« Rental Markets, or, The Fuzzy Math of boadicea at MyDD.com | Main | More Like This, Please »
May 21, 2007
What I Learned From Missouri
In March of 2006, some good folks in Missouri tried to reinstate state funding for contraception for poor women. They didn't succeed.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - An attempt to resume state spending on birth control got shot down Wednesday by House members who argued it would have amounted to an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles.
Missouri stopped providing money for family planning and certain women's health services when Republicans gained control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2003.
The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending...
"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.
For a long time, I'd thought that anti-abortion activists were generally motivated by a genuine concern for fetal life. I saw this concern as misguided, given that the fetus doesn't have the mental capacities required for us to morally regard it as a person. (If you're interested, I develop this view in my review of The Party of Death.) But I regarded it as something that arose from a very protective attitude towards the lives of others, combined with some unfortunate errors about where other people might be located.
The fact that all the state's major anti-abortion groups opposed reinstating funding for contraception showed them to be motivated quite differently than I had imagined. Birth control pills work by preventing ovulation, and if a sperm never meets an egg, there's nothing -- even on the view I regarded as factually mistaken -- that could count as another person. Even if you think that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception, preventing conception averts the existence of a soul, no differently than abstinence does. So there's no reason for a genuinely pro-life person to oppose contraception. And as one genuinely pro-life representative pointed out, cutting funding would "have the opposite effect of what the intention is, which will be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions."
So why did the anti-abortion groups come out against birth control funding? The best answer seems to be the one that Rep. Phillips gave us directly. Anti-abortion activists want to discourage single women from having sex, with the threat of an unwanted pregnancy. The fact that birth control pills would actually avert abortions is insignificant to them. What do a few fetal lives matter when you're trying to stop women from having sex before marriage? There are some other bad reasons why one might oppose funding for birth control -- doctrinaire libertarianism, or an extremely short-sighted focus on budget-cutting -- but these motivations aren't especially strong among anti-abortion activists. I'm left with no choice but to take Susan Phillips at her word.
And there's any number of other causes on which the anti-abortion movement has shown its true colors. There's the issue of permitting pharmacists to deny birth control. (I've waited in vain for a similar movement that would allow Jewish, Muslim, and vegetarian food-service workers not to serve pork.) They've supported bizarre abstinence-only programs teaching that touching another person's genitals can cause pregnancy. Worst of all, there's the opposition to the HPV vaccine. If punishing promiscuous women with forced pregnancy isn't enough, why not throw in genital warts and cervical cancer?
I don't doubt that a large number of people who oppose abortion are motivated in the noble and misguided way that I once thought the movement as a whole was. I've quoted one such person, Rep. Kate Meiners, above. I don't bear any personal hatred against these people, any more than I do against people who think that privatizing Social Security will keep it solvent. (Wonky digression: the economic models that have Social Security going insolvent in 2040 or so assume a slowdown in economic growth. If economic growth slows down, the stock market does badly too, and privatizing hurts more than it helps.) I'll vote against them and try to keep them out of power, but I regard them merely as mistaken and not as evil.
But I've come to see that the people who decide how major "right to life" organizations operate have goals far less noble than the protection of innocent life. For all their lofty rhetoric, they're trying to create a world where being a sexually active single woman is punished by forced childbirth, or by cancer. There may be more destructive people in American politics, but there are none I hate more.
May 21, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
(I've waited in vain for a similar movement that would allow Jewish, Muslim, and vegetarian food-service workers not to serve pork.)
Indeed, conservatives certainly haven't lined up to support Muslim taxi drivers' refusal to transport passengers carrying alcohol. See here, here, here, here. (For the record, I support neither those demands nor those of extremist Christian pharmacists.)
Posted by: Christopher M | May 21, 2007 4:11:16 AM
Well, uh...duh. I guess its always worth writing one of these "I'm shocked!" columns but really these people have been telling us and telling us and telling us its all about the loose wimmins and dere morals for quite some time. The fact that they have *always* attacked planned parenthood for its stance on contraception *as well as* its stance on abortion might have given you a clue. The fact that both contraception and abortion are, and always have been, treated as priviliges of the rich and have been attacked and forbidden to the poor might also have given you some insight into this phenomenon. The same groups who oppose a woman's right to control her own medical care and her own body have always opposed the right of teenagers to find out the actual facts about their own bodies,their sexuality, and their health on the grounds that too much knowledge enables free sexual experimentation and that that is in and of itself bad. They've always reminded me of that old joke about the baptists who are said to be "against sex because it might lead to dancing." Let us admit that these people are nuts--they prefer to use enforced ignorance and fear to prevent what they see as the bigger sin (the potential that married and unmarried individuals will have sex without "consequences" merely for pleasure) and they are willing--more than willing--to take a rise in unwanted pregnancies, broken homes, injured and hurt teens, endangered families and pregnant women, and even abortions in order to prove the point that sex is not for fun.
I'll admit to being shocked at the reasoning offered: The idea that the "state" ought to have an opinion about women and sex is quite striking to me but the idea that the state ought to have *that particular attitude* towards women and sex is even more astonishing.
Posted by: aimai | May 21, 2007 7:26:32 AM
they're trying to create a world where being a sexually active single woman is punished by forced childbirth
Not just single women, either. That's the way this Phillips woman read it, but the funding was for FPS for poor women, married or single. Ideally, they want all single women to abstain, and the married ones to be popping them out at ten-month intervals.
Posted by: ajay | May 21, 2007 7:30:55 AM
Neil, I'm flummoxed by your post. You have inexplicably excluded from your first quote the actual reason given by Missouri Right to Life to oppose the contraception language in the bill, stated immediately following the part you quote at the link you give:
Missouri Right to Life said it was concerned with the contraception language because it was loosely written and could have included emergency contraception - often referred to as the morning-after pill.
As I'm sure you know, many pro-lifers, and some others, believe the morning-after pill may be an abortifacient, in that it might prevent the implantation of the conceptus. You overlook that and then come up with a completely different reason that you attribute to them, one that is based on what a state Representative plainly identifies as her own view. And you misstate her view:
The best answer seems to be the one that Rep. Phillips gave us directly. Anti-abortion activists want to discourage single women from having sex, with the threat of an unwanted pregnancy.
That isn't what she said, not even indirectly. I'm sure you think it's a fair inference from what she said, but it really isn't.
And there's any number of other causes on which the anti-abortion movement has shown its true colors.
But you're not describing their true colors; you again leave out important context:
They've supported bizarre abstinence-only programs teaching that touching another person's genitals can cause pregnancy.
From your link:
McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation.
And you say:
Worst of all, there's the opposition to the HPV vaccine. If punishing promiscuous women with forced pregnancy isn't enough, why not throw in genital warts and cervical cancer?
You haven't come close to showing that pro-life organizations want to punish women with pregnancy, let alone forced pregnancy (!), nor have you given the actual reasons some groups oppose HPV vaccination, which vary. I haven't heard any say or imply they want to punish anyone with genital warts and cancer.
But I've come to see that the people who decide how major "right to life" organizations operate have goals far less noble than the protection of innocent life. For all their lofty rhetoric, they're trying to create a world where being a sexually active single woman is punished by forced childbirth, or by cancer. There may be more destructive people in American politics, but there are none I hate more.
Neil, it's your own strongly discolored way of interpreting things that is leading you to this, not their "true colors." I'm stumped by your treatment of this. This reads like something you copied from whyproliferssuck.com or something.
If economic growth slows down, the stock market does badly too, and privatizing hurts more than it helps.
Non-wonky reply to your wonky digression: even if growth is at about 2% annually, as the Social Security actuaries predict, the stock market will still grow faster than the special bonds and payrolls, if the past is any guide, so "privatizing" in the sense you seem to have in mind (investing in the stock market) would still work better. The problem as I understand it isn't that stocks would grow more slowly; it's the additional risk. But I may not be following your point.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 7:32:59 AM
Let us admit that these people are nuts
Usually admitting something is more self-regarding. In any case, there are many pro-lifers who aren't at all nuts, and many who don't fit your caricature. If you don't know that, then that would be a telling admission.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 7:41:50 AM
Sanpete:
For all their lofty rhetoric, they're trying to create a world where being a sexually active single woman is punished by forced childbirth, or by cancer.
This is probably the sort of thing you look at when asserting that Neil's claiming pro-lifers want to punish the sexually active with cancer and warts. It's a parsing much less honest than Neil's own reading of his sources. The argument is that among pro-lifers of the ilk, enumerated here, the health of a woman is simply not a factor in their discussions of things like the HPV vaccine or birth control. It's about promiscuity. And, yes, unequivocally, that's pro-lifers advocating for a stance that places much more risk and danger upon single women and those without access to contraception. It's not irrational to see advocacy of that policy perspective as disincentivizing sex by increasing risk - e.g. "Giving this vaccine will promote promiscuity" also reads as "We will discourage promiscuity by advocating an atmosphere where some women do not receive this vaccine." It's not about avoiding abortions, it's about disincentivizing sex. There's the disconnect.
Posted by: Jon O. | May 21, 2007 8:30:12 AM
The "pro-life" movement is and always has been motivated by a childish fear and hatred of sex in general and female sexuality in particular. You can bend over backwards trying to find something else behind what they do and say, but it's a waste of time.
Occam's razor - the irrationality of the anti-choice movement can be explained most simply by a desire to punish unmarried women for having sex.
Posted by: Jason | May 21, 2007 8:33:39 AM
Not that I want to rehash a lot of old arguments with Sanpete, but Neil's not wrong, he's just late. The notion that the antiabortion folks are more motivated by punishing women's sexuality than "life of the fetus" is not a new theory, and it's pretty well supported. I don't doubt that there are some with deep, and sincere concerns for the potential lives being lost to abortion; but the Catholic Church's opposition is to contraception and abortion, and many antiabortion folks - especially the devout Catholics - lump this all in. I'd point out, too, that truly hard-core conservatives don't (just) want to reverse Roe, what they really want to reverse is Griswold v. Connectcut, the case that established privacy rights over the issue of acces to contraception. There's no way to get around the notion that "dirty girl" labelling has a big role in how we talk about abortion, and contraception. As gets said often - if antiabortion folks really thought that abortion was murder, they'd have the woman who wants to get one arrested for it, since the criminal intent is hers. Instead, in America we spend inordinate amounts of time discussing women's intentions (she's loose, she should have known better, etc) and blaming her for her condition. She shouldn't have an abortion because she shouldn't have had sex out of wedlock, etc. It's why I've said for a long time - it doesn't matter why the woman wants an abortion, it's that it's her decision. Welcome, Neil... you're late.
Posted by: weboy | May 21, 2007 8:47:46 AM
Jon, I can't tell what you think I've parsed incorrectly, or why.
"Giving this vaccine will promote promiscuity" also reads as "We will discourage promiscuity by advocating an atmosphere where some women do not receive this vaccine."
Those aren't equivalent. There may be some who believe both, but the first doesn't imply the second.
Occam's razor - the irrationality of the anti-choice movement can be explained most simply by a desire to punish unmarried women for having sex.
No, Jason. Their positions can usually be more simply explained in terms of the arguments they actually give. You're confusing your simplistic view of their ideas with their actual beliefs.
This comment thread appears to illustrate a lack of good will and good faith in interpreting other views.
The notion that the antiabortion folks are more motivated by punishing women's sexuality than "life of the fetus" is not a new theory, and it's pretty well supported.
Not here it isn't, weboy, not even close, and I haven't seen it well supported elsewhere either. What I have seen is that those on each side are typically eager to believe the worst of the other, and will count the thinnest of arguments and evidence as sufficient for that.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 8:57:47 AM
Let's all understand through Neil's hysteria that there are no laws preventing abortion and there are no laws preventing birth control. What you want is taxpayers to voluntarily pick up the tab. That's great if they wish to do so, but make no mistake, there is no obligation to do so.
If you wish to argue that there is a right to abortion upon demand and a right to birth control drugs and that cost should not be a factor, then I would like you to also line up to provide arms for the poor who cannot afford a handgun or rifle as it's their right as well. How is this really any different?
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 21, 2007 8:58:49 AM
As always, if you post about abortion or gun control you get beaucoup comments, usually from those opposing your point of view. I'm most intrigued by the comments of Sanpete, who claims you are misinterpreting of the anti-choice movement, based on the "thinnest of arguments and evidence", but offers no evidence for his claim that you're wrong.
If in fact the anti-choice movement were interested in reducing abortion, then they should support this legislation whole-heartedly. Of course it goes without saying that if they truly respected human life, they would oppose the death penalty and unnecessary wars. Their own statements and actions put the lie to both assertions. What then are we to assume about their real motivation? I think Ezra is right on target and no comments so far provide any evidence or logical argument to oppose that view.
Posted by: Chuck | May 21, 2007 9:20:49 AM
Chuck, the evidence is in my first post. Your own arguments are much thinner than you appear to think. You just illustrate my point.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 9:27:29 AM
there are many pro-lifers who aren't at all nuts
Yes Sanpete, true, but the non-nuts pro-lifers aren't the ones worked up into a fit over the issue of birth control. The topic of this particular post is by definition not about non-nuts pro-lifers since we're discussing the anti-birth control nutters who dominate the movement.
Posted by: Tyro | May 21, 2007 9:50:26 AM
Sanpete,
Your Jesuit like rationalisations aside, you can not avoid the basic point that those who oppose legal medical abortions are not motivated solely by the desire to prevent abortion. Otherwise they would show tremendous open mindedness, empathy and collaboration with methods that reduce the incidence of abortion, including contraception. This moral failure on their part is all the more galling in that contraception is statistically the most effective way to limit the number of abortions per year.
Some other idea, rather than the end of abortions in America, moves their souls. There is a strong case to make that it is perverted Chistian theology and simple obediance to Church leaders that moves them to act. Shame on them.
Posted by: Northern Observer | May 21, 2007 9:58:10 AM
Sanpete,
These people are all about the punishing of sexual activity of which they do not approve. You're deluding yourself to think otherwise.
If they were so reverent about life why would so many of them support the war in Iraq, the use of military force generally, capital punishment, etc? There is a few "seamless web of life" types around but a) you could fit them in a small conference room; b) they tend to be rabidly anti-birth control; and c) when push comes to shove they care a lot more about abortion than they do about war or capital punishment.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 21, 2007 10:01:35 AM
Neil,
Not sure what qualifies one as an "ethical werewolf" but one would hope it would be a knowledge of, say, the field of ethics. And if one were possessed of that, it would not be hard to imagine that a person who was not simply a consequentialist might have principled reasons for opposing both abortion and some means of reducing the number of abortions. That is, even if abortion is the worst evil in one's hierarchy, it does not follow that everything is on the table to stop it.
For people whose most sophisticated moral framework is one brand of consequentialism or another, I suppose that will not be easy to understand.
Posted by: Bill | May 21, 2007 10:08:17 AM
Welcome! You're one of us now. Your free copy of Christina Page's How the Pro-choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics, And the War on Sex should be arriving shortly . . . Well, no, but it's worth a read anyway - especially for Sanpete: if nothing else, a short interview is available here:
"[The pro-life establishment's] aim is not about reducing abortion -- it includes restricting people's access to contraception, it includes transforming our sex lives, it includes transforming our families. That's the goal, and [restricting abortion] is just one vehicle toward that end . . .
. . . [When I was researching this book,] I was happy to make distinctions and say, Well, we do have evidence that there's a wing of the pro-life movement that supports child care. But [what I found is that] there is no wing. And the opposition that we're facing to these issues is from these pro-life groups. An alarming pattern emerges: Not only do they want to take away legal and safe abortion, they want to stop people from having access to contraception. Coupling with that, they want to strip people of opportunities to put their children -- whether they wanted them or not or can afford them or not -- into child care.
Where does this lead? What is the point of this? How can you be against child care if you're against helping people plan their families? If you don't want to help people have limited numbers of children, why are you stripping them of the very things that make that possible? The only conclusion that this path leads to is one: The modern family is deeply offensive to the Christian right. The family structures in which we are living today, in which both parents are equal and they both bring home a living, they get to choose the number of children they have to what they can support and want -- that is offensive to the pro-life establishment. The whole reason why none of their programs are leading to fewer abortions is because that's simply not the point. The point isn't about abortion, it's about the family. It's about what the family looks like, it's about who's in it, who's leading it, who has the power, and who's the spiritual head.
Sanpete says: "As I'm sure you know, many pro-lifers, and some others, believe the morning-after pill may be an abortifacient.
I'm afraid there's a little problem with that sentence . . .here, let me fix it for you:
'As I'm sure you know, many pro-lifers believe the morning-after pill may be an abortifacient.'
In reality, the fact is that scientists are unwilling to say it's impossible that very, very rarely, under unusual conditions, the morning-after pill (ie, Plan B - not RU-486, which is used as an abortifacient) might prevent implantation, since establishing that would be practically impossible. However, the idea that it is (at most) more than an extremely rare occurrence stems from decades-old research and marketing claims. As wikipedia points out,
"Recent studies in rats and monkeys have shown that post-ovulatory use of progestin-only and combined ECPs have no effect on pregnancy rates . . . Studies in humans have shown that the rate of ovulation suppression is approximately equal to the effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills . . . suggesting that might be the only mechanism by which they prevent pregnancy." (Although it also adds that - despite the lack of any direct evidence, and indeed evidence to the contrary - - one study found that in women who ovulate despite taking ECPs, there are changes in hormone levels that hypothetically might inhibit implantation. Again, there's no evidence for this actually happening, but rather evidence that suggests that it probably isn't.) Of course, most people would try to weigh - however unhappily - the small, hypothetical, unlikely-looking, and never-demonstrated chance that very, very rarely EC might prevent implantation against the reality that in the overwhelming number of cases (and probably all) it's gonna frickin' prevent abortion.
"You overlook that and then come up with a completely different reason that you attribute to them, one that is based on what a state Representative plainly identifies as her own view.
So far I haven't been able to find what Missouri RTL said about this, but yes, it's quite possible that they were PR-savvy enough not to let the craziness shine through. Nevertheless, anybody having any familiarity with anti-abortion folks will know that this is an extremely common point, against not just EC but regular contraception, sex ed., and (whatever other arguments - not all entirely nonsensical - might crop up) the HPV vaccine.
" haven't heard any say or imply they want to punish anyone with genital warts and cancer."
I think this is the key to why Sanpete's comments irritate me quite so much - this kind of otherwordly naivete. (As the hackneyed quote goes, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out). I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but the pro-life establishment has completely used up their quota, and in fact owes me quite a large amount in overdraft fees. The important thing is to look not just at words (although those tell a lot) but also at deeds, and those are pretty clear.
For example, the book I mention above sprung from an 2003 NY Times Op-Ed, "The Right to Agree" [behind paywall, or go here and scroll down)], by Page and a moderate pro-life activist, arguing that despite fundamental differences both sides could and should work together on such shared goals as reducing the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies. The response from the pro-choice side wasn't overwheming - possibly because they knew what to expect - but the anti-abortion folks flew into a rage, largely because the piece endorsed widespread access to contraception.
Think about that. The best that major 'pro-life' organizations do is not loudly opposing the use of contraception (some individual pro-lifers and a few small, local orgs do support these and other methods that actually do help reduce the number of abortions. What does that tell you?
Now, I'm not saying that anti-abortion folks are simply pretending to be concerned about abortion, as a cover for their evil plans, or something - perhaps the best way to put it is that they have a overarching and internally coherent ideology - involving attitudes about women, sex, gender roles, the family, human nature, etc. - that in practice works out as if that was the case.
Posted by: Dan S. | May 21, 2007 10:30:34 AM
Fred, I agree! While we can all agree that abortion is a horrible thing, paying taxes is much, much more damaging to society. So when it comes to a choice between reducing abortion and using public money to reduce abortion, I'm gonna say that abortion as far as the eye can see is simply a sign of a healthy, low-taxed society!
Posted by: Tyro | May 21, 2007 10:32:17 AM
Tyro,
Can you say with a straight face that outlawing abortion will not drastically reduce its occurance? That is the goal of the pro-life movement. If your goal is to reduce abortions, that is the way to go.
However, you seem to "concern troll" about abortions, but in reality, your concern is only after the 'feminist' agenda has been met and several other liberal agenda points have been met.
The reality is, you're not really that concerned about abortion and it doesn't seem that important to you so cut the crap.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 21, 2007 10:44:30 AM
Yay tyro! I agree completely. And I'd like to add that if my tax dollars are going to be used for anything I'd like to see them used to reduce the burden of unwanted children on society. To that end I'd like to see churches taxed to pay for the unwanted children they are insisting their followers bear--these children strain our schools and our hospitals. My state has at least as big an interest in using our tax dollars wisely to prevent unwanted or dangerous pregnancies and maternal and fetal morbidity as it does in furthering the anti-sex policies of a small but hysterical and vocal religious sect or sects.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | May 21, 2007 10:47:37 AM
Forgot this:
No one owes anyone an abortion. If they want one, it's lawful...knock yourselves out. No one owes anyone birth control drugs. If they want them, they are lawful...there ya' go.
This is truly a ridiculous argument that women are suppressed because someone doesn't foot the bill for their needs. Needs that are not life threatening unless you are the fetus. Needs that can be avoided through behavior or a $1 condom. It's the same ol' liberal "You owe me" meme.
Grow up
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 21, 2007 10:50:15 AM
Fred, if you don't think that the government has any interest or duty in reducing the number of abortions, then just say that and be done with it.
However, given that there is a large movement focused on reducing abortion and using the power of government to reduce it, I find it amusing how when the choice becomes a decision between public initiatives that have a "payoff" in terms of benefits to public health and expenditures, versus continuing maintaining a feeling of righteous superiority and opposing any public expenditure, even if it saves money in the long term, they choose the latter. And that's why no one wants to "dialog" with the pro-life movement to seek "common ground." There is no common ground to be had with them, because when push comes to shove, they care more about screaming about people who have abortions rather than trying to reduce them.
Posted by: Tyro | May 21, 2007 10:59:23 AM
Looking over more recent comments (I'm a slooooow writer):
Jon O: "It's not irrational to see advocacy of that policy perspective as disincentivizing sex by increasing risk
I'd only add that it's also not uncommon to see advocacy of disincentivizing sex by increasing risk, esp. offstage, so to speak.
Jason: "Occam's razor . . ."
In this case, it's Occam's coathanger.
Sanpete: "This comment thread appears to illustrate a lack of good will and good faith in interpreting other views."
Again, good faith isn't - and should not be - an unlimited resource. Do you, by any chance, have a big round head and a penchant for wearing shirts in yellow and black with a zig-zag pattern?
Fred Jones; ", then I would like you to also line up to provide arms for the poor who cannot afford a handgun or rifle as it's their right as well."
If I thought that gun ownership actually was a major (and relatively unproblematic) net help in deterring crime and protecting oneself, I would support legislation to help make them available regardless of income. It isn't, of course, but . ..
"there are no laws preventing abortion"
Yet.
"What you want is taxpayers to voluntarily pick up the tab."
I see that Monsieur Jones is a big fan of " . . . la majestueuse égalité
des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les
ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain."
Posted by: Dan S. | May 21, 2007 11:00:21 AM
I have conversations with a "fred jones" type every day and it never ceases to astound me that they have such a limited understanding of our tax system and what our taxes actually pay for. There are literally thousands of tax breaks and tax giveaways for the rich, most of our tax dollars go to support large corporations and our military without regard to the value of the return to the taxpayer but its "liberals" and those pesky "poor people" who are trying to get something they don't deserve.
I've got absolutely nothing against living in a purely libertarian/no tax state but I actually know of some and they are pretty scary. The Fred Jones's of the world *in reality* would bitch and moan quite a bit about the state of the roads, sewers, police, jails, hospitals, prisons, public buildings, libraries, street lights, electrical grid, food supply, medical delivery system etc...etc...etc... if they were actually forced to pay individually for all the things that we collectively pay for through taxes.
But in any event mixing up libertarian anti-tax arguments (which devolve rapidly into screw you I've got mine) and christian anti-family/anti women fundamentalism (in which tax dollars aren't *withheld* so much as *used* to punish others) is a mistake. These are two separate lines of argument. They are often held by the same people, or advanced by the same people, but they lead in very different directions. The far right christian anti-sex and anti-family groups are demanding tax money for their faith based programs while denying other individuals and groups the right to make their case for the use of tax money for other purposes. Their position can't be taken as realistically anti-tax and spend they are simply using our tax dollars (and their tax exempt status) to try to rig the public policy system against money spent by other groups for other purposes. That's ok, all part of the rough and tumble of the political system, but let us not mistake it for anything other than an abuse of our public policy and other tax payers interests masquerading as a low tax policy. Refuse to pay for healthcare and contraception for poor families and you simply create more poor families whose undeniable needs for health care, schools, roads, services can't be offset by the taxes they pay and will eventually be offset by rising taxes on others with higher incomes. Or, if they are not, we will wind up with an afghanistan/sudan like situation in which the public sector is abandoned entirely and the country sinks into decay. But that is the natural end of all anti-tax libertarians anyway its just that they don't have enough political, historical, or social knowledge to realize how this happens. They think failed states and decaying states happen to other people's countries.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | May 21, 2007 11:15:22 AM
Shorter aimai: Just think of your tax dollars going towards what you want it to go towards and it'll all be ok.
Posted by: Karmakin | May 21, 2007 11:25:41 AM
The problem with wonky asides is that wonks may take issue. Neil says:
"the economic models that have Social Security going insolvent in 2040 or so assume a slowdown in economic growth. If economic growth slows down, the stock market does badly too, and privatizing hurts more than it helps."
The US Social Security administration's projection of SS Trust Fund insolvency in 2041 is based on an assumption of average 2.0% annual GDP growth. I think this is too low, just as I think the IPCC estimate of 2.2% worldwide is too low. Indeed, the SSA places this on the low end of a range of growth assumptions. People who cite the 2041 number should, of course, note this. But the SSA's responsibility is not to hope that the system stays sustainable in the best of all worlds, but that it stays sustainable in a world of realistically disappointing economic performance.
Nevertheless, your point about the underperformance of private accounts in a lowish growth atmosphere is an elementary error. To see this, pick a country with low GDP growth, like France (around 2%). Now imagine people in France owning an S&P 500 index fund. They'd be getting better than a 7% return on their investment. Their national GDP growth is more or less irrelevant to the productivity of capital generally. However, the ability of governments to pay entitlements IS extremely sensitive to national GDP growth. That is one of the key STRENGTHS of private accounts.
Posted by: Will Wilkinson | May 21, 2007 11:27:40 AM
"I'm gonna say that abortion as far as the eye can see is simply a sign of a healthy, low-taxed society!"
Hey, the anti-tax folks do keep going on about drowning small things in bathtubs . . .
Fred: "Can you say with a straight face that outlawing abortion will not drastically reduce its occurance?
Because Prohibition worked so well.
But, yes, it would somewhat reduce the number of abortions, though possibly not drastically (and certainly not to nothing, as history shows). Meanwhile, it would greatly reduce the number of safe abortions, while greatly increasing the number of unsafe ones. Oddly enough, I don't look forward with glee to the first post-Roe v. Wade time when an anti-abortion supporter has to deal with a dead or injured daughter/sister/wife/friend thanks to their efforts. (While the plural of anecdote really isn't data, there are quite a few accounts (true? urban legend?) of antiabortion protesters showing up at clinics for themselves or their daughters -of course, they're not like those other bad and frivolous women, their reasons are important . . .)
"That is the goal of the pro-life movement. If your goal is to reduce abortions, that is the way to go.
Yes, outlawing abortions is the goal of the anti-abortion movement. However, they've shown themselves to be quite capable of taking an incrementalist strategy in the time being - an unnecessary restriction here, a pointless waiting period there - so in theory there should be no problem with supporting contraceptive use and accessibility, or abstinence-plus sex ed, or (etc.). Additionally, if one's goal is to reduce abortion while valuing the lives and importance of born women and children, outlawing abortion isn't the way to go. In that case you'll probably want to support accurate sex ed., access to birth control (both in terms of $ and knowledge), and genuinely family-friendly policies.
If it isn't, now . . .
Posted by: Dan S. | May 21, 2007 11:39:55 AM
Dear God, how stupid does "Will Wilkerson" think Ezra's readers are?
Does he really imagine that the market capitalization of companies based in a country with lousy GDP growth, selling to people in that same country with lousy GDP growth, would follow the same rosy upward trend as the capitalization of companies in a country with good GDP growth selling to the whole world?
Posted by: paul | May 21, 2007 12:12:11 PM
Well Danny,
Do you live in Missouri? If not, then why are you so willing to tell the voters and taxpayers there what to spent their money on?
Let's all remember, again, abortions and birth control drugs are legal and available in Missouri. Now, if you wish to make this a federal law that taxpayers should foot the bill for abortions and birth control drugs, forcing this down everyone's throat, then just say so and be honest about it.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 21, 2007 1:56:51 PM
"Occam's razor - the irrationality of the anti-choice movement can be explained most simply by a desire to punish unmarried women for having sex."
Why is it always men who put forward this canard? Any woman with enough control over her life to actually have *serious consent and control* over her sex life can fork over a few bucks at Planned Parenthood.
Not having control over your life is surely a good argument *for* contraception. But it doesn't surprise me when the male gender (and privileged women) fail to grasp that one of the biggest problems most women face is not to *have sex* but to have enough control over your life where *you don't have to have sex.*
Really. "Having sex" is not a problem.
You can pick on the religious nuts all you want, but the truth remains.
Posted by: JT Faraday | May 21, 2007 2:02:59 PM
"Do you live in Missouri? If not, then why are you so willing to tell the voters and taxpayers there what to spent their money on?
Fred Jones in 1864: 'Do you live in Alabama? If not, then why . . ."
"Now, if you wish to make this a federal law that taxpayers should foot the bill for abortions and birth control drugs,
I think these should be available regardless of income. As Tyro tried to explain, if you're looking at this mainly in terms of expenditures, the issue isn't: spend money on birth control, etc., or don't spend money - it's spend money now (to help all women realistically be able to make their own choices), or spend more money later (for assorted public services). I'm not thrilled about this line of reasoning, since it can end up in places no one wants to go, but if that's your main concern . . . .
Posted by: Dan S. | May 21, 2007 2:31:58 PM
It's all about going back to a "Leave It to Beaver" world. Women marry before having sex (hence the punishment), and have kids when they marry (hence the anti-contraception stance). When married women have children, they stay home (no childcare subsidies). If a woman has premarital sex, she needs to suffer consequences (disease, illegitimate children, poverty, forced marriage and ostracization). If a woman needs "help" the unwed father needs to step up to the plate. If a situation arises where the woman needs help, she should DEPEND on the church then and repent! And don't forget "Father Knows Best"!
Not being able to follow the logic just means that you don't know that it's not a logical argument about one point - it's a whole worldview!
Posted by: Steph | May 21, 2007 2:35:04 PM
I must remind myself every time I log on that none of the Democratic hopefuls are as wacked as you guys. NONE, except maybe "Dennis the Menace" Kucinich and the country has already decided it doesn't need the extremism. He just hasn't gotten the fax yet.
And that gives me hope and also makes me understand that although vocal, the far left is actually pretty small in this country.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 21, 2007 2:44:02 PM
Some people make it sound like everyone should pay for their own choices and I would agree with that if it means that my son doesn't have to go to Iraq for their vote for Bush (he does). I also paid enough in taxes last year to cover his salary while fighting. Talk about double indemnity! And I'm buying weapons that I don't agree with (like chemical weapons). We can all find something that our tax dollars foot that we don't like. It's not a cafeteria plan! Someone's "protection" is always going to be someone else's risk. All I ask is that you don't force your morality on me. Why is that too much to ask?
Posted by: Steph | May 21, 2007 2:58:04 PM
Tyro, you don't have to be a nut to oppose contraception. The Catholic doctrine is that contraception violates the sanctity of the sexual relationship, so some Catholics who take their church's teachings on this seriously share that view. It's a view that has a long history in the Church and a well worked out philosophical/theological basis. There are some non-Catholics who share a similar view. Most of the opposition to contraception appears to grow out of that, even though other reasons are also cited in particular cases, as with Plan B.
Northern Observer, you're certainly right that there are reasons for many pro-lifers beyond opposing abortion. My objection to Neil's post isn't that there aren't problems with the pro-life movement in relation to this, but that some of the most inflammatory particulars of his charges are unfounded, sometimes obviously so.
But I'll say a little about your broader concern. Some pro-lifers are strongly in favor of contraception, but there are also many, becoming more vocal now, who are against contraception for religious reasons, or who oppose contraception in some contexts when they think it's an abortifacient or sends the message that promiscuity is OK or expected. You're right to point out, as Neil did, the oddness of the latter position, in that promiscuity is presumably a much less important moral concern than abortion for a pro-lifer, and the trade-off seems clear enough. However, some of the opposition is only to "emergency contraception," such as Plan B, the availability of which hasn't been shown to lower rates of abortion.
Many of those who oppose contraception more broadly appear to think sexual license and lack of concern for the proper place of sexuality in life (as in the Catholic view) are the chief causes of abortion, and seek to get at the root of the problem by fighting sexual license and lack of respect for sexuality, as they see it. They appear to believe that unless this is done, abortion will never be overcome. But it's hard to tell what all the reasoning is, because this is somewhat new as a major project for anti-abortion groups, most of which still have as their official policy to take no position on contraception per se.
There are also people who are unwilling to prevent one evil with another, a very difficult position to maintain in a general way, but one that many feel is important in some contexts.
I don't know what you have in mind regarding the perversion of theology. Whether it's shameful for people to follow their religious convictions (not merely their leaders but the doctrines) is a complex question.
If they were so reverent about life why would so many of them support the war in Iraq, the use of military force generally, capital punishment, etc?
Mr. Nut, I hope you can see the differences in the issues of war, capital punishment, and abortion. The latter involves, on the typical pro-life view, an innocent human who isn't doing anything to merit killing. You're exaggerating about the number of those who take a broader "pro-life" view of all three, by the way. Catholics who follow Church teachings often take such a view. If it seems they care more about abortion than capital punishment, just consider the numbers involved. You settle far too easily on the view that this is about punishing sexual activity, with no good evidence offered.
Dan, I think you exaggerate the reports on Plan B in the Wikipedia article, which, taken together, are rather more agnostic than you suggest. Your point that emergency contraception prevents abortions on the whole is contradicted (more or less) in the same article: "However, the availability of ECPs has not been shown to lower abortion rates."
So far I haven't been able to find what Missouri RTL said about this
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I did quote their position. If you're wondering whether Missouri Right to Life also promotes "craziness" about contraception promoting promiscuity, I haven't seen that. They do get sucked into a rather extreme view of which birth control methods might be abortifacients, judging from their website.
" haven't heard any say or imply they want to punish anyone with genital warts and cancer."
I think this is the key to why Sanpete's comments irritate me quite so much - this kind of otherwordly naivete. ... The important thing is to look not just at words (although those tell a lot) but also at deeds, and those are pretty clear.
I think you forgot to give any evidence that these organizations want to punish anyone in this context. If you're going to accuse me of being naive, remember to give the evidence. I don't see anything in what you do cite that is best explained by a desire to punish, and you offer no reason to think it is. You seem to argue instead that they act as though they weren't concerned about abortion. Even if true (and I don't think it is), that doesn't show anything about punishment as a motive.
Though I'm commenting on other points, I want to repeat that my main concern with Neil's piece is the way the evidence he cites is treated, and the unfounded inflammatory conclusions drawn. I don't maintain there aren't legitimate complaints about the pro-life organizations.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 3:03:49 PM
All I ask is that you don't force your morality on me. Why is that too much to ask?
Who's forcing anyone? It's all LEGAL!!!! That's the joke! It's all there...on demand! Want me to chew your food for you as well?
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 21, 2007 3:13:57 PM
Uh, Fred, I think steph was onlyour side. I could be wrong about that. There's no point arguing with the trogldytes but I'll take another stab at it--
a) its not a missouri question alone or, if it is, we are at liberty to take the position of the *other*missouri taxpayers who *did* want to have better coverage for poor people. If its an intra-missouri fight we are entitled to take one side over another hypothetically.
b) this isn't exactly a unique situation--its not necessary to treat the question of contraception/abortion services as distinct from other covered medical procedures. For example: a state may choose to cover eyeglasses for poor people *even though* some might argue they could afford to buy them (albeit at the risk of not having enough money for food). A state might choose to cover eyeglasses for poor people *even though* some biblical scholar might argue that they lost their eyesight through too much masturbation.
Lots of things are covered by states/the public when some people can not afford them. Why should contraception for poor women, or poor families, or poor men, be any different? Just because some people seem to think that sexual pleasure or sex acts between consenting adults is a luxury and/or a sin doesn't mean we all agree. Many americans apparently think that a healthy adult sexual relationship is necessary to being a healthy adult full stop. Certainly most adult americans act as though they believe that since celibacy for adults is not the norm in american society.
A state might decide to cover lots of things for its citizens in order to encourage an activity that it deems good (for example: public education for children) or to mitigate harms from activities that are commonly engaged in that might cause trouble (having children while poor mitigated by programs aimed at feeding children or providing medical services).
Its far from clear to me why promotion of safe, non-procreative, sex for consenting adults (whether married or not married) falls under some kind of ban when other things don't. But that is because I think sex between consenting adults is a natural and healthy part of adult relationships and I think the state and the public have an interest in promoting healthy adult lifestyles in the same way they have an interest in public health generally.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | May 21, 2007 4:01:56 PM
Tyro, you don't have to be a nut to oppose contraception. The Catholic doctrine is that contraception violates the sanctity of the sexual relationship...
Sanpete, I defend the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever personal sexual practices they choose behind closed doors. Those who decide to take Catholic theological teachings and try to use their fringe beliefs as justification for supporting harmful public policies are nutters, as much as people who justified slavery or segregation because it was in line with their religious beliefs (or non religiously-based beliefs) were nutters. I don't give someone "cover" for regarding their policy stances as not "nuts" simply because their belief is a widely-ignored tenet of their faith. I would similarly count them as nuts for opposing the sale of meat on fridays during lent.
and Fred, using brooms outside is also completely legal. Nevertheless, I support public funding for street cleaning because it as many benefits to both public aesthetics and public health.
Posted by: Tyro | May 21, 2007 4:05:48 PM
Is Kate Meiners actually against abortion? It's very rare to find an anti-choicer who supports birth control.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | May 21, 2007 4:07:35 PM
As I'm sure you know, many pro-lifers, and some others, believe the morning-after pill may be an abortifacient, in that it might prevent the implantation of the conceptus.
Well they can "believe" that it makes the money in your wallet turn to dust, and probably would "believe" that if it was politically expedient. They promote the lie that contraception is the same as abortion because they believe it is, in the sense that they oppose both because both help women live their lives (including Teh Sex) without punishment.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | May 21, 2007 4:11:43 PM
Why is it always men who put forward this canard?
I wasn't aware that I or Cristina Page or all of the female feminists out there trying to get attention to the fact that this is about punishing sex are secretly men. And I've been sitting down to pee all this time.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | May 21, 2007 4:19:09 PM
Tyro, you're merely asserting without argument that these people are nuts. They have a rational basis for their views; it's just one you reject. There's a difference between being wrong and being nuts. On what basis do you view them as the latter rather than the former?
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 4:46:45 PM
Will, do you think the market is currently pricing in 2% GDP growth? I think people are looking for a good bit more than that, and you can see it in P/E ratios higher than the historical average. If you just get 2%, with the P/E ratios we're seeing now, the market isn't going to post the 7% annual gains you're thinking about.
Amanda, there's a post on Kate Meiners and some other Missouri representatives that you might want to have a look at.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 21, 2007 4:47:06 PM
Last time I looked condoms are pretty damn cheap. Giving away free birth control pills to people who are already too lazy and stupid to use condoms wont work, because they'll also be too lazy and stupid to use the OCPs.
Posted by: joe blow | May 21, 2007 4:50:18 PM
A state might decide to cover lots of things for its citizens...
I completely agree. What you don't seem to grok is that Missouri has already made their decision as to which services they wish to provide and which services they wish not to provide.
You simply aren't honoring their choices.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 21, 2007 5:12:42 PM
"Want me to chew your food for you as well?"
Good god, no!
Posted by: Dan S. | May 21, 2007 6:21:14 PM
Sanpete,
If the argument is reverence for life, I don't think one can suggest that abortion is different because the innocent are its victims. First of all, none of us are innocent under the theological doctrine common to these groups, i.e. the notion of original sin. But more importantly, are you suggesting that war doesn't inherently involve the killing of innocents. It happens inevitably in all wars, even those where there is an alleged commitment to avoid this. When you support war, you engage in a moral calculus that the evil to be fought outweighs the deaths of innocents. This is a rationalist argument, not a seamless web of life position. (The Catholic Church is at least opposed to the war in Iraq and capital punishment -- not so our evangleical friends.) And only if you believe man's justice is perfect can you believe that capital punishment never results in the death of innocents. As someone who has spent more than two decades doing civil litigation, I assure you our justice is not perfect, however hard we might try. So capital punishment proponents are at some level comfortable that the death of an innocent here and there is an acceptable risk.
Evidence of support of my postion, i.e. that the motive is the punishment of sexuality of which they do not approve abounds. As in the law, one can make a circumstantial case built around positons, rhetoric, admissions, etc. by the so-called right to life movement. In a civil case we would examine these to determine if it is more likely than not that this is the main motivation of this group. But you are going to try and hold us to some level of proof that is unattainable in the real world, and in so doing fancy yourself Mr. Fair and Open Minded Guy. Well great for you.
But the bottom line, by their own admission, these people believe, and advocate for a public policy, that enshrines sex between married people as the only legitmate expression of sexuality in our country. Some would add to this that such sex also be with procreative intent or at least open to the possiblity of procreation. And I know you are better than those of us who would call this nuts, but nuts it is.
Posted by: Klein's tiny left nut | May 21, 2007 6:23:49 PM
Wow, Sanpete's completely right about something. It's just hard to understand the reasoning and motives of people who are as wrong as the prominent anti-abortion/birth-control/sex-ed crowd. One can't conclude they're evil based on the argument that they can't be that deluded.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 21, 2007 6:30:25 PM
And as one genuinely pro-life representative pointed out, cutting funding would "have the opposite effect of what the intention is, which will be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions."
How do you know this? It's not an a priori truth that absence of state-funded contraception = more pregnancies = more abortions. Contraception isn't exactly hard to find -- condoms are everywhere, and they're cheaper than a meal at McDonald's. So what's your evidence that state-funded-contraception-programs make the abortion rate go down? Does it even cross your mind to inquire into the empirical evidence before rushing to condemn your political opponents? Geez.
And there's any number of other causes on which the anti-abortion movement has shown its true colors. There's the issue of permitting pharmacists to deny birth control. (I've waited in vain for a similar movement that would allow Jewish, Muslim, and vegetarian food-service workers not to serve pork.)
Don't be stupid. There's no movement to permit pharmacists to "deny birth control." THere are a handful of pharmacists in a few states who oppose NOT birth control, but emergency contraception, because it sometimes prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, and they believe (in accord with scientific facts) that a fertilized egg is the beginning of a new human being, and that it is wrong to participate in the destruction of that human being.
And don't be disingenuous. You haven't been "waiting" for a "movement" to permit Jews and Muslims not to serve pork. That's just a rhetorical device on your part. In any event, as you are smart enough to figure out, neither Jews nor Muslims believe that serving pork is anywhere near as serious as ending a human life, so there's no reason to expect that they would all try to be conscientious objectors here. Moreover, there's no movement, as is the case under Illinois law, to require by force of law that all restaurants (including kosher restaurants) must serve pork to any customer who asks for it or else be put out of business. If pro-pork lobbyists ever succeeded in getting such a law put in place, you can be damn sure that pro-lifers and conservatives would generally be in favor of allowing Jewish and Muslim-owned restaurants to have a conscientious objection.
Posted by: John Doe | May 21, 2007 6:44:34 PM
Oh my god! I'm not "Honoring the choice" of missouri!! How will this state, or any other, survive??? Fred, do you even have a clue how silly you sound? Discussing, and even disagreeing, with a public policy decision that has been put to the vote and may be put to the vote again in a state in the country in which I am a citizen isn't *anti democratic* its *democratic*--it doesn't signal a "lack of respect" for "choice" but a respect for political action. What a boob you are.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | May 21, 2007 7:13:15 PM
Mr. Nut, original sin isn't relevant to the kind of innocence at issue, which is a matter of whether the person has done anything to merit death at human hands. There are of course innocents killed in war, but not intentionally. Same with capital punishment. More can be said on this, but I can pretty much promise you that you won't be able to maintain the argument the way you want to. Even though there are common elements in regard to respect for life, and a good synergy between them, the three cases just aren't the same in all the ways necessary to keep those who are inclined to from rationally separating them.
But you are going to try and hold us to some level of proof that is unattainable in the real world
Not at all. I'm perfectly willing to entertain any evidence, even evidence that wouldn't be admissible in a court. But you shouldn't complain if I point out the lack of conclusiveness or present a better explanation of the facts. The evidence I've seen in regard to the punishment hypothesis is just very poor, given the other explanations available.
And I know you are better than those of us who would call this nuts, but nuts it is.
I'm at least more careful than some, or try to be. On what basis do you distinguish this nuttiness you refer to from just being wrong? People often resort to calling people "nuts" out of frustration, so it amounts to no more than "I really don't like that."
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 7:20:25 PM
Sanpete,
I suspect I have spent considerably more time reading anti-choice fulminations and attacks on birth control than you have. For nearly fifteen years my wife worked as an advocate for the Title X program which provides federal funding of birth control for low income women. It is one of the cheapest, most cost effective programs run by the federal government. Yet is has been under continuous unrelenting attack by social conservaitves for many, many years. Why would these people attack a program that is demonstrably effective in limiting the number of abortions -- because they believe that sex out of marriage is wrong. Period. Quite a few are dubious about birth control within marriage.
In the course of my wife's career, she has joined the e-mail lists of virtually all of these right wing groups - Christian Coalition, Concerned Women of America, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family and some fo the truly extreme wingnuts like Lou Sheldon. I have read the propaganda perpetrated by these folks to exhort their flocks and they have little to do with a reverence for life. You can try and make the case for the good faith of such people, but I'm just never going to buy it.
Do you really believe that it is more moral to support a war in which you know actual living innocent little children will die than to support abortion rights where a 12 week old fetus will be terminated?
Posted by: klein's tiny left nut | May 21, 2007 7:48:33 PM
Ah, what a peaceful day not checking this thread... Just to clarify, Sanpete, on your (way, way back) response - the notion that antiabortionists are anti-woman is really not the worst thing I think of them. I think if you have a problem with women being sexual, especially outside of the confines (what a great word in this context) of marriage, then of course you oppose the availability of contraception as well as abortion - what KTLN (Mr. Nut to you) mentions of the opposition to Title X is a long history, not especially new; the Moral Mahority and others in the religious right began work during the Reagan Administration to end federally funded access to contraception out of their moral concerns. That has not stopped. Opposition to abortion follows from this, it doesn't necessarily serve as the starting point. The antiabortionists argument against contraception has always made sense to me; it's the logical conclusion of their theory that our society encourages promioscuity and lax morals, especially in women. If that's true, they're right. I think they're wrong, partly because I think the whole premise is very anti-woman. But really, the worst thing I think of them? That's certainly not it, since at least the line of argument they push against contraception has some foundation. You might guess what it is, given our previous discussions, but I'm guessing not.
Posted by: weboy | May 21, 2007 8:28:01 PM
Why would these people attack a program that is demonstrably effective in limiting the number of abortions -- because they believe that sex out of marriage is wrong. Period.
I've already agreed with that in large part. I don't think it's a secret. I don't think it implies bad will, much less a desire to punish, though I don't doubt that good will is stretched or broken by activists at times. I already expressed the view that good will is limited in this area on both sides. The fact that much of the material used to bolster each side doesn't directly rely on respect for life or some other high ideal doesn't imply such an ideal doesn't motivate those making the arguments. The respect for life may often not be mature, may be more formal than experienced at times, and may well be mixed with other motives.
Do you really believe that it is more moral to support a war in which you know actual living innocent little children will die than to support abortion rights where a 12 week old fetus will be terminated?
No, but why ask me? The details of the cause for war would probably make the difference for most pro-lifers. I assume you aren't a pacifist yourself.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 8:33:13 PM
Weboy, I'm sure you sincerely believe that opposition to abortion and birth control are motivated by some anti-woman thing, but you give no real evidence or argument to support that.
it's the logical conclusion of their theory that our society encourages promioscuity and lax morals, especially in women
I've never heard or seen the last part in any argument except from those giving hostile characterizations of arguments they oppose.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 8:48:42 PM
"The fact that much of the material used to bolster each side doesn't directly rely on respect for life or some other high ideal doesn't imply such an ideal doesn't motivate those making the arguments. The respect for life may often not be mature, may be more formal than experienced at times, and may well be mixed with other motives."
Right, the fact that they aren't using respect for life as an argument doesnt mean that they aren't motivated by it, and doesn't imply a lack of good will. What does imply a lack of good will, is when they support policies that they know will result in more abortions. Either they occupy a moral universe in which consequences are irrelevant, and only side constraints matter, or the goal of reducing abortions is not as important as ... whatever reason they have for opposing contraception.
Lets put this way -- their (and I dont mean every possible, or even every existent, pro-lifer, just the type exemplified by this legislator) respect for life may be sincere, but it is fleeting.
Posted by: RW | May 21, 2007 9:10:31 PM
RW, that isn't necessarily the case. I addressed this, more or less, in some comments to Northern Observer at 3:03:49. I wish I could hear Phillips explain herself.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 9:35:44 PM
Sanpete,
I am not a pacifist. However, the older I get the less enamored I am of violence as a means to political ends. The calculus for supporting war in my opinion must be overwhelming before it can be justified because of the deaths of innocents.
Similarly after twenty plus years of legal practice, I have become an opponent of the death penalty. This was not always true. But the longer that I have watched men dispatch justice, the more our imperfections have been made clear to me. Even with the best of intentions we cannot assure that we are always right in these matters and the execution of one innocent man is unacceptable to me.
I do not believe a pre-viable fetus is in the same category as those of us who are born. This is a philosophical/theological argument that I don't expect to persuade anyone who doesn't agree with me of.
However, I will not credit the good will of those who claim a frozen embryo is sacred, but an Iraqi child is an acceptable bit of collateral damage.
Posted by: Klein's tiny left nut | May 21, 2007 10:41:26 PM
Sanpete
I just dont think its enough to articulate some argument against contraception that makes a claim to reducing abortion (birth control = promiscuity = pregnancy = abortion). The fact that such an argument can be articulated doesn't mean that any rational person would embrace it if they were committed, deep down to their soul, above any other social consideration, to the preservation of life rather than the repression of sex and sexual equality. Birth control reduces pregnancy; anyone who claims otherwise, even if they can make an argument that theoretically goes from A to B, is willfully out of touch with reality.
This critique doesnt necessarily extend to the whole pro-life movement, nor even to all critics of contraception. But for those who oppose abortion as murder, and also oppose access to contraception, and labor under no absolute side constraints such as an objectivist/non-consequential objection to taxation or an unyielding adherence to Catholic doctrine, I dont find Neil's condemnation one bit overblown.
Making an effort to understand the value in opinions that are diametrically opposed to your own is a fantastic quality, but people who disagree with you fundamentally can sometimes be patently wrong and patently crazy and patently acting in bad faith. You dont have to be an ideologue to see that sometimes.
Posted by: RW | May 22, 2007 1:49:19 AM
However, I will not credit the good will of those who claim a frozen embryo is sacred, but an Iraqi child is an acceptable bit of collateral damage.
Mr. Nut, I agree with your views on war and the death penalty. What's acceptable "collateral damage" depends on what justifies the war, of course. I think I get your intent. You see a disconnect between what seems a typical conservative willingness to go to war without so much hesitation and all the fuss about frozen embryos by some conservatives. I think there sometimes is a real and very serious problem there. Conservatives tend to find similar but opposite problems among some liberals, such as a seeming lack of concern even for perfectly innocent viable fetuses combined with fervent opposition to the death penalty on the grounds that the right to life shouldn't be violated even for the guilty. Those won't seem equally serious disparities to many liberals, of course, due to the difference in views about the fetus, even if viable.
RW, I think you may underestimate somewhat the argument I outlined, but I basically agree that it's problematic, that it doesn't seem realistic enough to try to fight abortion by fighting promiscuity via lack of contraception, and that people should be able to see that if they're really concerned about abortion.
Neil's condemnation was based most directly on points he didn't demonstrate or have any good basis for, things that go well beyond the problem you focus on. That doesn't mean there isn't ground for condemnation of some kind. I think in the case of Phillips we're talking about a Catholic (if I recall rightly), so I suspect she may feel it unacceptable to contribute to promiscuity as a means to fight abortion (something that may not pass the test of double effect as understood in Catholicism). But even if that doesn't apply, I don't hate her or think her black-hearted. She may do a good deal of harm, and must be vigorously opposed, but I don't think it's bad will in the most basic and least acceptable sense of outright malice for others. I suspect confusion and some defects in good will, but it's a matter of degree well within the normal.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 22, 2007 2:44:17 AM
Posted by: zhongliu | May 22, 2007 5:31:47 AM
I'm with zhongliu, Sanpete is at least a consistent person, but he is consistent in his refusal to recognize the basic injustice and bad faith of the side he consistently represents. No one can read Mr. Nut's posts and not agree that the leaders and a large proportion of the followers of the right wing anti abortion crowd are, honestly or dishonesty, primarily concerned with controlling women and their sexuality and only secondarily, if at all, concerned with actual life. Fetal life may come to stand in for them for all they can't bring themselves to care about all around them--complicity in a needless war, the deliberate bombing of a civilian population (not accidental, of course, entirely planned), torture, imprisonment, the driving of ordinary men to suicide, the death penalty, poverty, etc...etc....etc... The idea of protecting someone else's unborn fetus may salve the concscience of those who, when called to actually sacrifice for their "belief" in the sanctity of life, did nothing while others died. It wouldn't satisfy me but then my idea of morality does not include hypocrisy, torture, and the infliction of death on other people because I'm afraid of what someone might do to me.
In a funny way people like Sanpete are the mirror image of the "abortionists" they like to attack. They support the death of "people" who are inconvenient to them--sometimes those people are called Iraqi civilians, sometimes they are called "wicked criminals" or "terrorists" sometimes they are just called "The poor" or "some uninsured woman in a california hospital." There's always a reason that someone is willing to allow one or a thousand other people to die. Sanpete's principle is that an individual woman shouldn't be allowed to determine what happens to the fetal life that directly impinges and even directly threatens her own. But that large groups of men are permitted and even encouraged to decide that whole groups of people are inconvenient or threaten him and should be eliminated from the earth.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | May 22, 2007 8:09:29 AM
" Your point that emergency contraception prevents abortions on the whole is contradicted (more or less) in the same article: "However, the availability of ECPs has not been shown to lower abortion rates.""
I don't pretend to know why that's apparently the case in these European and Chinese studies, although I would be very interested to see results from the US, which I suspect is different in some important ways. Unless we assume that all women who become pregnant unwantedly and would use EC if available would instead refuse/be unable to get abortions in its absence - which doesn't seem tenable - it would have to prevent abortions.
"Conservatives tend to find similar but opposite problems among some liberals, such as a seeming lack of concern even for perfectly innocent viable fetuses combined with fervent opposition to the death penalty on the grounds that the right to life shouldn't be violated even for the guilty.
Which can be easily explained by the belief that a) embryos and fetuses aren't actually people in a meaningful sense, and/(occasionally or) b) that a woman's right to bodily autonomy is paramount here, etc. The use of "viable" here is rather tricky, since it could be taken to mean 1) would be likely to develop normally and be born alive some months down the road, or 2) has any chance of surviving outside their mother's womb. Of course, the number of U.S. abortions past the point of even potential viability is extremely small (according to a 2005 CDC chart using 2002 data, 1.4% of the total); sometimes related to medical conditions- anaencephaly, etc. - but some cases, iirc, seem to involve women who wanted an earlier abortion but were unable to get it, thanks to the constant work of anti-abortion activists - ie, waiting periods, availability of providers, money, were afraid to tell parents, etc.). Many states, of course, have various restrictions on late-term abortions.
Sanpete, I don't "hate" Phillips either. But just from what I read here, it seems quite obvious that she cannot help, and will make the situation worse - as you say, she "must be vigorously opposed". To be honest, whether or not someone is "evil" - the whole question of motive, even - seems most important only insofar as it helps people realize that the anti-abortion establishment as it is currently cannot help, cannot be worked with, cannot be trusted and must be very vigorously opposed. (Individual pro-life folks can be a different story). Indeed, I'm not even going to definitely affirm that 'punishing 'bad' women for sex (or in some cases, being raped, etc.) is the primary motivation here - I have enough trouble figuring out what's going on in the heads of friends and loved ones. I consider it enough to say that the anti-abortion movement will predictably and consistently act as if that was the case. (Why is an interesting question, to be sure.) Read the Page quote above: it's hard to see how their agenda is anything but intrinsically hostile to modern American families.
Posted by: Dan S. | May 22, 2007 8:15:14 AM
""Conservatives tend to find similar but opposite problems among some liberals, such as a seeming lack of concern even for perfectly innocent viable fetuses combined with fervent opposition to the death penalty on the grounds that the right to life shouldn't be violated even for the guilty."
What I meant to say, though, was the this position is consistent - fetuses don't get this protection - it's not applicable - but everyone else does. The anti-abortion (not generic "conservative") position often isn't - "perfectly innocent" embryos (well, how much trouble can a little ball of cells get up to?) must be preserved at any price, but it's acceptable for innocent people - children, adults, fetuses - to be killed in war, and for the death penalty to be used even though it's become quite clear that in some cases the people being killed are going to be innocent. And it's not just a question of priorities - often (though not always) anti-abortion folks support war and the death penalty.
Posted by: Dan S. | May 22, 2007 8:22:02 AM
Good, I hope the scales fall from their eyes, Neil. Cristina Page opened her book with a story about how a pro-life friend of hers and she wrote an article together calling to reduce abortions with birth control, and her friend was taken to the carpet by all her anti-choice allies, who were appalled at the very idea of preventing pregnancy as a means of preventing abortion. It was the impetus for the book, actually.
What kills me is the illusion that anti-choice activists are against abortion and not just against sex really falls apart when you consider abstinence-only. They aren't even trying to hide that they're against se itself with that name.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | May 22, 2007 9:03:44 AM
What kills me is the illusion that anti-choice activists are against abortion and not just against sex...
Pad-up-bumb!
She's here all week, folks.....try the veal
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 22, 2007 10:04:18 AM
What kills me is the illusion that anti-choice activists are against abortion and not just against sex really falls apart when you consider abstinence-only. They aren't even trying to hide that they're against se itself with that name.
So you've figured out that pro-lifers are against sex . . . by unmarried 14-year-olds. What an earth-shattering observation.
Posted by: John Doe | May 22, 2007 10:36:55 AM
"Occam's razor - the irrationality of the anti-choice movement can be explained most simply by a desire to punish unmarried women for having sex."
No- it is to punish unmarried women for being their sex. The anti-choice movement is known to openly attack any proposals that help women deal with being biologically female in our current economic system. Child-care, contraception, abortion, pre-natal care, comprehensive sex education, family leave, and if we find other ways to balance family and economic necessity, they will be against those as well. It has become a knee-jerk reaction with the supposed pro-life and 'family values' crowd that if the proposal does not match their preconceptions then it must be wrong.
And for those who bemoan the tax cost, get a grip. Taxes pay for many things that we personally cannot see the benefit of but have proven themselves in the long term. I can't see my sewer system but I sure appreciate that it is there and I want my taxes to continue to support it. Such is life, it costs and we discuss what we want to pay for and eventually they either prove their worth and are kept and supported or they don't and we move on to the next thing.
Finally there is no way that you can prove that any emergency contraception lowers abortion rates because abortion rates are compared to pregnancies. No pregnancy=no effect on the abortion rate. Condoms are a male contraception tool and I suspect that whether or not they are cheap is based on your earning power, so poor male=condoms costly, well-off male=condoms cheap.
Posted by: Hawise | May 22, 2007 10:41:48 AM
So you've figured out that pro-lifers are against sex . . . by unmarried 14-year-olds.
So we're left with either:
(1) there is a secret exception still on the books in Missouri that allows poor married adult women to receive family planning assistance from the state, despite the fact that such assistance was eliminated regardless of age or marital status,
(2) you're a semi-literate stupid fuck, or
(3) you're a lying fuck.
I'd go with a combination of (2) and (3). Help us resolve this conundrum, Mr. Doe.
Posted by: mds | May 22, 2007 11:25:34 AM
Sanpete, okay. I don't believe you on it, but I'll grant you that there is sound theological support and reasoning to be against both birth control and abortion on religious grounds.
But I'll only grant that if you keep your theology way the hell away from my wife's uterus, my daughter's uterus (okay, she's a little young to worry about that yet though I did have a dream recently wherein she did give birth at her current age of 7 months... weird dream), and the uterus of anybody who doesn't want to follow your crazy religion.
It ain't my religion, it ain't my wife's religion. If you oppose birth control and abortion based on your religious beliefs, don't have one.
Posted by: Matthew | May 22, 2007 1:10:06 PM
That is, even if abortion is the worst evil in one's hierarchy, it does not follow that everything is on the table to stop it.
Now this is interesting, Bill, because even if a more "sophisticated" moral framework opposing contraception is not based in any "hatred" or desire to "oppress" women, it is most certainly based in the desire to control and restrict women to specific behaviors and activities. That the "desire" is not to "oppress" does NOT mean that the "sophisticated moral framework" is not oppressive.
Posted by: Hunter | May 22, 2007 2:05:14 PM
though I did have a dream recently wherein she did give birth at her current age of 7 months.
Oh no, babies having babies!
(there actually are a few - insects, I think? - that pull that sort of stunt, but I'm a bit fuzzy on the details . . .)
John Doe - {weary sigh} - look, people don't think abstinence ed. is stupid because they want some sort of pro-unmarried-14-year-old-sex ed instead (is anyone pro- married-14-year-old sex?). It's because abstinence ed. doesn't work. Given that some kids are going to have sex regardless, as they've been doing all throughout written history, including the 1950s (although far fewer if any teen girls go for long, sudden and secretive "trips" nowadays, and there are fewer very young married couples with babies that look surprisingly healthy given how "premature" they are), the sensible thing is to make sure that they get accurate information, both for now and for later.
And Fred, I don't know what you're all excited about, unless it's that you caught Amanda phrasing a sentence in a slightly unclear way (if, that is, you have no idea what we're talking about). If it's just that you're confused, she's referring to the illusion that anti-choice activists are first and foremost against abortion, when in reality they are first and foremost against sex. If you took the anti-abortion movement as a whole and told them that they magically had the ability snap their fingers and have a world where unmarried, nonprocreative, and casual sex was very common, but all pregnancies were wanted and there were no abortions (because no need) - well, I'm not sure what they'd say.
Posted by: Dan S. | May 22, 2007 2:06:05 PM
No one can read Mr. Nut's posts and not agree that the leaders and a large proportion of the followers of the right wing anti abortion crowd are, honestly or dishonesty, primarily concerned with controlling women and their sexuality and only secondarily, if at all, concerned with actual life.
Well, aimai, no one who already believes that as you do can, at least. But what's that supposed to show? Your own analysis of the pro-life psychology is quite imaginative but lacks any evidence. As I said before, people on both sides are inclined to believe the worst of the other. You illustrate this especially well, as the rest of your post shows even more plainly.
It wouldn't satisfy me but then my idea of morality does not include hypocrisy, torture, and the infliction of death on other people because I'm afraid of what someone might do to me.
That's because you're a good person and they're evil. That's easy.
Sanpete's principle is that an individual woman shouldn't be allowed to determine what happens to the fetal life that directly impinges and even directly threatens her own.
I see you haven't actually read my posts. I'm pro-choice. But don't let that crimp your imagination.
But that large groups of men are permitted and even encouraged to decide that whole groups of people are inconvenient or threaten him and should be eliminated from the earth.
Again, very imaginative, just like the rest of your analysis, but not at all connected to reality. Your choice: view people according to your hate, which makes things conceptually simple and has a certain self-reinforcing comfort, or try to see them as they are, and maybe see more good in them than you suspected. The latter also helps us see ourselves better.
Unless we assume that all women who become pregnant unwantedly and would use EC if available would instead refuse/be unable to get abortions in its absence - which doesn't seem tenable - it would have to prevent abortions.
Dan, it's also possible that the availability of emergency contraception encourages in some more risky behavior, that the method isn't as effective as other contraception, or some such thing.
On the conflicts many conservatives see in how liberals treat viable fetuses and murderers, that includes very viable fetuses. A fair number of liberals, especially the more vocal ones, are surprisingly ready to dismiss out of hand any concern for a fetus independently of its mothers concerns at any stage, even at nine months. I'm not sure how consistent that is, but I'm not too interested in hashing that out here; just wanted to point it out. Most liberals do give some weight to the viable fetus, as Roe does.
I'm not even going to definitely affirm that 'punishing 'bad' women for sex (or in some cases, being raped, etc.) is the primary motivation here ... I consider it enough to say that the anti-abortion movement will predictably and consistently act as if that was the case.
I don't think so. If that were the motive I'd actually expect very different behavior on the whole. There is some stuff that can be read that way, and some that actually is that way, I think, but it isn't a very useful guiding principle in interpreting their behavior, on the whole. I think it's a bad move to assume that there is so little good faith on the other side that they cannot be worked with or trusted. That depends. They have the same idea about us, of course. In any case, trust but verify is generally the best rule in politics.
It has become a knee-jerk reaction with the supposed pro-life and 'family values' crowd that if the proposal does not match their preconceptions then it must be wrong.
There's plenty of knee-jerking to go around on both sides, Hawise. People tend to rush to the belief that suits them, especially in this area.
Matthew, I'm an atheist, but I promise to keep my "crazy religion," as you call it (though I don't regard my beliefs as religious), far away from you and your defenseless family. While you enjoy your safety from my godlessness, you might want to work on what appears to be a problem with jumping to unwarranted conclusions that suit your preconceptions. Something all too common in regard to the abortion debate.
That the "desire" is not to "oppress" does NOT mean that the "sophisticated moral framework" is not oppressive.
Very true, Hunter.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 22, 2007 2:19:13 PM
Sanpete,
Throwing the term "viable" in as a description of the fetus strikes me as confusing in this context. If by viable you mean a fetus of say 26-28 weeks along, then very few abortions occur with respect to viable fetuses. And then, virtually all such abortions are occurring due to significant fetal anomalies or health risks to the pregnant woman. Only 1.2% of abortions in 2001 occurred after 26 weeks. Only 2% of abortion providers in the U.S. perform such abortions. 88% of abortions occured within 12 weeks in 2001, and all evidence suggest that abortions are occurring earlier now with the advent of widely available early pregnancy testing.
The bottom line is that the invocation of late term abortion is virtually always a canard. The people who oppose abortion oppose it across the board. The deceptive attacks on late term abortion, wrongly conflated with the made up term "partial birth abortion" are a rhetorical and propaganda trick used to gin up opposition to a practice that is almost non-existent in order to get to the point of banning all abortions. If people knew the individual situations facing the women who are aborting 26+ week fetuses I suspect they would be ashamed at trying to beat up on people is such circumstances.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | May 22, 2007 2:49:14 PM
Indeed Sanpete, and if I am reading you right...you object to characterizations of the pro-life agenda as "woman-hating" or "intentionally oppressive" because of a lack of malice.
But here's the thing...if the targets of the agenda are in fact to be "oppressed," any claims of "a lack of malice" are irrelevant.
I do not care that pro-lifers do not hate me when they try to deny my access to contraception. Malice exists, unconsciously or otherwise, if that "sophisticated pro-life moral framework" requires me to behave in ways that are harmful to me, and to my relationship with my husband and children.
Posted by: Hunter | May 22, 2007 3:00:24 PM
As I'm sure you know, many pro-lifers, and some others, believe the morning-after pill may be an abortifacient, in that it might prevent the implantation of the conceptus.
Too flipping bad. A woman has more right to not be pregnant than a clump of barely differentiated cells has to invade her body and make her pregnant.
However, it is *stone frikken stupid* to claim the morning after pill is an abortifacient.
You can't abort a pregnancy that hasn't started.
Posted by: Longhairedweirdo | May 22, 2007 3:00:52 PM
No, Jason. Their positions can usually be more simply explained in terms of the arguments they actually give. You're confusing your simplistic view of their ideas with their actual beliefs.
This comment thread appears to illustrate a lack of good will and good faith in interpreting other views.
No. It's just, if you don't assume bad faith, you have to assume stupidity of a truly astounding nature.
E.g., the argument that HPV vaccine might "encourage promiscuity" is ludicrously stupid. There are still plenty of STDs to worry about. No one who has engaged in critical thought could seriously put that kind of argument forth.
So, we have two things to ask: is it bad faith, or is it stupidity? Well, the arguments have been spread and repeated. We either have to assume that there's a lot of stupid people out there, who are all stupid in the exact same way - and while stupidity is common, the same kind of stupidity isn't, because stupidity is endlessly inventive - or we have to assume that it's a deceptive argument raised with the intention of increasing the risk of sex.
The latter simply makes more sense. We *could* presume good faith on behalf of the soi disant pro-lifers, but it simply doesn't seem all that likely. They're too well organized to be so stupid. So, it seems much more likely that it's intentional deception.
It will be wrong, sometimes. Sometimes some poor sap will use good faith and swallow a load of hogwash from pro-lifers, and that person will probably feel awfully bad when accused of using bad-faith arguments.
However, real people are suffering because of the actions of these people. Protecting the feelings of a few poor saps pales next to protecting the rights of people across the country.
Posted by: Longhairedweirdo | May 22, 2007 3:17:01 PM
Uh... sure, Sanpete. So you just want to control women's behaviour for what reason then? The only people I've heard argue that birth control and abortion are wrong on moral grounds are religious types, so I think it was actually a pretty reasonable assumption to make. You know, if you want to call my assumptions unwarranted, make sure they are actually unwarranted.
Speaking of, defenseless family? Talk about assumptions. Try to make my wife do anything she doesn't want to and see how defenseless she is. I dare you. Hell, I'd sell tickets to it.
My point still holds though, that it's a crazy worldview you have that women have less rights on what happens to their own bodies than some fetus does (to the woman's body). Whether the intention is oppression, the effect is. Likewise, whether or not the intention is to punish women for having sex, the effect is the same as if it was. It's like the difference between manslaughter and murder; the victim is still just as dead.
Funny the religious mix here though; a Christian (me) arguing in favour of abortion and birth control against an atheist. What a wacky, wacky world.
And Dan S.; didn't even think of the Strongbad bit, but yeah. That makes it a lot funnier.
Posted by: Matthew | May 22, 2007 3:46:02 PM
This comment thread appears to illustrate a lack of good will and good faith in interpreting other views.
I'll have some of both when religious fanatics keep their noses out of my bedroom. Oh yah, screw you.
Posted by: Shelley | May 22, 2007 4:04:00 PM
Good Lord, mds is a moron.
If you took the anti-abortion movement as a whole and told them that they magically had the ability snap their fingers and have a world where unmarried, nonprocreative, and casual sex was very common, but all pregnancies were wanted and there were no abortions (because no need) - well, I'm not sure what they'd say.
That's got to be one of the most ignorant things ever said on the Internet. Pro-lifers would take your deal in a snap.
Posted by: John Doe | May 22, 2007 4:08:33 PM
"Can you say with a straight face that outlawing abortion will not drastically reduce its occurance? That is the goal of the pro-life movement. If your goal is to reduce abortions, that is the way to go."
-Fred Jones
Actually, yes, I can say with a straight face that outlawing abortion will not drastically reduce its occurance. Not even close. Look at Latin America, where abortion is illegal -- a great many of those countries have a higher abortion rate than we do. So do many countries all over the world where abortion is outlawed. There is no correlation between illegalizing abortion and a low abortion rate. None. Zero.
There is, however, a significant correlation between access to birth control and a low abortion rate. The countries with the lowest abortion rates in the world offer free, accessible birth control (and usually free abortion). That's how you end abortion, not by outlawing it.
As for what people "deserve," you can argue forever that no one deserves access to anything. But the fact remains that we do make choices about what our government funds, and the fact that anti-choicers support funding of things like abstinence-only sex education but not of birth control access demonstrates that they're making a choice, and it's a moral one, not an economic one. This isn't about taxation or libertarianism, not for the anti-choice camp. It's about hostility towards women, and social control of women's bodies and the family.
Posted by: Jill | May 22, 2007 4:12:21 PM
So you just want to control women's behaviour for what reason then?
This is a fair question, Sanpete, and one I have never heard or read a satisfactory answer for.
If the desire to control and restrict women to narrowly defined behaviors and activities is NOT based in malice, then what? I suppose you could try to argue some sort of greater social good, as has been done to death, but invariably, such arguments are inherently evil simply because a "social good" that depends on harming half the human race IS evil.
Posted by: Hunter | May 22, 2007 4:14:53 PM
Close italics?
Posted by: Dave Empey | May 22, 2007 4:36:30 PM
Closed italics?
Posted by: anonymous | May 22, 2007 4:59:53 PM
This goes back a day or so, but I think John Doe needs to see it.
Don't be stupid. There's no movement to permit pharmacists to "deny birth control." THere are a handful of pharmacists in a few states who oppose NOT birth control, but emergency contraception
Before you call someone stupid, maybe you should Google for "refuse birth control" and see what pops up. And as for today...
If you took the anti-abortion movement as a whole and told them that they magically had the ability snap their fingers and have a world where unmarried, nonprocreative, and casual sex was very common, but all pregnancies were wanted and there were no abortions (because no need) - well, I'm not sure what they'd say.
Really? Because I happen to have a table here with a number of data points on it, showing, for instance, that pro-lifers strongly tend to oppose contraception and comprehensive sex education (which, as pointed out above, don't make people have more sex, but do reduce the bad outcomes such as disease and unwanted pregnancy), to support exceptions for rape and incest, to and ban the intact D&X procedure. While we can't stipulate your ideal world, we can certainly take a guess based on known data points.
What sort of information do you have to support your idea that the pro-life movement could possibly be anything but horrified at the thought of a world full of consequence-free fucking?
Posted by: grendelkhan | May 22, 2007 5:10:56 PM
The reaction to my comments about concern for viable fetuses has been more than I expected. Mr. Nut, what many pro-lifers detect, and I've seen sometimes in discussions here, is a lack of concern for viable fetuses expressed by some in arguments about abortion. It isn't abortions of viable fetuses that gives this impression; it isn't late-term abortions per se that are being invoked. It's statements such as that a fetus has no status or worth beyond that given to it by the mother until it's not in her body anymore, that an abortion at any stage is no one's business but the woman's, that nothing matters but her choice, refusals to make any distinction with regard to trimester, etc. This may not reflect the views of most liberals, who as I said tend to line up with Roe in their personal thinking, but such comments are more prominent among the louder voices.
Hunter, I object to unqualified charges of bad will if I think there is lack of malice. I object to the received view among large portions of the pro-choice that what moves pro-lifers is a desire to punish women, that hating women is what being pro-life is all about, and so on, because I think such ideas are just false. You want to argue that if the results are oppression, malice is implied, whether conscious or not. That isn't true. Restrictions on our rights that are necessary for some greater good, such as laws allowing police searches with warrants, or restrictions on the sale of drugs, a military draft, or whatever, may be oppressive at times but don't imply malice.
So you just want to control women's behaviour for what reason then?
This is a fair question, Sanpete, and one I have never heard or read a satisfactory answer for.
In regard to abortion, if the fetus is in fact a human with full value in itself, as most pro-lifers believe, then it deserves protection. In regard to birth control, that applies to both men and women, but since most forms of birth control are controlled by women, it applies especially to them. This has already been discussed some earlier in the thread; I've got a few comments about it addressed to Northern Observer from 3:03:49 yesterday, followed up with some discussion with RW from late last night. I don't think malice against women plays much of a role, but there are real problems with arguments against birth control.
Mr. Weirdo, substantive moral points, like whether prevention of implantation is morally speaking identical to abortion, can't be settled by definition. For practical purposes it's perfectly sensible for those who believe life starts at conception to refer to prevention of implantation as abortion. The usage is logical and the meaning is clear.
Since you've thought critically about this, you probably know that the concern expressed by some pro-lifers about the HPV vaccine being given to 11-year-olds rather than when they're older is that it appears to imply that the girls are expected to have sex at a very young age and that their civic leaders want to make sure they're ready. There's actually some truth in that, and an element of mixed message. I don't think it's a good enough reason not to give the vaccines at that age, but it isn't stupid to see that as a problem.
We either have to assume that there's a lot of stupid people out there, who are all stupid in the exact same way - and while stupidity is common, the same kind of stupidity isn't, because stupidity is endlessly inventive - or we have to assume that it's a deceptive argument raised with the intention of increasing the risk of sex.
You start with a false premise, that the arguments are so bad that those making them must be either stupid or intentionally deceitful in their goal of making sex more dangerous. The arguments are generally not stupid, and the ones that are usually aren't worse than you should expect from average people, who often mistake things. And the alternatives of stupidity and intentional deceit are far too simplistic. You exaggerate and misapply what is a good point about