And so long as you can both provide what the other wants, you'll have a mutually satisfying exchange of goods and services. That's what capitalism is all about, baby.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:23 AM on May 12, 2006

What am I doing to avoid conception?

Let me guess: using NFP to make sure your sperm don't meet her egg?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:25 AM on May 12, 2006

Contraception makes this act into a lie. With the bodily meaning of the marital act I say "everything I am is for you", but with my act of contraception I say "well, not quite everything: everything except my fertility is for you". What looks like an act of total self-gift is transformed into a lie.

Bullshit, you absurd irrationalist. For a start this patronisingly suggests that the decision to use contraception is only that of one partner - insulting enough in itself for one who so pompously bangs on about "marital acts" and "mutual self-giving" like some throwback from Miss Cicely Dustquim's Nice School for Nice Young Ladies - but quite apart from that, the "bodily meaning of the marital act" does not say "everything I am is for you whether you want it right now or not; whether it is a good idea or not".

Stop oppressing women, you retrograde little sexist. An individual's fertility should be under their control: no one else's.
posted by Decani at 10:26 AM on May 12, 2006

How am I trying to avoid conception when I fuck my wife during her infertile period? What am I doing to avoid conception?
If you're keeping track of her fertile periods, and you then deliberately fuck her while she's infertile, you are trying to avoid conception.
By your standards, you're going to hell.
posted by Floydd at 10:27 AM on May 12, 2006

PinkStainlessTail: And if you miscalculate, or fall victim to the very common variances in fertile periods and conceive when you had no intention of doing so? It is absolutely no different from a condom breaking or the pill failing.

Of course it is different. In the case of NFP, the child is a surprise. In the case of contraception, where I have done something to "unwant" the child, the child, literally, is an accident. I can change my mind and decide I want the child after all, but that won't change the fact that I did something to unwant it. When I contracept, I imagine the fruit of this particular marital act, and I said "no" to that fruit. There is nothing equivalent to that act of unwanting for users of NFP.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:27 AM on May 12, 2006

What am I doing to avoid conception?

Let me guess: using NFP to make sure your sperm don't meet her egg?

Which is, y'know, exactly the same thing as my wife have been doing: making sure my sperm don't meet her eggs. Just like you. Any distinctions on technique are moot: they're just ways of trying to fool yourself and your god.

You make no logical sense whatsoever.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:28 AM on May 12, 2006

Floydd: If you're keeping track of her fertile periods, and you then deliberately fuck her while she's infertile, you are trying to avoid conception.

I'm not trying to avoid conception when I fuck my wife. I'm trying to avoid conception when I don't fuck my wife. When I fuck my wife (believing she is infertile), avoiding conception is not something I am trying to achieve. I don't have to fuck my wife in order to avoid conception. Sheesh.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:30 AM on May 12, 2006

Of course it is different. In the case of NFP, the child is a surprise. In the case of contraception, where I have done something to "unwant" the child, the child, literally, is an accident.

No. they are absolutely equivalent. Using the rhythm method, you were actively trying to not conceive. You did not want to conceive. If there is an accidental conception during this period, there is the same level of "unwanting." The distinction between "surprise" and "accident" is incorrect.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:32 AM on May 12, 2006

five_fresh_fish: Any distinctions on technique are moot

Except that you're performing acts that say one thing while you mean something entirely different by them.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:33 AM on May 12, 2006

That's like when a HS friend of mine started working at McDonald's. Apparently his managers said "Don't think of it as an accident. Think of it as a surprise."
posted by cytherea at 10:33 AM on May 12, 2006

Think there's some point where PT's bogosity meter will finally ping off the red line, and he'll finally see the contradictions and self-delusions in his internally inconsistent worldview?

"Except that you're performing acts that say one thing while you mean something entirely different by them."

No, I'm not. How on earth do you figure that?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:35 AM on May 12, 2006

PinkStainlessTail: If there is an accidental conception during this period, there is the same level of "unwanting."

What is the act of unwanting that I perform?

In order for what you say to be correct, it would have to be the case that what I am trying to achieve in an act includes not only what I am trying to achieve in the act, but also whatever I am not trying to achieve in the act. But this is a non-starter.

In fucking my wife during her infertile period, I am not trying to achieve not having a child. I am trying to achieve loving my wife, and have judged that this is a propitious time for doing so.

In using contraception, I am taking an act of loving my wife, and adding on to it an additional goal: the goal of avoiding conception.

When I use NFP, there is no act I perform that (1) tends to produce children, and (2) is an act of unwanting a child. When we refrain from the marital act, we are not saying "no" to the possible fruit of any particular marital act that we are performing. We are simply not performing any marital acts that are not in a time that we deem appropriate.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:39 AM on May 12, 2006

And exactly how does NLP not say no to a child? That's much more of a willful act than taking a pill

Any distinctions on technique are moot

You know, that's probably why there are long-winded treatises and religious proclamations on the matter, to cloud and obscure through a ton of sophistries that little obvious fact.

It seems to me the only coherent anti-contraception position is to consider immoral any form of willful human intervention, including "natural family planning" (and that willful aspect already doesn't make it a "natural" thing, natural things happen without human control, and the only truly natural form of family planning I can think of is fertilised eggs being expelled from the body without the woman even noticing). Of course, even the Catholic church had to concede on that point because preaching that even a married couple joined in holy matrimony etc. must simply take any number of children that come through marital sex would be even more of an unpopular position than those they currently hold, and at philosophical level it would clash with the belief about humanity being made noble by divine incarnation, since it would reduce humans to animals at the mercy of biology and without any recourse to intellect and free will. But, they couldn't go as far as endorsing condoms and pills - yet - because of the role the pill played in 'sexual liberation' and women's rights and feminism. So it's just a very cynical and hypocrite position. But, each to their own, if there are people who truly believe it is the most morally coherent position, then so be it. What's at issue here is education and that's a whole other matter.
posted by funambulist at 10:41 AM on May 12, 2006

five_fresh_fish, well actually you're not, because you aren't contracepting. You've mutilated yourself, but that doesn't mean that the marital act is a lie when you perform it, because you aren't, in that act, doing something to mutilate yourself. It's already done.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:41 AM on May 12, 2006

I'll be away for some time, but will be happy to answer everyone's questions when I get back! :)
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:43 AM on May 12, 2006

I'm sure I'm full of my own set of inconsistencies. The difference is that I wouldn't want my children to catch AIDS because they were ignorant of or afraid to use a condom. And it's not fair for any child to have to go through that because of the Magic Dragon in their parent's garage.
posted by cytherea at 10:44 AM on May 12, 2006

I can't believe we've gotten to nigh on 400 comments without any pictures. You're slacking people.
posted by longbaugh at 10:48 AM on May 12, 2006

Except that you're performing acts that say one thing while you mean something entirely different by them.

But "meaning" is a rather arbitrary thing. By the way, since you're a Catholic, even the Pope & co. expounded in official letters and statements on the role of sex in marriage and considered the purpose of sharing and affection between partners as valid in itself, even as maintaining the belief sex should remain open to procreation or something like that. If there was no emphasis at all on that affection for its own sake part, if it was all about requiring fertility in the picture, sex between sterile couples would be sinful. There are many levels of, shall we say, philosophical subtleties here that allow rather contradictory positions to be held.
posted by funambulist at 10:49 AM on May 12, 2006

Thanks PT. However, I don't find those arguments very persuasive, and I doubt many people do. Perhaps that accounts for the chasm between the shepherds and the flock on this issue within the Catholic Church.
posted by caddis at 10:52 AM on May 12, 2006

Semantical subtleties, rather...
posted by funambulist at 10:54 AM on May 12, 2006

In fucking my wife during her infertile period, I am not trying to achieve not having a child. I am trying to achieve loving my wife, and have judged that this is a propitious time for doing so.

That this is the time she is least likely to have a child is surely a coincidence.
posted by InfidelZombie at 10:57 AM on May 12, 2006

PinkStainlessTail: If there is an accidental conception during this period, there is the same level of "unwanting."

Peeping_Thomas: What is the act of unwanting that I perform?

If you accidentally conceive during what you thought was an infertile period there is "unwanting" involved. Otherwise you would not have been avoiding the fertile period, because you were okay with conceiving. It's very simple.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:59 AM on May 12, 2006

Thanks PT. However, I don't find those arguments very persuasive, and I doubt many people do.

I'm reminded of the time a member of the LDS church tried to explain to me the Declaration of 78, which allowed blacks to be ordained for the first time in the history of the church (well, Smith personally ordained a few, but that's another matter). His arguments were heartfelt, meaningful and complete within the context of his faith, and utterly unpersuasive to anyone outside it.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:05 AM on May 12, 2006

This sophistry about the difference between NFP and other forms of birth control strikes me as a lame attempt to justify that which is clearly an attempt to prevent conception, (which is apparently a "bad thing" as far as the church is concerned.)

It reminds me of an alcoholic friend of mine, who maintained that he had 20 years of sobriety, despite the fact that he always reeked of all the mouthwash he drank daily to get his fix. He truly believed that he wasn't "drinking" because it was mouthwash, and couldn't accept that it was really no different from throwing back some real booze (mouthwash is often at least 20% alcohol.)

Keep using NFP and believing you're doing what the big Guy in the Sky wants you to do if it makes you feel better about yourself. You have a right to your denial, I understand how it is dude. I won't judge you for it.
posted by JAHxman at 11:16 AM on May 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

You've mutilated yourself, but that doesn't mean that the marital act is a lie when you perform it, because you aren't, in that act, doing something to mutilate yourself.

Well, isn't that a relief!

I also damn near cut off my finger the other day on the tablesaw, although I suppose that doesn't quite fall into the category of desired self-mutilation.

My wife's earring holes, however, probably do fall into that category. Damn her sinning!
posted by five fresh fish at 11:21 AM on May 12, 2006

You've mutilated yourself, but that doesn't mean that the marital act is a lie when you perform it, because you aren't, in that act, doing something to mutilate yourself. It's already done.

Anyone else having serious difficulty parsing this? all I know it is sounds so very rumsfeldian, I feel like it's 2003 all over again.
posted by funambulist at 12:32 PM on May 12, 2006

I think he's saying that when five fresh fish swims upstream to spawn with Mrs. five fresh fish, five fresh fish isn't actually sinning at that moment even though he's not spewing milt due to his miltectomy. The sin was committed at the time of the miltectomy, not at the moment of spawning.
But peeper's pretty darn delusional, so he could mean almost anything.
posted by Floydd at 1:02 PM on May 12, 2006

Whoa, there: let's not go jumping aboard the "vasectomies are a sin" bandwagon. PT said nothing of the sort.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:03 PM on May 12, 2006

Oh. Sorry.
I went off half-cocked.
posted by Floydd at 2:07 PM on May 12, 2006

Wow. I've been gone for a while...

Before anything else, peeping, I want to go on record telling you that I don't think you're an idiot, since you're obviously quite intelligent and articulate.

However, from reading all your statements here, I do think you are completely irrational, and that you are an extremely narcissistic, controlling and domineering personality - which means I think you're evil. Your narcissism makes it impossible for you to imagine that you could ever be insane or irrational or even just plain wrong. I invite you (and everyone else here) to read People of the Lie, a book by a Catholic priest, which I found very helpful in learning how truly evil people actually function.

Your arguments about the government spending your tax money on this don't wash. The government spends more than half your tax money on the military, and plenty more of it on non-believers's Social Security. You've got bigger fish to fry, so get cookin'.

I'm glad people like you are a minority... thankfully the rest of us are strong enough to resist if not ignore you. You go ahead and live your life as you see fit, that's your right as a human being, which I accept and respect. I will take no action to stop you from living your life as you wish.

However, since you don't respect my right to the same, and you think it proper to take action to stop me from living my life as I see fit, don't expect me to roll over and let you do it. I must consider you my enemy in this respect.

You do not now and will never have power over me, or any of the other people in this thread who are fighting you.

Now that my position is clear, I have a practical question for you. Since you're not an Apocalyptic Christian, what do you think is going to happen if everyone stops using contraception? How is it good for humanity to keep reproducing geometrically?

And by the way, I agree with all the above posters who shoot down your embrace of NFP. Since you and your wife are fully giving each other love for the glory of God, you should never, ever, ever be making any attempt to not have sex when she's fertile. You are avoiding conception when you abstain from sex during her fertile period. You've come up with a convoluted narcissistic self-justification for not trusting God to either give or not give you a child.

You shouldn't use any contraception, and you shouldn't hold back yourself from your wife at any time. You should be trusting God. Since He's in total control of everything, only He knows how many children you should conceive and have, isn't that true? Why then do you withhold your seed from your wife at any time? God will take care of whether she conceives or not!

Now, since you're highly intelligent, you know that people having sex when the woman is fertile is highly likely to create a baby. Since you believe we should all stop using contraception and are of course opposed to abortion, you must acknowledge that the birth rate would skyrocket immediately - probably escalating to something like the Saudi Arabian average of 4 children per woman.

And thus, we return to my question above. How, then, should the world deal with that explosion of population? We'd go from 6.5 billion to 12 billion within a decade, at that rate, and to 24 billion even faster afterwards. How do we deal with all those people?

Are you trusting God to handle it all for us? You don't seem to trust him with your own family's fertility, so that seems like a bit of a stretch!
posted by zoogleplex at 2:47 PM on May 12, 2006

Oh and by the way, there's nothing at all "natural" about Natural Family Planning.

From this site:

"By avoiding sexual intimacy during the window of fertility, pregnancy can be avoided."

Do you see that? AVOIDED. Abstinence from sex during fertility is contraception.

Also: "To determine the window of fertility, these methods use such things as temperature, mucus, and cervical changes."

Thermometers are not in any way natural, especially those sensitive enough to discriminate the small changes that denote ovulation.

Also note that the scientific sort of investigation which figured out NFP is not natural either.

As I recall, people all over the world figured out that having too many children was a bad idea a very very long time ago, and tried for hundreds if not thousands of generations to avoid it. It's only in the last 100 years or so that truly effective avoidance methods (other than abstinence) became possible, and humans have seized onto them wherever they could get them... and it's been a great boon to freedom for everyone, most especially women.

You've seized onto this NFP thing to justify your own avoidance of having more children, when your church and your God say that contraception is unGodly and sinful.

Stop denying your wife all of yourself when she's fertile. Your beliefs demand it of you. God will determine whether you have more children, and will provide for you if He gifts you with more. You don't have the right to interfere with God's will; interference with God's will is sin!

It's entirely unnatural of you to not be breeding as rapidly as possible, peeping. Get to it.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:13 PM on May 12, 2006

There's a word for PT, and it's not "idiot;" it's more like "doublethinker." That is, one who engages in doublethink. Man, those sure are some mental gymnastics you go through to convince yourself that you're righteous. But hey, to each his own I guess.

But where you really lose me is when mystyk posts this and you come back with "mystik, none of the facts to which you point supports the conclusion that the government should be in the position of taking money from some of its citizens to pay for educating the children of other people about how to use contraception."

No, actually they do. That was the entire point of his post. Contraceptive education represents a public good in that it reduces the occurence of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. Therefore, it is the state's duty to act in the public interest and provide contraceptive education. All of the religious gobbledygook in the world is completely tangential. Where exactly do you not follow this argument?
posted by ludwig_van at 3:42 PM on May 12, 2006

funambulist: But "meaning" is a rather arbitrary thing.

I hope you recall that this is what I said someone who wanted to resist the argument about the "language of the body" would say: namely, that you would deny that there is any significance to the marital act that is not imposed upon it by human will. You see the body as mute, and any meaning the act itself might have as beeing arbitrary, projected, imposed upon it. In other words, you have a fundamentally dualistic conception of personhood.

In my experience, most people believe that it makes sense to talk about the physical structure of the marital act as having non-arbitrary meaning (something along the lines of "I'm all for you"), even though many of them do not see how this insight leads to a rejection of contraception as a kind of lie.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:43 PM on May 12, 2006

ludwig van: Where exactly do you not follow this argument?

Where it leads to having the government teach people to do immoral things. There are lots of immoral things we could have the government that might have good consequences. E.g., forced abortions for people who cannot afford to rear their own children. That doesn't make such proposals acceptable.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:45 PM on May 12, 2006

zoogleplex: there's nothing at all "natural" about Natural Family Planning.

In one sense that's true, in another not. We can contrast medicine against nature, and say that all art is not natural. That's the sense you're using. On the other hand, we can distinguish between interventions upon nature that recognize and work with the meaning-structures that are already there, and interventions that treat nature as mere raw material. In the second sense of the natural/artificial distinction, NFP is natural.

For example, cookies are not natural. There are no cookies in nature. But we can and do distinguish between cookies made of natural ingredients and cookies confected out of chemicals that have never seen the light of day.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:50 PM on May 12, 2006

I hope you recall that this is what I said someone who wanted to resist the argument about the "language of the body" would say: namely, that you would deny that there is any significance to the marital act that is not imposed upon it by human will. You see the body as mute, and any meaning the act itself might have as beeing arbitrary, projected, imposed upon it. In other words, you have a fundamentally dualistic conception of personhood.

First, this is a completely fallacious leap in logic. You're saying that any assertion of self-determination equates to dualism.

Secondly, what of it? Any religion that includes the idea of a soul or an afterlife is fundamentally dualist, isn't it?
posted by ludwig_van at 3:51 PM on May 12, 2006

zoogleplex: what do you think is going to happen if everyone stops using contraception? How is it good for humanity to keep reproducing geometrically?

That's not the alternative. There are effective means of regulating family size that aren't contraceptive.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:51 PM on May 12, 2006

There are lots of immoral things we could have the government that might have good consequences. E.g., forced abortions for people who cannot afford to rear their own children. That doesn't make such proposals acceptable.
posted by peeping_Thomist 7 minutes ago

If you can't tell the difference between sex education and forced abortions, you're fucking stupid.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:54 PM on May 12, 2006

zoogleplex, I remember reading M.Scott Peck's books People of the Lie and The Road Less Traveled back when they were big news, more than 20 years ago. He was not a Catholic priest, but there were genuine insights in those books. I was sad to hear about how his life ended up.

Trying to perform amateur psychology on people you know only via a forum like this is a waste of everyone's time. Perhaps a more fruitful use of your energy would be to meditate on what psychological problems would lead a person to try to make a judgment about a person's moral state based solely on a discussion in a forum like this.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:58 PM on May 12, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: you like to call names. Care to explain what is stupid about what I said? Many people don't think forced abortions are evil. China has forced abortions. Obviously there are differences between the proposal to teach contraception and the proposal to have forced abortions, but they are both examples of having the government do something evil in order to achieve some desirable goal.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:02 PM on May 12, 2006

ludwig_van: Any religion that includes the idea of a soul or an afterlife is fundamentally dualist, isn't it?

No.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:04 PM on May 12, 2006

Where it leads to having the government teach people to do immoral things.

And you don't think that this is a weak argument? You've admitted that your morality is religiously derived, that the government should stay out of religious matters, and that contraceptive education is in the public interest. How can you cling to this argument?

You assert contraception is immoral. I assert that it is not. Therefore, you can feel free not to use it and tell your kids not to use it, if that's what you want. But your argument that it shouldn't be taught holds no water.
posted by ludwig_van at 4:05 PM on May 12, 2006

ludwig_van, to elaborate, Christians believe in the resurrection of the body. If the body is not resurrected, then we will not survive this life, because we are our bodies. The soul is a spiritual principle, but I am not my soul. If only my soul survives this life, then I do not survive this life.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:06 PM on May 12, 2006

ludwig_van: I haven't claimed that my views on contraception can only be derived from religious premises. I claim that, in addition to being taught by revelation, they are also knowable by reason, and that I know by reason that contraception is immoral. That provides me an adequate basis for opposing government involvement in contraception, exactly the same kind of basis I have for resisting the proposal to have forced abortions.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:08 PM on May 12, 2006

I claim that, in addition to being taught by revelation, they are also knowable by reason, and that I know by reason that contraception is immoral.

Well, if that's the case, you haven't demonstrated any of that reason in this thread. Or can you point me to the comment where you explained this rationale? Because it seems clear to me that all of your objections thus far have been theologically-founded. When confronted with the explicit rational reasons for why contraceptive education is in the public interest, you dismissed it with a blunt "you're wrong." In the absence of the reasonable argument to which you allude, I have to assume that you don't have one.
posted by ludwig_van at 4:19 PM on May 12, 2006

ludwig_van: Because it seems clear to me that all of your objections thus far have been theologically-founded.

The argument about the language of the body and contraception being a lie is not based on revealed principles.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:24 PM on May 12, 2006

The argument about the language of the body and contraception being a lie is not based on revealed principles.

You're right, it's a completely fabricated justification. How can the body have a "nautral" language? If God doesn't provide the meaning and people don't provide the meaning, who does? The body has no language and contraception is not a lie outside of a religious context. This argument has no substance. It's the definition of "grasping at straws."
posted by ludwig_van at 4:27 PM on May 12, 2006

"We can contrast medicine against nature, and say that all art is not natural."

Art is not natural. That's why it's the first syllable of "artificial." Art is by definition man-made.

"we can distinguish between interventions upon nature that recognize and work with the meaning-structures that are already there,"

The "meaning-structures" you refer to are entirely based in your subjective opinion, and have no application in actual nature. Some species mate in male-female pairs for life, others breed with many different mates. Some species lay eggs and fertilization happens entirely ex corpus. Some species are asexual, some are bisexual. Some species mate only during female estrus, for reproductive purposes, while others also have coitus for pleasure. This generally correlates with intelligence development, but not completely. There is no "structure" in nature that can be compared to the male-female emotional relationship you describe.

Your statement is meaningless with actual respect to nature; you are making this up out of your head. You seem to be forgetting that religion is also completely artificial. Nature did not create it, nor your concepts of male-female human relationships.

"In the second sense of the natural/artificial distinction, NFP is natural."

No it isn't, because the second distinction is meaningless in reality. Anything created by humans is, by definition, artificial.

"Where it leads to having the government teach people to do immoral things. There are lots of immoral things we could have the government that might have good consequences. E.g., forced abortions for people who cannot afford to rear their own children. That doesn't make such proposals acceptable."

The definition of "moral" is not absolute, any more than that of "perversion." It is entirely subjective. It can be defined individually, or it can be defined by social consensus. Absent intelligence, there is no morality. We are the only species we know of that can abstract "morality" and apply it to life either individually or by social consensus.

Most of us don't agree with you that contraception is immoral, therefore the social consensus drives government - that is, public - policy.

Your argument about morals is meaningless in discussion of what government should control. Your opinion is noted, but we're not going to act upon it.

Once again, you are showing us your towering narcissism.

"That's not the alternative. There are effective means of regulating family size that aren't contraceptive."

Yes, and one of them is infanticide, which is still rather widely practiced in places where poor people have little or no access to birth control.

Another method is starvation, which is what happens when you have too many children and not enough food.

War is also a popular way to control population, and one of its major causes (other than towering narcissistic ego among "leaders") is having too many people with not enough resources to support them.

You would bring these back with a vengeance, eh?

The little Godly Utopia in your brain cannot exist in a human world, mostly because the rest of us would find it hellish slavery of our bodies and minds. Again, evidence of your narcissism. You believe you know better than everyone else on earth.

Also, you haven't addressed our assertions that you are indeed holding some of yourself back from your wife by failing to make love to her while she's fertile - and my personal assertion that you're turning your back on God's will by not doing so.

I understand that you feel "abstinence" does not equal "contraception," but I challenge that. Why should it make any difference to you whether you impregnate your wife every time she's fertile and not pregnant? Don't you trust God to handle things for you?

If all contraception is sin, then why isn't failure to inseminate also a sin? I mean, are you forgetting about Onan?

"But we can and do distinguish between cookies made of natural ingredients and cookies confected out of chemicals that have never seen the light of day."

I'd like you to show me some, because I've never seen a cookie whose ingredients weren't mostly flour, sugar or corn syrup, salt, and some kind of emulsifier like butter. They add in all sorts of other stuff like preservatives and flavor additives, but there are no cookies manufactured solely from artificially-synthesized chemical compounds.

"Perhaps a more fruitful use of your energy would be to meditate on what psychological problems would lead a person to try to make a judgment about a person's moral state based solely on a discussion in a forum like this."

Pot. Kettle. Black. I think my take on you is pretty accurate, and I have no problem with having a judgement of you. You want to control my mind and body. I won't let you.

"He was not a Catholic priest,"

Then I have remembered poorly, for which I apologize. In the book he wrote about being present at exorcisms, if I recall correctly (though I may not), so perhaps I assumed. I'll have to go re-read that and refresh my memory, and also look up what happened to him later.

"Many people don't think forced abortions are evil."

This is a moral judgement, and depends on the person involved. I personally think forced abortions are evil, as do you. I don't think contraception is evil, whereas you do. Our lines are drawn in different places, to be sure.

The term "evil" itself is artificial (as is "good"), and is not absolute, except in each of our minds as we define it personally - most of us get our definition of evil from an external moral structure, like a religion, or our laws, and others solely define it in their own minds.

"Obviously there are differences between the proposal to teach contraception and the proposal to have forced abortions, but they are both examples of having the government do something evil in order to achieve some desirable goal."

In your opinion.

"ludwig_van, to elaborate, Christians believe in the resurrection of the body. If the body is not resurrected, then we will not survive this life, because we are our bodies. The soul is a spiritual principle, but I am not my soul. If only my soul survives this life, then I do not survive this life."

I don't believe that's the Roman Catholic opinion, but I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

"I claim that, in addition to being taught by revelation, they are also knowable by reason, and that I know by reason that contraception is immoral."

Yes, you've shown us the reasoning that you've based this on, and we've all read it and found it entirely irrational - so what you call "reason" we rightly call "nuttiness." This claim is narcissistic as well. You got one hell of an ego there, buddy!
posted by zoogleplex at 4:45 PM on May 12, 2006

You see the body as mute, and any meaning the act itself might have as beeing arbitrary, projected, imposed upon it. In other words, you have a fundamentally dualistic conception of personhood.

Nonsense, I didn't say or imply that, no one else did, and its a very long way to go from "meaning is arbitrary" to "you see the body as mute", whatever you actually mean by that.

(You're really skilled with playing these tricks of shifting the meaning of words though. Kudos to you. It's a skill much sought after in many professions, not just the clerical ones!)

Section from the department for the redundant explanation of the obvious: sex is human interaction of the most direct personal kind and can "mean" or rather express anything from intimacy and affection and communication and fun and kinkiness and curiosity and whatever (at least in consensually enjoyed sex, which is what we're talking about here), in its own right; most people don't even have to think about what exactly it "means" on some ideological level unless they want to attach convoluted justifications to their sexual practices.

The "meaning is arbitrary" here is specifically in response to the fact you view sex as necessarily requiring fertility or at least the option of fertility - even though, in practice, you do take steps to avoid it and do all sorts of verbal acrobatics to justify that, but it's your right to do so, for yourself, at least, not for others - while other people have no problem whatsoever embracing even at level of principle, not just in practice, the separation of sex and fertility (except when they're actively trying to have children, that is). You call that "perversion", but that's the meaning you attribute to it, and you do that only to the safer and more practical methods of contraception, not the ones approved under the umbrella of "natural" family planning. So it's double arbitrary.

If that separation, if that goal to enjoy sex without wanting children is what you call "dualistic conception of personhood", you're engaging in it too already, furthermore, it's really not "dualistic conception of personhood" to pursue an action with the conscious intent to avoid one of its possible outcomes, otherwise putting on gloves (eh) while going outside in winter or wearing seatbelts while driving would be a "dualistic conception of personhood" too. Not that there's any real comparison between sex and going outside in winter or driving, or having children and a car crash or a cold, so don't try and pull a "see, you see this and that as blah blah". The comparison is only insomuch as it's ridiculous to define "wanting to do x without it resulting in y" as 'dualistic conception of personhood', unless you think y - in this case, procreation - is the only meaningful purpose of x - sex, or personhood itself! -, but then, you wouldn't be speaking of enjoying sex and you wouldn't be speaking of family planning either.

The department never runs out of work with this kind of stuff, does it?
posted by funambulist at 4:50 PM on May 12, 2006

"ludwig_van, to elaborate, Christians believe in the resurrection of the body. If the body is not resurrected, then we will not survive this life, because we are our bodies. The soul is a spiritual principle, but I am not my soul. If only my soul survives this life, then I do not survive this life."

Hmm, woops, I read this incorrectly. I'd like to retract my response please, with sincere apologies.
posted by zoogleplex at 4:57 PM on May 12, 2006

I find this "language of the body" idea to be weirdly fascinating. What the English translation of "malignant brain tumor"? How about "hernia" or "ingrown toe nail"? Can really sweaty palms be translated into a human language?
posted by mr_roboto at 4:58 PM on May 12, 2006

Where it leads to having the government teach people to do immoral things.

Like I said, it's fascinating how the simple fact of making available useful information in the interest of individual and public health gets translated as a coercive thing, and sex education is seen as competing on the same level of the kind of brainwashing fundamentalist religious conservatives engage in. It's like there's not even a concept that individuals should make up their own minds after getting all the information they can get. Nice authoritarian idea.
posted by funambulist at 5:00 PM on May 12, 2006

ludwig_van: How can the body have a "natural" language?

That's a great question, but not one I need to be able to answer in order to see that contraception is evil. All I need to be able to do is to see that the body does have a natural language, and that the marital act has a natural meaning (something like "I'm all for you"). And, as I said earlier, in my experience this is something that most people can recognize. Some of the posts above, in which people say there is no natural meaning to the marital act, or that it can mean anything anyone wants it to mean, give a good flavor of what sorts of things you're driven to say if you deny this point.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:06 PM on May 12, 2006

"...of the kind of brainwashing fundamentalist religious conservatives engage in."

Or really any kind of religious dogmatist. It's that same ol' narcissism, funambulist - from which authoritarians derive their claim to authority.

Of course, the Bible says God gave man Free Will. But clearly, those who think they're Godly feel we shouldn't have it.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:08 PM on May 12, 2006

zoogleplex, how were you misreading what I wrote about the resurrection of the body, such that you thought it wasn't what Catholics believe? Just wondering what you thought I was saying.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:08 PM on May 12, 2006

I think I'm going to start worshipping zoogleplex. S/He has made some of the best posts I've ever read, lately. Zoogleplex, it is a distinct pleasure to read you!

The conversation, wrt "language of the body" has taken a distinctly bizarre twist now. We have now entered a zone I'd call "so desperate to reconcil this mass of contradictions we try to hold as our worldview, that we're gonna make shit up."

Good luck with that plan, PT. Hope you can make it stick through the length of your life.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:09 PM on May 12, 2006

Many people don't think forced abortions are evil.

???

China has forced abortions.

Ah, I see. Well. Let me check if the Department for the REOTO is still open... yes, it is, and here is what they have to say on the matter: China is not a democracy and the enforced demographic control policy that includes forced abortion and sterilisations has its own internal opposition as well as being practically universally condemned as a human rights abuse.

Nice try conflating a human rights issue with contraception.

Next, may I suggest a little casual analogy with genocide? Just to make the argument against contraception even more logically rigorous and coherent, like.
posted by funambulist at 5:12 PM on May 12, 2006

That's a great question, but not one I need to be able to answer in order to see that contraception is evil. All I need to be able to do is to see that the body does have a natural language, and that the marital act has a natural meaning (something like "I'm all for you").

PT, surely you don't think this passes for the rational argument you alluded to earlier? You're still just making bald assertions. How is it that you can determine that the body has an objective language, and that the marital act is meant to communicate "I'm all for you?" Completely putting aside the issue of whether contraceptions "give lie" to that act while NFP does not. How can this assertion be justified besides theologically? You've yet to explain this.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:12 PM on May 12, 2006

zoogleplex: the social consensus drives government - that is, public - policy.

You seem to have forgotten that we live in a pluralistic society, and have taken steps to insure that majorities do not trample on the rights of minorities. There have to be constraints on the principle that "consensus drives policy".

I keep coming back to this point: this is not an argument about whether the government will allow people to use contraception. It is an argument about whether the government will use its coercive power to promote contraception. Several people have claimed that I am literally "insane" because I don't think this is a legitimate government function.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:16 PM on May 12, 2006

You seem to have forgotten that we live in a pluralistic society, and have taken steps to insure that majorities do not trample on the rights of minorities. There have to be constraints on the principle that "consensus drives policy".

PT, you're dodging the point. We've already established that contraceptive education is sound policy because it's in the public's best interest because it reduces the rates of unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and abortions. You didn't disagree with that before.

Several people have claimed that I am literally "insane" because I don't think this is a legitimate government function.

Questions about your mental state are much more likely to be prompted by the fact that you seem completely oblivious to (in fact, willing to engage in long-winded rationalizations in order to ignore) the glaring logical inconsistencies in your positions; meanwhile you promote those same positions with an air of self-righteousness.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:20 PM on May 12, 2006

ludwig_van: How can this assertion be justified besides theologically?

Huh? What are you talking about? Most people are able to look at the marital act and recognize that it has a natural meaning along the lines of "I'm all for you". Some people (not enough) go on from there to recognize that contraception involves saying something with your body that you don't actually mean, and thus is a kind of lie. And then there are those, like you, who most certainly are _not_ in the majority on this matter, who freak out at this talk of a "language of the body" and deny that the marital act could possibly have any natural meaning because all meaning is arbitrary and all that other bullshit.

Where does theology enter into this discussion?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:21 PM on May 12, 2006

ludwig_van: We've already established that contraceptive education is sound policy because it's in the public's best interest because it reduces the rates of unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and abortions.

That doesn't establish that it is sound policy, any more than the benefits of forced abortion establish that forced abortion would be sound policy.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:22 PM on May 12, 2006

ludwig_van: the glaring logical inconsistencies in your positions

Why don't you take some time, and try to lay out some of the "glaring logical inconsistencies". Not in a rant, but just a list. I know a thing or two about logic and the nature of consistency, and I'm starting to think you don't.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:24 PM on May 12, 2006

Most people are able to look at the marital act and recognize that it has a natural meaning along the lines of "I'm all for you".

So that's all you've got? This is your idea of reason? A weak appeal to common sense? You haven't proven anything.

Where does theology enter into this discussion?

That's the only place your whole "language of the body" bit comes from. It's not an objective reality at all. The long Catholic explanation that you quoted earlier didn't seem ambiguous at all about whether or not its arguments were religiously-derived; so how come you are?
posted by ludwig_van at 5:25 PM on May 12, 2006

The conversation, wrt "language of the body" has taken a distinctly bizarre twist now.

Ok, someone wanted pictures, right? Then this is the right moment.



Don't blame me, blame google. There's also this, which is a LOT sexier.
posted by funambulist at 5:26 PM on May 12, 2006

That doesn't establish that it is sound policy, any more than the benefits of forced abortion establish that forced abortion would be sound policy.

You're wrong, and your analogy is invalid. If we were talking about forced contraception, you might be making sense. But we're talking about education. Why are you so afraid of education? Since contraceptive education has shown itself to be beneficial to society, it is good policy. If you want to make the argument that it is not actually benefitting society by reducing unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and abortions, then please do so. If
not, stop arguing this point.

Why don't you take some time, and try to lay out some of the "glaring logical inconsistencies".

1) You believe in the separation of Church and state and individual freedom.
2) Your assertion that contraception is evil only has validity within a specific religious context.
3) You don't disagree that contraceptive education is beneficial for society.
4) You don't think public schools should offer contraceptive education.

Something doesn't add up there, PT.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:30 PM on May 12, 2006

ludwig_van: This is your idea of reason? A weak appeal to common sense? You haven't proven anything.

You haven't been reasoning about moral questions very long if you think the criterion for a successful argument is whether you convince those who are determined to disagree with you. Being able to link up my views about contraception to commonsense views about the language of the body strikes me as a significantly better result than is usually achieved in discussions about controversial moral questions. In my experience, many people who initially regard criticism of contraception as absurd or unintelligible find that discussion of the language of the body goes a long way toward at least making the criticisms make sense, even if they don't ultimately agree with them.

Aristotle famously said that it was a big mistake to expect the same kind of proof in ethics as in geometry. You seem to have adopted the stance that unless I can force you to agree with me, I will have failed. That's not how moral disagreements have ever worked, and in any case my goal has never been to force you to agree with me.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:37 PM on May 12, 2006

1) You believe in the separation of Church and state and individual freedom.

Yes.

2) Your assertion that contraception is evil only has validity within a specific religious context.

Bullshit.

3) You don't disagree that contraceptive education is beneficial for society.

I don't grant that it has an overall preponderance of benefits, but I am willing to grant for the sake of argument that it has some benefits. A policy of forced abortion would also have some benefits, or there wouldn't be governments that adopt such policies.

4) You don't think public schools should offer contraceptive education.

Right. And the "glaring logical inconsistencies" you were going to point out are? What exactly?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:40 PM on May 12, 2006

The idea that the "marital act" has any "natural meaning" is nothing short of laughable. Only humans get married. Therefore, marriage is wholly artificial. Therefore, it can have no "natural meaning". His entire "language of the body" argument -- an argument which is based solely, entirely, completely and only on Catholic dogma, putting the lie to the idea that it can be arrived at by mere reason.

Irrational and full of shit. And insane.
posted by solid-one-love at 5:43 PM on May 12, 2006

solid-one-love: Only humans get married. Therefore, marriage is wholly artificial.

That doesn't follow.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:45 PM on May 12, 2006

"All I need to be able to do is to see that the body does have a natural language, and that the marital act has a natural meaning (something like "I'm all for you")."

Well, "the marital act" has lots of other "natural" meanings among humans, too; meanings like "I think you're hot, I'm horny and would like to have sex with you, but I really don't want to get to know you" or "Hurrr, you look like prime breeding stock for my DNA, let's do it" or, sadly, "I must fuck you whether you like it or not, because I need to dominate you and assuage my hate." There are many others as well.

In the rest of Nature, sex is pretty much about one thing: breeding. The meaning you're advancing is anything BUT natural; it's an artificial meaning created specifically by you in your own head.

"Most people are able to look at the marital act and recognize that it has a natural meaning along the lines of "I'm all for you"."

You are flat wrong about this.

"You seem to have forgotten that we live in a pluralistic society, and have taken steps to insure that majorities do not trample on the rights of minorities. There have to be constraints on the principle that "consensus drives policy"."

In fact I haven't forgotten that at all! Your rights are not impinged upon in any way by public policy providing information to people about contraception - and I've already asserted that I'm fine with you getting a break on your taxes so you personally don't have to pay for such education. Others in this thread have shot down your idea that contraceptives are being provided by the public school organizations themselves. So, as pertains to me personally, you have no argument here.

This is indeed a pluralistic society, which means that I must accept that you life your life the way you see fit - and you must accept the same for me. As far as I can tell, you do not; you have scenarios in your head under which your way of life would be the one that I'd be forced to live, and you're fine with that.

Again: I have no wish to interfere with your way of life and your right to follow it. Nor do I have a wish to have public policy interfere with it. I don't believe any of the other posters here wish this to happen either.

From what I can see, no public policy here in America interferes with your way of life (apart from your objections about your tax money, which I've addressed).

"It is an argument about whether the government will use its coercive power to promote contraception."

Promoting contraception is entirely different from forcing people to use contraception. "Promoting" contraception is like promoting soft drinks. People don't have to drink soft drinks, and plenty of them don't. In fact, due to legitimate and scientifically-backed health concerns, the government - that is, public policy, the will of the people - will soon be restricting the promotion of soft drinks in schools. This is for the public good, wouldn't you say? Healthier kids, that's good!

Nobody is forcing kids to use birth control. Nobody is stopping you from teaching or even indoctrinating your own children against its use. Nobody is even stopping you from going out and talking to every family in your town about your objections to birth control.

You, on the other hand, would like to force everyone to not use birth control. You are the coercer here, sir.

"That doesn't establish that it is sound policy, any more than the benefits of forced abortion establish that forced abortion would be sound policy."

Boggles me. So, you're saying higher rates of unwanted pregnancies, STDs and cervical cancer are good for the public?

Do you understand that there could be conditions where, however horrific and repugnant it would be to any of us, forced abortions might indeed be sound public policy? They would be extreme and ghastly, but it is theoretically possible that such a heinous practice would be better overall than allowing unrestricted birth? Ghah... turns my stomach just thinking about it. :(

"Being able to link up my views about contraception to commonsense views about the language of the body strikes me as a significantly better result than is usually achieved in discussions about controversial moral questions."

That's because you're irrational.

"In my experience, many people who initially regard criticism of contraception as absurd or unintelligible find that discussion of the language of the body goes a long way toward at least making the criticisms make sense, even if they don't ultimately agree with them."

That's probably because they're irrational, too. Most humans are, which is why our world is such a mess.

FFF: "I think I'm going to start worshipping zoogleplex."

Uh, thanks, but no thanks. I already got reamed by KirkJobSluder in a science-type thread, where he thought I should start a cult of "science believers," likening that to any other religious fundamentalism. That's the last thing I would ever want; human beings cannot accept worship, or even power over other humans, without being corrupted, and I'm no exception. Worship is for God and God only. :)

Be happy to call you my friend, though. I have similar admiration for your own posts, for as long as I've been reading them. :)

PT can and will have a happy life, within his limits, and I none of us should begrudge that.

That said, I think we all agree that attempts by PT and those like him to control our lives should be resisted with every last ounce of effort possible.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:46 PM on May 12, 2006

You seem to have adopted the stance that unless I can force you to agree with me, I will have failed.

Wrong. You claimed that you had an argument based on reason rather than theology. This is your justification for describing contraceptive education as "immoral," which is the lynchpin of your argument.

You have consistently failed to provide any sort of rational argument. Your entire argument boils down to a bald assertion - that everyone agrees on this whole "language of the body" idea and on the meaning you assign to sex in particular; and to a logical fallacy, since your assertion is that because it's a common idea it must be true. Your argument is non-existent by any standard.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:47 PM on May 12, 2006

Well said, ludwig_van.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:50 PM on May 12, 2006

zoogleplex: I think we all agree that attempts by PT and those like him to control our lives

I am not trying to control your life. I don't want to control your life. But the fact that you are in the majority doesn't give you the right to use the government to promote your perverted agenda.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:53 PM on May 12, 2006

ludwig_van: your assertion is that because it's a common idea it must be true

That's obviously not what I have asserted.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:54 PM on May 12, 2006

zooglex, if private parties want to use their money to promote contraception, they are well within their rights. That isn't what this dispute is about.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:56 PM on May 12, 2006

ludwig_van, I'm still waiting for those "glaring logical inconsistencies".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:57 PM on May 12, 2006

That's obviously not what I have asserted.

No? Then what is your assertion, exactly? What is your rational argument for the existence of this "objective language of the body" which can be reliably understood to indicate that contraception (but not natural family planning) is a lie, and therefore immoral, and therefore evil? Please explain how you arrive at this conclusion, if not by the bandwagon fallacy and if not by appeal to religion.

And also, if that's not what you mean to say, stop saying things like:

Being able to link up my views about contraception to commonsense views about the language of the body strikes me as a significantly better result than is usually achieved in discussions about controversial moral questions.

And then there are those, like you, who most certainly are _not_ in the majority on this matter, who freak out at this talk of a "language of the body" and deny that the marital act could possibly have any natural meaning because all meaning is arbitrary and all that other bullshit.
posted by ludwig_van at 6:00 PM on May 12, 2006

That doesn't follow.

it follows precisely. But, again, I am not surprised that you do not understand the meanings of simple words like "artificial" and "natural". I no longer think that you pretend not to understand. You so clearly have no clue.
posted by solid-one-love at 6:01 PM on May 12, 2006

ludwig_van, I'm still waiting for those "glaring logical inconsistencies".

I already laid them out for you and you haven't responded. I'm being very straightforward with you, and you keep trying to sidetrack the argument. Your objections are all subjective and religiously-derived, and yet you claim they are objective and rationally derived. However, you haven't provided more than a shred of rationale, and what you have offered was demonstrably fallacious. Your position has no internal consistancy and you're being disingenous about it.
posted by ludwig_van at 6:03 PM on May 12, 2006

Private parties are not the ones ultimately responsible for of public health.

Out of curiosity, though, I guess that means you would be ok with allowing said private parties to present information in schools, at their own expense, no tax dollars, just their own privately acquired funds through donations or sponsors?

(Note: not saying that I believe that would be what should be done, as I don't believe a government should abdicate its public health responsibilities and pass them to private organisations, just wondering if your objection is really on the tax part).

Btw, still not addressing the difference between coercion and providing information, amongst other things. Repeating words like perverted is not a substitute.
posted by funambulist at 6:05 PM on May 12, 2006

solid-one-love, humans are the only animals that have sex out of estrous. Therefore having sex out of estrous is artificial. Great argument there. Not.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:05 PM on May 12, 2006

funambulist, do you think schools should teach people how to build powerful bombs out of household items? It's just information!
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:07 PM on May 12, 2006

... also, what about the parents who are perfectly fine with sex ed in schools? Why should they and their children be deprived of this information just because you want your kids to be deprived of it? I mean, the nerve in talking about coercion here...
posted by funambulist at 6:07 PM on May 12, 2006

solid-one-love, humans are the only animals that have sex out of estrous.

Uh, it's "estrus". Estrus refers only to females, explicitly does not refer to humans, and the point you're trying to make -- that no animal has sex when not in heat -- is just wrong, regardless.

You are amazingly ignorant.

Not only that, but estrus has nothing to do with marriage! It's a complete red herring! If you can find a species other than humans that gets married, then I may concede that marriage is natural rather than purely artificial.

Therefore having sex out of estrous is artificial.

Not only wrong, but a further red herring, since you explicitly referred to "the marital act" as a subset of sexual activity. I have shown you in an iron-clad fashion how the 'marital act' cannot be natural.

Better read your bible, Chuckles. I don't think you have enough years left in your life to atone for the lies you've told in this thread alone. You gonna burn.
posted by solid-one-love at 6:15 PM on May 12, 2006

do you think schools should teach people how to build powerful bombs out of household items

Ah, knowing how to build bombs being exactly like knowing about contraception eh?

Cool, then the genocide analogy must surely be next! I'm very flattered you've taken my suggestion about rigorous coherent argument so seriously, peeping!

It's also awe-inspiring to see you being so evasive, awfully selective in responding to comments, putting yourself and your like-minded in the persecuted by government camp, talking about taxes as extortion and always going back to repeating the perversion mantra while claiming to be arguing from reason rather than religion. It's a lot of fun but it's terribly repetitive as well.

I really hope your chosen method of contraception works, in the public interest of your fellow citizens. Good luck!
posted by funambulist at 6:19 PM on May 12, 2006

Metafilter: I don't think you have enough years left in your life to atone for the lies you've told in this thread alone. You gonna burn.

sorry, but that was just too cool
posted by funambulist at 6:21 PM on May 12, 2006

solid-one-love writes "Not only that, but estrus has nothing to do with marriage! It's a complete red herring! If you can find a species other than humans that gets married, then I may concede that marriage is natural rather than purely artificial."

I thought that he was just using the term "the marital act" as a polite (oblique?) way to refer to coitus?
posted by mr_roboto at 6:23 PM on May 12, 2006

In fucking my wife during her infertile period, I am not trying to achieve not having a child. I am trying to achieve loving my wife, and have judged that this is a propitious time for doing so.

But you judged the time to be the best based on your "family planning" to NOT have a child. Your choice of timing is designed for the purpose of trying not to have children. You are contradicting yourself. Period.

Or are you going to now claim that you DON'T stop fucking her when her fertile period comes around?

"I will fuck my wife, utilizing [x] to do my best to not have children."
1. NFP
2. Condom
3. Pill

All three exist for the same purpose. They allow all levels of emotional intimacy while doing the best possible job to avoid offspring from the particular union. One uses a physical barrier, one chemical-based, and one time-based.

NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING IS A TIME-BASED CONTRACEPTIVE! NO AMOUNT OF "DANCING" AROUND THE ISSUE IS CAPABLE OF CHANGING THIS FACT. ANY CATHOLIC WHO USES NFP IS NOT FOLLOWING CHURCH DOCTRINE ON STRICT CONTRACEPTIVE AVOIDANCE, AND BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS IS COMMITTING A SIN.
posted by mystyk at 6:23 PM on May 12, 2006

Oh man, how did I miss this phrase the first time around?

In fucking my wife during her infertile period, I am not trying to achieve not having a child.

You're "not trying to achieve not having a child." Wow. That is one hidiculous (hilarious/ridiculous) specimen of semantic wrangling.
posted by ludwig_van at 6:26 PM on May 12, 2006

"But the fact that you are in the majority doesn't give you the right to use the government to promote your perverted agenda."

Ah, the teeth are bared. I can almost hear you spit the word "perverted" at me.

The majority does, in fact, have the right in America to keep minority opinions which the majority finds to be inappropriate to the public good from becoming the law of the land.

You are entitled to your opinion, entitled to shout about it to anyone you know, and even to try to convince enough people to your side to make it a majority opinion! Go ahead! But we are entitled to resist your opinion, especially when it's plain that it's against the common good to let it become policy.

But that doesn't mean we have to let you do it. This country protects minority rights, not minority opinions. Deal with it.

Actually, I believe people like you are perverted and even evil; I might have the opinion that you should be institutionalized and treated as a mental patient. However, I'm not going to try to make that public policy, because that would infringe upon your human rights rather appallingly. Fortunately, we still have (I think) social methods for dealing with people like you, which is to attack your position with rational logic and quantifiable evidence.

If I throw in a bit of ridicule, well... I'm only human, and I'm a sinner. I hope you can forgive. When I say you're irrational and narcissistic, I'm trying my best do do it without rancor. I may fail in that respect.

That "my agenda" is "perverted" is your subjective opinion, which you're allowed to have. However, your subjective opinion can be ignored by the majority, since in terms of quantifiable measures of public benefit, what you want would be a disaster for society.

By objective and quantifiable measures of public benefit, "my agenda" is a good thing and will help society in numerous ways. If you don't believe that, you might want to study countries around the world where birth control is hard to get, not the subject of any public education, or just flat out illegal, and see how well they're doing.

Also, you seem to forget that in the US, at least for now, the "government" means "the People of the United States." We don't have a king (yet, I hope); public policy is not being made arbitrarily (I hope). Part of the government's job is to administer to the public health based on quantifiable measures of that health - we've elected to give it that responsibility, created various Departments of Health, and most people are fine with that. We oversee that responsibility through our representatives, in theory. And the result of this government job has been greatly positive for the health and well-being of all of us.

In this case, the majority can indeed rule and ignore the minority. Your Constitutional rights of freedom of expression and religion are not being infringed, though you keep claiming that they are. You are wrong.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:27 PM on May 12, 2006

(actually, mystik, the CC does indeed endorse so-called "natural" family planning, which is just one of their contradictory stances)
posted by funambulist at 6:32 PM on May 12, 2006

The Catholic Church has always been pro-rhythm method, haven't they? Works great, huh? ;)

Y'know, I've been going off in this thread without saying that I and one of my ex-girlfriends - who was Catholic - used what was pretty much NFP, plus coitus interruptus, and we were completely successful with it. She had a very very regular period and more-obvious-than-most signs of ovulation. Of course, we weren't married,

So let it not be said that I feel NFP is an invalid technique of birth control. It certainly can work, in some cases!

I don't recommend it for everyone, however. I much prefer the newer technological methods.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:42 PM on May 12, 2006

"Educating people about the truth" == "Perversion"

This is a perfectly common religious stance, completely derived from the fact that religions don't want their constituents completely informed. When that happens, they start thinking for themselves. Then they become hard to control.

PT views education of contraception as a perversion because he doesn't want people to grow up being able to decide whether they agree with him, he wants them to have his opinion be the only one they get presented with.
posted by mystyk at 7:02 PM on May 12, 2006

Oh and:

"solid-one-love, humans are the only animals that have sex out of estrous."

This is not true. Ever hear of bonobos? Dolphins, too. You can dump that idea from your mind-set.
posted by zoogleplex at 7:06 PM on May 12, 2006

Oh, and don't get me wrong. He may genuinely believe that contraception itself is a perversion. That's a different component of the overall picture we see here. I'm only referring now to education of it, which is all the public schools are doing.

PT, are you finding your "flock" getting hard to control as they actually use their "god given" minds and "god given" free will?

"Ah, LoneStar. Now you see that Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb." The evil ones in this conversation can be easily identified. They're the ones who intentionally want the rest dumb so they can run things with ease.
posted by mystyk at 7:08 PM on May 12, 2006

"PT views education of contraception as a perversion because he doesn't want people to grow up being able to decide whether they agree with him, he wants them to have his opinion be the only one they get presented with."

Yes, mystyk. This is clear evidence of the narcissism to which I've been referring.
posted by zoogleplex at 7:08 PM on May 12, 2006

funambulist, do you think schools should teach people how to build powerful bombs out of household items? It's just information!
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:07 PM PST on May 12

They already do. Any sharp, curious kid can figure out how to make both explosives and poisonous gases with the knowledge of chemistry that a basic education provides. I know because I was one of them. Yet, somehow, there aren't legions of kids blowing up buildings and poisoning their teachers across the nation.

Besides, the information you hate so much - "Here is how to protect yourself if you decide to have sex; also, don't have sex" - is a good thing. I don't know why you think ignorance is going to protect someone from STDs.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:14 PM on May 12, 2006

Those of you who think my views on contraception are insane should acknowledge that no argument that doesn't persuade you that contraception is wrong could ever succeed in persuading you that opposition to contraception isn't insane. This is unfortunate for you, because it doesn't allow you to acknowledge that there are people who see things differently than you do, yet are not insane.

I certainly don't regard support for contraception as insane, even though I do see it as profoundly wrong and harmful for people! I said earlier in this thread that I'm a relativist about rationality but not about truth. Those of you who insist that my views are "insane" would do well to consider what your views about pluralism really are. There have been accusations of "narcissism" flying around here, but you have to wonder about the level of narcissism of a group of people who insist on calling "insane" those with whom they have deep-seated disagreements.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:45 PM on May 12, 2006

because it doesn't allow you to acknowledge that there are people who see things differently than you do, yet are not insane

Ah, the fallacy of generalization. Old and tired when I first heard it as a child, and still only used by children.

but you have to wonder about the level of narcissism of a group of people

No, we don't. About twenty times you have trotted out the old "you should examine what's wrong with you if you call me and people like me insane or narcissistic or whatever" canard.

And it has not been compelling even once. Partly because you're nuttier than a filbert tree in September.
posted by solid-one-love at 7:59 PM on May 12, 2006

There's no rational basis to your opposition to contraception, only a religiously-based moral opinion. Your opposition is irrational, as are a number of your other opinions.

"Insane" and "irrational" don't always necessarily mean the same thing.

I don't think you're certifiable and an immediate danger to society or anything, but I do think you have dangerously irrational points of view, that's all.

OK I'm going home now. Have a good night, all.
posted by zoogleplex at 8:03 PM on May 12, 2006

Bizarre. Simply and purely bizarre, all of it.

Zoogle, you're off the hook for worship, then.

PT, I hope you have a great time fucking your wife during all her non-fertile periods, and I hope you accomplish your goal of not having any children.

Me, I'm going to log out, watch some comedy news shows, have a hot tub, and go to bed.

Peace out, y'all.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:50 PM on May 12, 2006

# 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.

Those are all lame excuses, if you really belive abortion is "morally wrong".
posted by delmoi at 11:17 PM on May 12, 2006

He's so polite. But he keeps judging others and using the word perversion. It's the two things together that make it super creepy. Oh that's terrible of me to say. But so true. Is this really the face of the Catholic Church?
posted by cytherea at 3:14 AM on May 13, 2006

Those of you who think my views on contraception are insane should acknowledge that no argument that doesn't persuade you that contraception is wrong could ever succeed in persuading you that opposition to contraception isn't insane.

You're deceiving yourself, PT. Your position has been shown to lack internal consistency. Your argument is not rational. You were given many opportunities to make your case, and you failed. You consistently dodged direct questions and gave dishonest replies. Your attempts to externalize the blame do nothing to make your reasoning any more sound. If you can respond to the arguments made against you, do so. Otherwise, stop making desperate excuses.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:17 AM on May 13, 2006

ludwig_van, you still haven't pointed out any "glaring logical inconsistencies". It should be easy to list what they are. Simple numbered propositions will do nicely, thanks very much.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:20 AM on May 13, 2006

Although, PT has given me a renewed appreciation for the capacity of the human mind to concoct absurd justifications for irrational beliefs. "By not fucking my wife, I'm not trying to achieve not having a child" is quite brilliant.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:21 AM on May 13, 2006

zoogleplex, the sense in which you are using the word "irrational" is a peculiar one. In the sense in which you are using it, most people's beliefs about most things will turn out to be irrational. In particular, any opinions about morality other than straightforward moral nihilism will turn out to be irrational.

I don't have a problem with you using the word in this sense, but you should just acknowledge that pretty much everyone's moral beliefs, including the ones on which our society operates, will turn out to be irrational.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:23 AM on May 13, 2006

ludwig_van, you still haven't pointed out any "glaring logical inconsistencies". It should be easy to list what they are. Simple numbered propositions will do nicely, thanks very much.

Actually I've done that several times already and you keep ignoring it in order to keep the argument going in circles. But hey, I'll explain it again, for your sake, although I'm not saying anything new.

1) You believe in the separation of church and state.
2) You don't disagree that contraceptive education provides tangible benefits the public.
3) You've failed to make the case for contraception being immoral outside of a religious context.
4) You don't think public schools should provide contraceptive education.

Same problems as before, PT. Last time you disagreed with premise 3. I challenged you again to make your case, and again you failed, providing nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion and a bandwagon appeal, and then denying that's what you did. If you can do better than that, go for it. If not, give it a rest, because I'm getting tired of treading over the same ground.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:26 AM on May 13, 2006

ludwig_van, I've been holding this back, but I have to say it: you're an idiot. Not only is what I said about not trying to achieve not having a child not "quite brilliant," it's the sort of thing you would have heard about in an introductory ethics course if you had taken an interest in how people other than yourself think about the world. You show no interest in how anyone but yourself thinks about things.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:26 AM on May 13, 2006

1) You believe in the separation of church and state.

Yes.

2) You don't disagree that contraceptive education provides tangible benefits the public.

So would lots of crazy policies.

3) You've failed to make the case for contraception being immoral outside of a religious context.

No I haven't.

4) You don't think public schools should provide contraceptive education.

Right.

And where again is the contradiction?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:27 AM on May 13, 2006

ludwig_van, you think "failed to make the case for X outside of a religious context" is equivalent to "failed to persuade ludwig_van".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:28 AM on May 13, 2006

"glaring logical inconsistencies". Idiot.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:29 AM on May 13, 2006

ludwig_van, you think "failed to make the case for X outside of a religious context" is equivalent to "failed to persuade ludwig_van".

Jesus fucking Christ, do you get tired of saying the same things? You're not actually trying to make an argument, are you? You're just trying to continually deflect me from showing why you're wrong so you never have to acknowledge your failure.

No, it is not equivalent to "failed to persuade ludwig_van." It is equivalent to "failed to make any argument whatsoever."

Most religious people don't have trouble understanding that their religious mores may not necessarily be universal. It's extremely perplexing to me why you can't understand that contraception is not objectively, universally immoral. If you could admit to this then you could go on thinking it was immoral, I could go on thinking it was moral, and we'd have a peaceful, pluralistic society.

And yet you continually claim that it is in fact objectively, universally immoral, and that you arrived at this conclusion rationally rather than religiously. And yet when challenged, you have been unable to offer any rationale.

Either provide a coherent argument, or admit that you're wrong about the universal, objective immorality of contraception. Stop fucking around; it's gotten old.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:34 AM on May 13, 2006

ludwig_van, I've already provided such arguments. You have not shown that they are religious arguments. You apparently think that unless you are persuaded by a moral argument, the conclusion of the argument is insane, or irrational, or whatever.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:37 AM on May 13, 2006

ludwig_van, I've already provided such arguments.

No, you haven't. I don't get it; are you counting on the fact that I'm retarded or something? Do you think that I don't remember what you've said earlier? Your argument for the immorality of contraception is thus:

1) There is a natural, objective language of the body
2) In this language, the act of sex is meant to communicate "I am all for you"
3) The act of contraception (but not Natural Family Planning) makes sex into a lie
4) Therefore contraception is immoral

Every single premise is 100% bullshit. Completely irrational. Completely unjustifiable. The only defense you've offered is that "everyone would agree with you." First, no, everyone would not agree with you. Second, trying to prove your argument by saying that everyone would agree is a logical fallacy.

That's all you've provided in the way of argument. Therefore, you have failed. It's not because you haven't forced me to agree with you; it's because you're wrong.

You're dishonest and have a poor grasp of rhetoric. I've given you far more benefit of the doubt than you deserve. You have repeatedly and utterly failed to make a coherent, reality-based argument despite being given more than ample opportunity. Now you've obviously gone into extreme desperation mode because you're just repeating yourself. I've got nothing more to say to you if you have nothing new to offer. You truly are an impressive example of doublethink in action.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:46 AM on May 13, 2006

ludwig_van, you are confusing "I don't agree with it" and "it's completely irrational". All three premises of the argument you recited are reasonable, and in fact they are all true. I don't claim that "everyone" acknowledges the truth of all three premises. But it is possible to recognize these three premises as true without appeal to religious premises, hence the argument is not religious.

As I said before, you will not accept as evidence of the rationality of my views any argument that does not persuade you that my views are true. That is not a reasonable standard in a pluralistic society.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:08 AM on May 13, 2006

ludwig_van, you are confusing "I don't agree with it" and "it's completely irrational".

You've already said this. You're wrong. "I don't agree with it" and "it's completely irrational" are both true. What rational argument are you under the impression that you've made?

I don't claim that "everyone" acknowledges the truth of all three premises. But it is possible to recognize these three premises as true without appeal to religious premises

This is false. If it were true, you have not demonstrated as much. You're simply asserting that it's true and then claiming that you've made a rational argument for its truth.

Sophistry and repetition is all you've got.
posted by ludwig_van at 7:31 AM on May 13, 2006

Also, the long article which you quoted, from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html, didn't seem to be confused about the fact that it was making a specifically Catholic argument rather than some kind of objective, universal one. I'm really perplexed as to why you can't understand that, except that perhaps you've realized that to admit as much would cause your entire argument to crumble, and so you just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it.
posted by ludwig_van at 7:34 AM on May 13, 2006

MetaFilter: By not fucking each other, we're not trying to achieve not having children.

In other news: I am not my body.

Earlier in this thread PT made some claims about his body. I can't be arsed to track it down, but it was to the effect that his physical body is essential to his self, and must be resurrected or all is for naught.

The topic of the mind/body duality has been done to death by some of the most brilliant minds in philosophy. The Mind's Eye is a compilation of essays exploring the nature of the mind and body.

Thought experiment time, kids! If you lose a finger to the tablesaw, have you lost your essential self? Of course not: you are not your finger.

Those of us who are bright will have already chased that thought to its natural end, losing bits and pieces of the body along the way, and ultimately discovering that certainly no body part below the neck is one's self.

One can play the same game with brain injuries, and come up with the same result: there appears to be no one place above the neck that contains one's self.

The book contains a dozen other approaches to the same topic (brain transplant! beam-me-up transporters! replicators!), and they inevitably come to the same conclusion:

Our bodies contain us. Our bodies provide us a physical existance. Our bodies even affect our perception of our value and ability. But our bodies do not define our essential "self." We are not our bodies.

The Mind's Eye. Well worth reading.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:10 AM on May 13, 2006

Your argument for the immorality of contraception is thus:

1) There is a natural, objective language of the body
2) In this language, the act of sex is meant to communicate "I am all for you"
3) The act of contraception (but not Natural Family Planning) makes sex into a lie
4) Therefore contraception is immoral

Every single premise is 100% bullshit.

Yup.

PT, please provide a bunch of good links to recognized and respected non-religious authors/philosophers/whatever that support your claims here.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:15 AM on May 13, 2006

peeping_Thomist: it is possible to recognize these three premises as true without appeal to religious premises

ludwig_van: If it were true, you have not demonstrated as much.

Of course I have. What I haven't done is compel you to recognize these premises as true. But there are plenty of non-religious people who can recognize (1) the existence of a language of the body, (2) what the natural meaning of the marital act is (something like "I'm all yours"), and (3) that contraception is a kind of lie. Not everyone who recognizes some of these premises recognizes the others, and not everyone who recognizes all of them goes on to draw the conclusion that contraception is wrong (because many people don't think that the fact that a speech act is a lie is conclusive proof that it is wrong), but religion just doesn't come into it. You are mistaken to keep claiming that it does.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:16 AM on May 13, 2006

five_fresh_fish: Our bodies contain us.

That is indeed what dualists say. And it is false. But you don't hear me saying that dualists are irrational or insane. They're just wrong, not insane.

Let's be clear about this: this is not a dispute about whether contraception is or isn't wrong. It's a dispute about where the people in this forum get off calling insane people who think contraception is wrong.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:20 AM on May 13, 2006

Our bodies contain us.

Vice versa.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:27 AM on May 13, 2006

Of course I have.

No, you haven't. If you had, you'd present an argument instead of continually saying "yes I have" or "just because I haven't forced you to agree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong."

But there are plenty of non-religious people who can recognize (1) the existence of a language of the body, (2) what the natural meaning of the marital act is (something like "I'm all yours"), and (3) that contraception is a kind of lie.

Once again this is the bandwagon fallacy. Asserting that there are "plenty of non-religious people who can recognize my premises" does not support or prove your premises.

For the last time, PT: your argument that contraception is immoral, which is based on your "natural language of the body" concept, may have validity within a Catholic framework. I'm not Catholic, and I really don't care. But it has no validity outside that Catholic framework. The only argument you've provided in disagreement with this is that "plenty of non-religious people recognize it." To repeat the same objections I've been making in the last 20 or so posts:

1) I don't believe you that lots of people recognize these premises. Continually saying it's true doesn't make it true.
2) Even if a lot of people really did believe these premises, that fact alone would not make them valid premises.

Your argument is fallacious. Stop trying to make this about me. It has nothing to do with me setting the standard too high or refusing to acknowledge something that you've sad. It has everything to do with the fact that your argument is deeply flawed, and therefore your position is internally inconsistent.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:33 AM on May 13, 2006

ludwig_van: Once again this is the bandwagon fallacy. Asserting that there are "plenty of non-religious people who can recognize my premises" does not support or prove your premises.

Of course it's not the bandwagon fallacy. You claimed that my premises were only acceptable in a religious context. The fact that many non-religious people accept them is conclusive evidence that what you said is not true. Deal with it.

Of course the fact that non-religious (or any) people believe these premises is not evidence that the premises are true! It's evidence that your claim about the premises is false.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:37 AM on May 13, 2006

Something that you've said, rather.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:39 AM on May 13, 2006

ludwig_van, by the way, you are ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches if you think that the Church teaches that the reasons against contraception are religious. The Church teaches that the wrongness of contraception is part of what is called the "natural law" that can be known by all human beings, without having to rely on revelation.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:40 AM on May 13, 2006

Hang on a second, how is Catholicism, or any Christian denomination for that matter, or any major religion even, not inherently dualist? All that talk of soul and body and the need to control and subjugate the body's desires to God? For that matter, the concept of God/humanity itself, of submission to God's will, not dualist? What peculiar definition of dualism have I missed?
posted by funambulist at 9:43 AM on May 13, 2006

You claimed that my premises were only acceptable in a religious context. The fact that many non-religious people accept them is conclusive evidence that what you said is not true. Deal with it.

Of course the fact that non-religious (or any) people believe these premises is not evidence that the premises are true! It's evidence that your claim about the premises is false.

More pathetic sophistry.

My claim is not that one must be Catholic to believe in something that is not true, for example your reasoning for contraception being immoral. I would think that this is obvious. I could tell you right now that I believe that communion wafers are the physical body of Christ, but that wouldn't make me Catholic. I don't have to be a Catholic in order to believe that.

Of course, that's all utterly irrelevant to the point that your justification is completely false and fabricated.

There is no "natural language of the body" in which the sex act means "I'm all for you." Contraception does not make this into a lie and is not immoral. Contraception is in the public's best interests. Your objection to it is that it is immoral. This objection is based on premises that, while not necessarily religious in origin, are wholly subjective and unproveable.

Deal with it.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:44 AM on May 13, 2006

Hang on a second, how is Catholicism, or any Christian denomination for that matter, or any major religion even, not inherently dualist?

funambulist, I brought that up awhile ago and PT explained why he thought it didn't apply, but I don't think it's really all that relevant. Better to focus on the fundamental logical holes in his argument than get drawn into a debate about religious dogma, I think.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:48 AM on May 13, 2006

It's a dispute about where the people in this forum get off calling insane people who think contraception is wrong.

You wish, martyr complex. Firstly, most, if not all, of the people who have used "insanity" in relation to beliefs of the kind you espouse have not done so purely in relation to the bald statement of belief "contraception is wrong". They have done so in relation to the thoroughly irrational arguments you have used in your attempts to back up that statement. Now, holding an irrational argument is not by itself evidence of insanity or mental deficiency. Continuing to hold it in the face of having the utter fallaciousness of it clearly and repeatedly pointed out to you, arguably, is. Which is why you, and people like you, get called insane. Because your mental equipment is clearly wired in such a way that some of your key belief structures are impervious to reason, balance or perspective. Whilst the term "insane" carries a lot of weight that might make many people feel it excessive in such cases, it is defensible if one is using it in the sense of a person who demonstrates mental incapacity to the point at which it might reasonably be called "deficient".

Of course, the precise location of such a point on the sanity graph is a debatable thing. Are people who believe in UFOs insane? Are Rosicrucians beyond the point of insanity but Anglicans not? Are people who voted for Bush a second time insane or merely stupid? And so on. Debatable. But the reason "insanity" is being applied by some in this case is as explained above: they feel you've crossed a line of mental incapacity that at the very least marks one of the many boundaries of sanity.
posted by Decani at 9:52 AM on May 13, 2006

Oh come on, peeping, 'natural law' was the Church Fathers reworking of pre-christian philosophies for religious purposes, and how can what a church teaches not be grounded in religion! You don't seriously expect the teachings of any specific religion to be taken automatically as neutral, objective universal truth, just because they say it is, do you? What happens when you argue with someone from a different religion with different beliefs?

It's just too funny, all the silly semantics games you're employing here, it really is something to see such sustained dedicated sophistry.
posted by funambulist at 9:53 AM on May 13, 2006

ludwig: oops, you're right, it was mentioned before, I just lost track by now! :)

It's just, you know, it strikes me as rather preposterous to claim that such a religion is not dualist, then again in peeping's view I guess dualist, like contraception or 'natural' or 'language of the body', can also be made to mean anything and its opposite.
posted by funambulist at 9:56 AM on May 13, 2006

Now, holding an irrational argument is not by itself evidence of insanity or mental deficiency. Continuing to hold it in the face of having the utter fallaciousness of it clearly and repeatedly pointed out to you, arguably, is.

Indeed. The next time you feel an urge to say "You're confusing 'my arguments are irrational' with 'I haven't forced you to agree with me,'" please re-read Decani's post until you understand.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:56 AM on May 13, 2006

Yeah but there's a difference between insane as in batshitinsane of a political/ideological view, and insane as mental illness and I for one don't like to equate the two. Contradiction, duplicity, denial, claims to authority, tautology, evasiveness, repetition, straw men, wild analogies, etc. - it's the tactics of people holding on to authoritarian beliefs as absolute self-evident unexaminable truths they want to impose on others (while claiming they're the ones wanting to avoid imposition from others, martyr complex indeed). I have too much sympathy for the certified insane to associate them with this sort of willful ideological deception.
posted by funambulist at 10:14 AM on May 13, 2006

And I'm still wondering how having kids will keep me from dying...
posted by agregoli at 10:19 AM on May 13, 2006

And I'm still wondering how having kids will keep me from dying...

Oh that. Just a bunch of handwaving about immortality through one's legacy I suspect.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:33 AM on May 13, 2006

It's a dispute about where the people in this forum get off calling insane people who think contraception is wrong.

I believe that this is entirely my fault, and I sincerely apologize, PT. Insane people are, IMO, those who are a threat to themselves or others, due to a mental disorder that is well beyond their control.

You are not insane, not by a long shot.

You are every bit as sane as the Time Cube dude, the Etheric Warriors, and the Hollow Earthers.

Which is to say I think you are delusional. But, heck, that's okay: you're not likely to harm yourself or others.

This entire thread has really been something else. I wonder if we can get Time Cube guy to join MeFi?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:37 AM on May 13, 2006

Decani: they feel you've crossed a line of mental incapacity that at the very least marks one of the many boundaries of sanity.

Right. And I know a thousand people who would say exactly the same thing about the people on this list. ("You'd have to be insane not to see that the body has a natural language! They're really just pretending they don't see it because they don't want to think through the consequences of acknowledging it!") And they'd be just as wrong-headed, offensive, and obnoxious as you all, and I have just as hard a time trying to persuade them not to call you insane.

Treating people with whom you disagree as though they are insane is a bad idea all around, no matter who's doing it. And even if there were contexts in which it were OK, it's not a luxury we can afford in a pluralistic society.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:40 AM on May 13, 2006

PinkStainlessTail: Just a bunch of handwaving about immortality through one's legacy

It's charming to see how you guys talk as though you were the first generation ever to think about these questions, and that the things people before you have thought and said about such matters couldn't possibly have anything to teach you about them. The....innocence of it all is quite impressive. Nietzsche truly is the philosopher of our age!
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:44 AM on May 13, 2006

I just turned on Animal Planet, and there was a woman who dances with dogs (don't ask me what that's all about), and she was saying that the key to success is that "the dog reads your body language". How could such a thing be? The body doesn't have a language!
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:57 AM on May 13, 2006

Yes, body language exists. No shit.

Please give us a primer on "the natural language of the body," with specific emphasis on all this "giving" and how it relates to copulation, and why contraceptives of all kinds short-circuit it, or stop fucking saying it; it's the most boring line of argument you've used thus far.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:59 AM on May 13, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: Please give us a primer on "the natural language of the body,"

Or else I'm insane, right? Fuck you.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:04 AM on May 13, 2006

Right. And I know a thousand people who would say exactly the same thing about the people on this list. ("You'd have to be insane not to see that the body has a natural language! They're really just pretending they don't see it because they don't want to think through the consequences of acknowledging it!")

So now your argument is that this "natural language" BS is just self-evident, huh? I'm not sure whether that's worse than asserting that it's true because lots of hypothetical people supposedly believe it. It's still not even close to a rational argument, though.

It's pretty funny that you can continue to be so smug when you still have yet to make any rational case whatsoever.

Also, you're making a false equivalency. Our argument is rational because it is based on reality; the reality that contraceptive education reduces occurences of STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and abortion. Yours is irrational because it's based on a bunch of shit that someone made up and you can't seem to provide any support for other than repeatedly asserting that it's true.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:05 AM on May 13, 2006

ludwig_van: Our argument is rational because it is based on reality

That's great. It's not based on your values, or on your interpretation of reality, but it's based directly on reality. Pretty damn impressive. And, as I said, I know thousands of people who say that exact same thing about conclusions that you regard as insane. You are all (that is, both you and the people who agree with me and think you all are insane) failing to grapple with the most basic "reality" of our situation, which is radical pluralism. If you don't allow for a kind of relativism about rationality, your discussions with people with whom you disagree will be sterile and reduce to name-calling. Politically, that is a recipe for arbitrary uses of power in which "sane" majorities oppress "insane" minorities. Read some Foucault, asshole.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:11 AM on May 13, 2006

Or else I'm insane, right? Fuck you.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:04 AM PST on May 13

No, or else it's clear you don't want to participate in a honest discussion. The phrase "natural language of the body" makes no sense to me in that specific context, so please be so kind as to explain exactly what it's supposed to mean.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:14 AM on May 13, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: or else it's clear you don't want to participate in a honest discussion.

It's not an honest discussion when accusations about insanity are being thrown around. You guys are no better than people who hunted witches.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:15 AM on May 13, 2006

Peep, could you explain how the means by which you claim correctness differ from those of Time Cube guy?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:17 AM on May 13, 2006

It's not an honest discussion when accusations about insanity are being thrown around. You guys are no better than people who hunted witches.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:15 AM PST on May 13

You call us perverse, we call you insane. Chill the fuck out and either give us a primer like I asked or stop talking about it.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:27 AM on May 13, 2006

five_fresh_fish, I'm not familiar with Time Cube Guy, but I'll take a stab at it: I'm appealing to features of experience that resonate with many people. Many people recognize that there's a natural language of the body. It's built into the ordinary way we talk about things. The idea that the marital act has a natural significance is also something that makes sense to lots of people. Many times people end up feeling betrayed by people with whom they've had sex, because they feel that the person said something with their bodies that they didn't mean. For example, many people would say that mystic and his girlfriend said with their bodies something they didn't mean, namely "we're prepared to receive the gift of human life!", with tragic results. Many people can recognize that contracepting is like promising something while crossing your fingers behind your back. ("I'm all for you, wink wink") And many people think that lies are wrong.

These are all commonly held views, though not everyone holds all (or even any) of them, and not everyone who holds all of them goes on to draw the conclusion that contraception is wrong. So I am appealing to a range of different features of common experience. Believe it or not, that's how moral argument typically works. The idea of moral arguments proceeding geometrically is an illusion. Nearly all of the objections people have raised here would work equally effectively (that is, not at all effectively), mutatis mutandis, against arguments for any substantive moral conclusion. Why should I recognize the claims of other people to dignity and respect? There's no compelling rational argument for that conclusion, in the sense of rational that you guys have in mind. But it doesn't stop you from calling me insane. You all should be ashamed.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:31 AM on May 13, 2006

Why should I recognize the claims of other people to dignity and respect? There's no compelling rational argument for that conclusion, in the sense of rational that you guys have in mind.

Altruism and respect are selected for in many, many animals, but I'm guessing that you think that Intelligent Design is how the world works, so I'm not going to go there.

Many times people end up feeling betrayed by people with whom they've had sex, because they feel that the person said something with their bodies that they didn't mean.

You can't be betrayed when you agree upon the conditions beforehand and all parties abide by them.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:34 AM on May 13, 2006

But it doesn't stop you from calling me insane. You all should be ashamed.

Cram it, Mr. You're All Perverted. Don't act like you're some fucking angel.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:36 AM on May 13, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: You can't be betrayed when you agree upon the conditions beforehand and all parties abide by them.

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. You've never heard of exploitation? People in desperate situations often agree to exploitive conditions, and that doesn't deprive them of the right to feel betrayed after the fact.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:37 AM on May 13, 2006

Well, I'm off to go spend some quality time with my people, where I'll have to repeatedly intervene and tell them to stop calling you all insane! Have a great weekend!
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:41 AM on May 13, 2006

Ugh. You can't be betrayed when you agree upon the conditions beforehand and all parties abide by them and no party has a problem with it after the fact, as is the case in my relationship, fff's, agregoli's, and every other person you've been railing against. You're looking for exploitation where it does not exist. Everyone is happy with their own situation, and here you come, the white knight, ready to let us all know, male and female alike, that's we're secretly deeply unhappy.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:43 AM on May 13, 2006

Optimus_Chyme: Altruism and respect are selected for in many, many animals

By the way, surely you don't think this is an argument for why I should recognize the claims of others to dignity and respect. The most it could be is an explanation for why most people do recognize such claims. It wouldn't give you any leverage against someone not inclined to recognize such claims.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:44 AM on May 13, 2006

Well, I'm off to go spend some quality time with my people, where I'll have to repeatedly intervene and tell them to stop calling you all insane! Have a great weekend!
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:41 AM PST on May 13

We'll miss you.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:44 AM on May 13, 2006

Optimus_Chyme, I didn't say that anyone here had partners who felt betrayed. I said that sometimes people did feel betrayed after the fact, and that's true.

And now I'm really leaving. I'll check back tomorrow night to see if anything worthwhile has been added.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:45 AM on May 13, 2006

PT, You, sir, are incredibly full of shit. Yes, my argument is based on reality. The reality is that contraceptive education reduces rates of unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and STDs. You haven't disputed this yet, so I presume you agree with it. If that's the case, kindly shut the fuck up about it already.

Your argument is not based on reality. It is based on your personal moral conviction that many others do not share. You can insist all you want that this "natural body language" crap is self-evident, but it's not, and you have done absolutely nothing to support your assertion with a rational argument. You're insisting that your view of reality is the only correct one, and your view of reality seems pretty fucked up from where lots of other people are standing. Your insistence that both arguments are equally rational is blatantly false.

You're the one who is causing the strife in this pluralistic society, and yet all you're doing is complaining and accusing everyone else and arguing dishonestly and desperately clinging to inconsistent logic. That's why people think you're crazy. Now stop your goddamn whining.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:46 AM on May 13, 2006

peeping, body language is a common phrase for the way humans can express themselves through their body rather than words. Duh uh! Of course no one is denying such a thing exists. God it feels so stupid even having to say something so obvious.

You were using that phrase in quite a different way so stop swtiching meanings constantly. What you were saying there, and your long quote from that site, is that there's a 'natural language of the body' which requires that contraception is evil and denies the personhood because supposedly every sexual act must include the acceptance of the random possibility of pregnancy, a position contradicted by any conscious attempt to avoid pregnancy by any method, but supposedly "natural" family planning respects the 'language of the body' because, paraphrasing, it's seen as less invasive than a condom or pill, hence birkenstock hippies also practice it, it's seen as more respectful of the natural roles of man and women, of the nature of marital sex which is the only a-ok sex, it includes periods of abstinence which is like fasting, etc. I got it, ok? You don't have to repeat all that.

The thing, is, the jump to there from "humans can express themselves through body language that even dogs can 'read'" (and we don't need anyone on Animal Planet to tell us that, do we?) is a big jump that has only been put for as tautology. It is like that because the body language means contraception is against the natural wholesomeness of the body. It is like that because of a lot of premises of a religion that has a long tradition of obsessing over sexuality, condemning it as a sin unless it's between married man and woman, and incidentally, counting for its own survival and power on the numbers of followers which are drafted in as soon as born, hence, that position of opposing the safest contraceptive methods is hardly disinterested.

And all the "most people recognise" - well, actually most people including Catholics (over 90% of which support contraception if I recall right? US poll) recognise it's just more practical to have a more effective contraceptive method if you want to do family planning rather than one which is less effective, they don't see a difference in principle, only in practice.

The idea that the marital act has a natural significance is also something that makes sense to lots of people.

No shit, with "marital act" as euphemism for sex, and "natural significance" as another way of saying sex communicates at the very least reciprocal interest and attraction if not affection and love and so on. It'll be different for everyone and for every sex act, otherwise we'd all be robots. But yeah, an amazing discovery there, people who consensually engage in sex do so because they're into each other at some level and are communicating with each other through their body! Incredible!

Now, how is that supposed to prove the supposedly self-evident truth that contraception is perversion? Hint: switching from the obvious above defined Animal Planet-endorsed meaning of 'body language' to that Catholic quote of the phrase 'language of the body' to condemn contraception is not proof and is not an argument.

The whole position you support is just based on circular logic. Once the premise that trying to avoid pregnancy is ok is accepted, then all the distinctions between this method and the other are spurious, they're just made to uphold a particular religious conservative view of sexuality, that's all. That's the context in which "natural family planning" is advocated ideologically, as a policy, and the supposed birkenstock types who don't like latex or hormones are not trying to ban sex education in public schools. And that is the issue here. So let's not deny the obvious, please.
posted by funambulist at 12:10 PM on May 13, 2006

I am bookmarking this thread. I think I'll share it with a lot of people that I know.

One thing that People of the Lie (Amazon link above somewhere) says about narcissistic dominators, IIRC, is that they will do everything they can to twist every interaction that they have with everyone else into a power play, with them necessarily as the "victor." This would extend to manipulating a conversation via various rhetorical tricks and domination tactics, "draining energy" from the other party(ies), whether in the form of browbeating them around to the dominator's own view (achieving submission), or in the case of reasoned and indomitable disagreement, dragging out the exchange with every trick possible until the opposition is exhausted. Either way gives a feeling of victory and empowerment to the dominator.

Actually every human being does things like this to some extent, just not to this sort of extreme.

The book also marvels at the sheer uncreative boringness of the extreme version of narcissism... it's all the same, all the time. It makes no sense but every trick and device and tactic is repeated ad nauseam even when it doesn't work - and of course the fact that it doesn't work is never, ever acknowledged by the narcissist, because he or she is completely incapable of being wrong.

Anyway, I think almost 600 posts represents enough of our collective energy expended on peeping. He's not going to change his mind, and I think the demonstration of irrationality is abundantly clear to anyone who reads this, so I'd recommend we resist his kind via other methods and in different forums. I'd urge everyone to let this one go. It's a beautiful day outside! (Well, here in LA it is anyway...)
posted by zoogleplex at 12:28 PM on May 13, 2006

Here in the interior of BC, too.

PT, I know you're typing words and making sentences, but they make no sense. This whole "natural language of the body" silliness, for instance. It carries no meaning whatsoever. It is made-up nonsense that is directly comparable to that of the Time Cube guy.

And, again, I apologize sincerely for calling you insane. You have far too much functionality to warrant that label. I implore others to quit using the word, too.

However, I remain convinced that you are a deeply deluded man who has constructed a weird, wonderful, and completely flawed worldview.

But it brings you peace of some sort, so go at it, buddy. We only have a few short years of existence; it makes no difference what you believe in the long run.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:57 PM on May 13, 2006

Nietzsche truly is the philosopher of our age!

Who? We're the first generation ever to think about these questions, and the things people before us have thought and said about such matters couldn't possibly have anything to teach us about them.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:54 PM on May 13, 2006

Stop AIDS (possibly NSFW).
posted by homunculus at 9:41 AM on May 14, 2006