This is not the post I wanted to write

267 thoughts on “This is not the post I wanted to write”

1. access to contraceptives have never been shown to reduce the abortion rate. citation please.
   things that actually reduce the abortion rate:
   http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/02/analyzing-the-effect-of-state-legislation-on-the-incidence-of-abortion-among-minors
   Your post also confuses the terms “contraceptives” with what are potentially abortifacients. Hence why the divide within pro-life organizations between condoms, which face Catholic opposition mainly because it’s a moral wrong and not because it’s a same level of moral wrong as abortion.
   Opposition to contraceptives, then, is muddied by the evolving usage of the word to encompass different types of ‘birth control’ — whether they have a chemical effect that terminates an existing pregnancy.
   Some have problems with the use of chemicals that prevent implantation, others don’t view the alteration of the chemical lining of the uterus as a moral wrong, and some view it as a different wrong on a reduced level from an abortion.
   So, understanding abortion as the deliberate destruction of a child, all groups can agree on that. The nuances of the other discussions lead to natural divisions.
   Whether you’re honestly confused or just trying to make a cynical and snide comment is beyond me, as I’m a new reader. So, if this was all in vain, I… apologize?

2. Doc, I’m afraid the flame war may start anyway. The fact that you display pretty much perfect logic notwithstanding.
   When I was on the radio, I refused to use “pro-life” when reading news stories. I called ’em what they are: “Anti-choice.” No-one ever told me to stop, so I didn’t.

3. BenW: there’s a cite in that post. Also, bc pills are not abortifaecant. They work by preventing ovulation. However, once fertilization occurs, the hormones in bc pills promote implantation. So no, preventing usage of bc is not promoting life, it’s promoting misogyny.

4. Thanks very much for this useful roundup of the latest atrocities, and for the useful logic lesson for those who are either deliberately or mistakenly obfuscating their true position. I’d like in particular to underline this: “As far as I can tell, *all* the PLM leadership is in [the anti-sex] group, and they don’t even realize that many of their followers are in groups A&B.”
   I also believe this is true and I wish that pro-choice groups could figure out a way to leverage this fact in a way that could separate the extremists in Congress, in hospitals and in the courts from the vast majority of the public, who don’t actually agree with the anti-choice leadership.

5. BenW:
   condoms, which face Catholic opposition mainly because it’s a moral wrong and not because it’s a same level of moral wrong as abortion.
   But the Catholic hierarchy’s continued resistance to permitting condom use strongly implies that it is the same magnitude of moral wrong as abortion, that one does not overwhelmingly outweigh the other.
   Catholics *do* believe there is such a thing as a just war, despite the fact that killing is morally wrong, as a rule. You can kill people to prevent a great moral evil — but you can’t use birth control, even though they call abortion a great moral evil. That means that *either* they don’t really think abortion is that great an evil, *or* that the evil of contraception is almost as great.
   the divide within pro-life organizations between condoms
   Are you saying that there are prominent PRM organizations (not just individuals) who believe in *promoting* condom use, not just tolerating it? All the ones I know of are quite consistently opposed to easy access to condoms (e.g. for minors) and to explicit, thorough sex education.

6. I think that there are a couple more catagories of people who self-aggrandize themselves as pro-life. Some are the frankly sin-of-pride types who get their jollies by feeling more moral than everyone else. They don’t think about abortion or women or children: too busy getting their rocks off by emoting.
   There’s a fairly large group of people who call themselves “pro-life” because it sounds good but, if the issue is discussed, actually are pro-choice under many circumstances and do not want abortion to be outlawed entirely.
   Of your list of atrocities: there’s a Repubican in South Carolina ( I think) who wants the word “victim” to be removmed from laws concerning rape, stalking and domestic violence and replaced with “accuser.”
   That way a woman could not seek an abortion as a rape victim until after the rapist was convicted. Of course she might have the kid byt then.
   Lastly abortion is, in my opinion, the deliverate distruction of a child. The one thing all humans agree on is that it is Ok to kill other people. I think that we should not kill people who have consciousness and can feel pain and fear and I am not concerned about kiling those who have no brain and no capacity for fear or pain.. Most so-called prolifers have no problem kiling conscious people under a wide range of circumstances including unnecessary wars and as collateral damage of a death penalty. I’ll take my morals as superior to theirs any day.

7. I wouldn’t put too much weight on Catholic “moral wrongs”. Some Catholic theology tends to be rather disconnected from scripture.
   The word “purgatory”, for instance, doesn’t make an appearance in the Bible.

8. Correction: not everyone thinks its OK to kill other people but the true pro-lifers who don’t distroy others is a tiny, tiny minority. Before a “pro-lifer” gets to claim mnoral superiority for not destroying children seems to me that they must be absolutley opposed to destroying children who can scream in pain or cower in fear or cry. Somehow the suffering of chldren who have a capacity to feel is frequently justifiable to individuals who wish to protect fertilized eggs or half inch long fetuses that have no wherewithal yet for cognition.
   The problem with talking about abortion is that the conversation so quickly gets polarized by self-aggrandizing claims of moral superiority like the use of the term “pro-life”.
   If we started out by agreeing that it is sometimes necessary to kill a person and then discussed when and why I think abortion would end up being one of the least controversial areas of discussion since the termination of a fertilized egge is nothing compared to the tragedy of the death of a child burned alive in Dresden or Nagasaki or who died of napalm burns or died for lack of medicine in Palestine or got caught in the crossfire in Bahgdad or…
   Just think how inconvenient it would be to actually care about the lives of innocent children. It’s so much easier to pretend moral superiority by defending fetuses!

9. The bishop clearly believes that the woman should have died together with her unborn baby, and that the hospital had no moral right to interfere. Given that, I’m not sure why he believes in Catholic hospitals; all they do is cure people that God clearly intended to be sick.

10. Ben W,
    Yes! Forced birth legislation does marginally affect teenage abortion rates! Sheer ‘effing genius, those Heritage guys!
    But explain this: Teen abortion rates (per thousand) are now about the same as in 1972, and abortion, though restricted in some places and some ways, is for the most part legal.
    Something else has much greater explanatory power for the marked decline in this rate since the late 80’s.* The fact that some ideologically driven political scientist at the Heritage Foundation has not tried, in any intellectually serious way, to find it is hardly surprising.
    *Like, for example, the 20% + drop in teen pregnancy rates over that same period.

11. wonkie:
    I really don’t agree with you. I think it’s clear that we (our society) have, in general, come to agree that human persons are found *only* in living human brains. A living human body that is “brain dead” is still entirely human and almost entirely alive — but the person is gone. For the religious, the *soul* is gone — and this is pretty much in line with what Aquinas and Augustine said. And that’s why we accept things like heart transplants: because the *person* is not in the heart.
    Since the vast majority of abortions occur before the fetus has a functioning human brain, they do not kill a human person. No brain, no person. Again, this is in line with Aquinas, among others.
    So I would say no, abortions do *not* normally kill babies, nor people, nor human persons. No functioning brain, no person.
    The situation for very late-term abortions is different, but they are extremely rare and usually involve either an imminent threat to the life of the mother (or the other twin), a fetus that will never have a functioning brain, or both.

12. I googled “safe, legal, and rare,” and the only suggestion I found from an abortion opponent for a way to make abortion rare was to make abortion illegal. I don’t know whether the authors of all of the pages I looked at fell into Dr. Science’s category C, but it does seem like finding practical ways to reduce the number of abortions was not high on their list of priorities.

13. I think that people could debate about when a fertilized egg becomes a person and defend all sorts of positions:at conception, at quickening, at viability…I don’t really see how a definitive answer can be arrived at. Its the kind of question that I think doesn’t necesarily have an answer.
    But I don’t really feel like debating that with so-called pro-lifers. I feel like debating the false claim of being ‘pro-life” because of the false claim of being the defender of the lives of children. If “pro-life” folks want to claim that fetuses are children and deserve protection , then I think they should exlain whether or not they are willing to extend that protection to children that aren’t fetuses any more. Either that or admit that they actually believe that it is OK to destroy children sometimes, explain what their real moral values actually are, and get over the pretense of being more pro-life than other people.
    I’ve got a pet peeve about the term “pro-life.” Moral questions about the taking of life are hard. It’s a get-your-moral-superiority-free pass for people to claim to be “pro-life” without thinking very seriously and carefully about their attitude toward the born.
    And as your list of Repulican legislative atrocities attests, so-called prolifers sometimes don’t respect the lives of women.

14. Good point about human life ending with brain death. Brain activity begins about 70 days after conception, though we must then ask at what point it is human brain activity. Still, one would think that those first 70 days should be not at all controversial.
    Aristotle thought the baby was ensouled when it first experienced laughter, which he thought was 72 days after birth (90 days is actually more accurate.) A culture with that belief could a child in the wilds to die, as the Spartans did when they viewed a child as not vital enough.
    I saw Abby Hoffman during the Yippy-Yuppy debates, and he said his views on abortion were shaped by his religion, the Jewish mother not actually considering the fetus a “person” until it was out of graduate school.

15. From your first link:

    In fact, Olmsted said he had “recently learned that many other violations . . . have been taking place at” facilities operated by Catholic Healthcare West, which owns St. Joseph’s, including the provision of birth-control pills and other forms of contraception, sterilizations and abortions “due to the mental or physical health of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.”

    It’s a bit much to think that a hospital can do sterilizations and continue to call itself Catholic. From that bit, it’s clear that this is about an institution that liked the association with the Catholic Church far more than it liked the actual policies of the Catholic Church that it would have to follow to maintain that association. Its association was dishonest and the bishop was right to terminate.
    And let’s be clear about what the penalty is. Priests won’t come over and do liturgies in the chapel and they won’t store consecrated hosts on site. Oh the injustice!

16. “Pro-life” groups are willing to say that abortion is murder, that pro-choice advocates are baby-killers, that Roe v. Wade is like the Holocaust … .
    If you do mean it, you have a moral imperative to promote contraception.

    Uh, if you really believe that Roe v. Wade is like the Holocaust, I think you have a “moral imperative” to do more than prevent the creation of more Jews.

17. A factor in (Roman) Catholic positions on abortion is the Augustinian doctrine that unbaptized fetuses go to hell too*. Although the decisions of the 2nd Vatican Council are usually interpreted as dropping that, many traditional Catholics don’t accept that decision. The behaviour of the late JP2 has been seen by many critics as giving at least tacit approval to the old belief. Anecdotal evidence** has it that Catholic hospitals displayed a note stating that in case of birth complications the emphasis would be on baptising the child not the ‘worldly’ life of the mother.
    Official statements often require advanced courses in applied sophistry to interpret (imo still better than what comes from the more radical fundamentalist ‘pro-lifers’ that make a rabies vaccination look like a wise precaution before dealing with)
    *Martin Luther also believed in that but I know of no mainstream protestant authority still insisting.
    **George Simenon (iirc) wrote about it. He and his pregnant wife instantly fled from the premises and their first child was born in a less ‘good catholic’ hospital a few hours later.

18. I keep hearing these complaints that “forcible rape” is some kind of redundancy. Has nobody heard of “statutory” rape? Rape by deception? Rape by women changing their minds afterwards?
    I would expect that the focus on forcible rape was because if force was used, you can be reasonably sure that an actual rape really did take place.
    Now, me, I’m all in favor of contraception, and only oppose third trimester abortions, but I routinely get lumped in with the loons who think a fertilized egg is a person.
    I suppose it’s because I don’t stop at opposing third trimester abortions, I actually want mechanisms in place to stop them. Whereas most pro-choicers will say that they oppose third trimester abortions, but draw the line at having any enforcement mechanism.

19. If a man gives a four-year-old sleeping pills with her “consent” and then rapes her, and doesn’t hit the four-old or tie her down, do you stand athwart history shouting “Stop! This was not rape by force?”
    Welcome to U.S. criminal law, where force is not a logical prerequisite for rape.Please know that your tone quotes are inappropriately contemptuous-sounding.

20. Martin Luther also believed in that but I know of no mainstream protestant authority still insisting.

    Here‘s what WELS has to say on the subject:

    Please allow me to share one of the major principles that we follow in our faith-life: if the Bible is silent on a particular subject, we resolve not to manufacture an answer and offer it as God’s Word. Although it may be frustrating, we sometimes do not have an answer that satisfies our interest or curiosity because God has chosen not to reveal sufficient information on a particular subject.
    This is what we know. The Bible clearly teaches that ALL people, from conception on, are sinful and have inherited guilt in addition to a sinful nature that rebels against God. By nature we all stand under God’s judgment. The Bible also teaches that only God with his divine love and power is able to rescue us from that horrible situation of alienation from him. He provided a Savior or Rescuer from sin and guilt, namely, his Son Jesus Christ. And he gives us the gift of faith (trust, reliance) in Jesus that personally receives the blessings Jesus earned for us. The Bible also tells us God chooses to create and maintain saving faith in Jesus through the gospel (good news) that he brings to us in the Bible and Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is an instrument that God uses to give people (including infants) spiritual life to replace spiritual death.
    But what if an infant for some reason dies without being baptized? The Bible doesn’t provide an explicit, direct answer to that question.
    We are aware of the child’s sinful nature, and that might make us pessimistic about the child’s future. We also are aware of God’s love for that child and his knowledge of the circumstances that prevented baptism. That might make us optimistic. We wouldn’t deny that God could have created saving faith in the child aside from the gospel and baptism. But the bottom line doesn’t change, does it? The Bible does not provide explicit information on this subject nor enable us to give a 100% happy and comforting answer for those who have lost an unbaptized child. We must leave this in God’s hands.

    If tl;dr, then, shorter: we don’t know what happens to an unbaptized child, because the Bible doesn’t say. I suppose you could adapt that explanation to some or all of the fetal stage.

21. Please know that your tone quotes are inappropriately contemptuous-sounding.

    US laws concerning the definition of rape are above reproach, and are always applied justly?
    If not, this comment mystifies, somewhat.

22. wonkie:

    I think that people could debate about when a fertilized egg becomes a person and defend all sorts of positions:at conception, at quickening, at viability…I don’t really see how a definitive answer can be arrived at. Its the kind of question that I think doesn’t necesarily have an answer.

    I’m arguing that it *does* have a legal and moral answer, in our society, and that is “brain life”. PLMers who say that personhood begins at conception are making an argument that doesn’t hold up, and which in fact other evidence shows they don’t believe.
    Very much like their claim, as you point out, to be “pro-life”. There’s a reason I put “pro-life” in quotes in my post — if they were all seamless garment types who were as strongly anti-war, anti-death penalty and pro-universal health care as they are anti-abortion, I would take them more seriously.

23. Brett:
    I think that what Julian meant was that “forcible rape” does *not* include, e.g., raping someone who is unconscious.
    When you say:

    I would expect that the focus on forcible rape was because if force was used, you can be reasonably sure that an actual rape really did take place

    — be aware that you’re saying that the “you” who gets to decide is by definition not the person who was raped. Those of us who object to the “forcible rape” standard are saying, yes, that *what the woman says, goes*. Especially given that abortion is *extremely* time-sensitive — requiring rape victims to legally prove they were raped means, in effect, that they never qualify for abortions. The rule “runs out the clock”.

24. Brett:
    You say you “oppose third trimester abortions” — but they’re already pretty much illegal in the US. However, I strongly recommend that you read It’s So Personal, the collection of stories about late-term abortion decisions that Andrew Sullivan collected after Dr. Tiller’s assassination.
    Very late abortions are the *most* necessary, because they happen only in cases of medical catastrophe, where something has already gone terribly wrong.
    For instance, I know someone who had a so-called “partial birth abortion” — because she was carrying twins and one of the them started dying. I’m not certain that the aborted twin was 100% completely dead when they got it out, but the doctors really didn’t have time for a lot of tests if they were going to keep the healthy twin from dying, too.
    The upshot was that we ended up with a dead baby, a healthy mom and a healthy, full-term baby, instead of 2 or even 3 dead people. Do you *still* object?

25. already pretty much illegal in the US

    Not-quite-OT: what Dr. Kermit Gosnell did has him up for eight counts of murder, last I saw.
    Worthy of noting, I think. There are laws in place to keep the slope from becoming frictionless.

26. I am forced to conclude that [pro-life political groups] don’t really truly believe that abortion is murder, much less genocide — unless they think that contraception is *worse*, which not even the Catholic Church has been willing to come out and clearly say.
    I think the abortion issue in the US gets a lot of its staying power from the plurality of people in group ‘A’ above, who tend to get squeamish and vague about legal issues – certainly including making abortion legally tantamount to murder; they are just ‘against abortion’. They’re viscero-reflexively repelled by it, and it’s a short circuit: abortion! = vote Republican. That’s why the GOP gins up the issue relentlessly. I’ve said it before: the pols on the GOP side pray that the abortion issue is *never* settled – it’s electoral gravy for them. If I were an angry intemperate Liberal, I’d call it ‘pimping fetuses’.
    OT: May I just note here the absurdity of calling the church of Augustine, et. al. – a church based on the ‘fallen’ and polluted nature of life on earth, and BTW signally obsessed with the mortification of the body – a ‘culture of life’? I’m not trying to bait any Catholics here, just gagging on the irony.

27. Completely OT, but funny, IMO:
    It’s best if you don’t get your moral compass completely bollixed up.

28. So I would say no, abortions do *not* normally kill babies, nor people, nor human persons. No functioning brain, no person.
    So, if it could be established that there was a functioning brain, would your view change?
    There’s a reason I put “pro-life” in quotes in my post — if they were all seamless garment types who were as strongly anti-war, anti-death penalty and pro-universal health care as they are anti-abortion, I would take them more seriously.
    Leaving the extremes off to one side, some wars are justified, there is a qualitative difference between a convicted capital murderer and an unborn child and there are other, valid reasons for opposing universal health care, cost being one (along with a number of subsidiary issues, such as rationing), the notion of ‘universal’ being a bit of a misnomer with waivers and whatnot existing for some but not others and individual mandates. Being opposed to “universal healthcare” is not being pro-death.
    Finally, this post is a substantive argument in favor of abortion on demand for any reason or for no reason. Fine. But what about people who think Roe is bad law and who believe, as you argue here, the issue should be decided on the merits, not by a majority of 9 justices?
    It seems to me that if abortion is an unqualified right, you should just say so. There’s no need to justify the right if it’s there. But, really, there are arguments against abortion as a means of birth control, for convenience, because one sex is preferred over another. You can say, as you do, “no brain, no human”, but it invites the counter: if left undisturbed, the vast majority of fetuses will be born as human beings and that, at some point prior to birth, all of the criteria you use to justify the right to abort come into existence.

29. Has nobody heard of “statutory” rape??
    Like grown men “seducing” 14-year-olds? Sure, make the little minx have the baby. It’ll teach her a valuable lesson.

30. I think the points McKT in the second half of his post at least merit discussion.
    To distill it a bit: those are
    1.Roe’s formal validity as a decision
    2.Questionable reasons for abortions
    3.What value to put on potential humanity
    1.
    On the first point quite some consent can be found between both defenders and opponents that the decision was far from ideal from a formal point of view and many pro people would favorably greet a reversal provided it got replaced by something with a more solid fundament achieving the same essential results even if it included some reasonable restrictions. And imo a significant number of opponents could agree on a compromise along the line some of European countries. That would leave (and expose) the real extremists.
    But in the prevailing atmosphere in the US such a transition would be imo completely impossible. Given the choice only between all or nothing (=total ban) I would vote for the former, although I have strong reservations.
    2.McKT names actually two real reasons for abortions that are in essence culturally imposed on the woman. Maybe not in the US but in some other countries selective abortion based on the sex of the fetus has become a real problem and that these countries try to stop it by legal means has imo a certain degree of moral legitimacy (as long as there are also attempts to get rid of the factors that cause it). It can backfire though. In India many girls get murdered as infants and that is clearly even worse than an early abortion of the same.
    Abortion as contraception is imo these days almost completely the result of legal or ‘moral’ restrictions of the use of contraceptives. It has been mentioned above already: if contraception = abortion = murder then the ‘natural’ choice is to go with the option one has to take least often (a few abortions are better than constant contraception).
    I know that ‘convenience’ abortions do occur and I find them simply abhorrent but I think they are such a small part of the pie that it is better to tolerate the few of those than to cause much more harm by making justifiable difficult or impossible to obtain.
    3.
    I think here we come to the point where even the most reasonable people can disagree and so I’ll keep my two cents on that.

31. I definitely dashed off my post too quickly because I was rushing to leave for work, so I am sorry for being unclear. The tone quote usage I objected to was “statutory rape” because I felt Brett was implying that statutory rape doesn’t count as real rape. There are probably marginal statutory cases where I would agree with Brett that a rape charge was unjust, given proximity of age and the putative victim testifying that he or she gave consent, but I don’t like putting “statutory rape” in quotes since it conflates those marginal cases with cases such as my hypo, which are clearly abhorrent to us (malum in se, to use something I learned from True Grit).
    I don’t understand why you thought that I meant or said or implied that the US legal definition of rape is beyond reproach. The aspect of US law that I meant to endorse is that force is not a prerequisite for rape. That endorsement is not meant to constitute a blanket endorsement of US legal definitions of rape.
    If I misunderstood your objection, I hope you’ll explain it.

32. McKinney: “But what about people who think Roe is bad law and who believe, as you argue here, the issue should be decided on the merits, not by a majority of 9 justices?”
    Hartmut: “quite some consent can be found between both defenders and opponents that the decision was far from ideal from a formal point of view and many pro people would favorably greet a reversal provided it got replaced by something with a more solid fundament achieving the same essential results even if it included some reasonable restrictions.”
    Let me just say that if we actually had a discussion on the decision of Roe v. Wade, I would argue that it is not only good law, but one of the most well-founded and compassionate decisions I’ve read (and I’ve read many, many). It would be fun to have a discussion about it. Of course, its detractors claim that dividing a pregancy into trimesters and adjusting society’s interests according to those trimesters was a legislative, not judicial, act. But the underlying balance of interests that supported the decision was very much a judicial act. I find the opinion very moving to read.

33. I’ve never understood this debate.
    If abortion is morally equivalent to murder, then abortion should not be permitted even in cases of rape or incest. If abortion is morally equivalent to murder, then I can’t think of any real-world scenario that would justify abortion other than a serious medical threat to the life of the pregnant woman.
    If abortion is not a moral wrong, then abortion should be permitted for any reason at all up to and including “because its Tuesday.” This holds even if abortion is a serious matter- getting a tattoo on your face is a serious decision, but its not a moral decision, so you should be able to get one any time you want for any reason.
    The only way that arguing about the reasons for an abortion matters is if you think there’s at least something wrong with getting an abortion, and you want to compare that wrong with the context that led to the decision.
    For myself, I don’t think abortion is a moral wrong. So… that’s kind of an end to the debate, really. You don’t need to argue about the context in which people do things if those things aren’t moral wrongs.
    Or if you’re using it as a rhetorical hammer. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. How people react to rhetorical hammers can be useful information. For example, a lot of conservatives seem to react by denigrating rape victims. That tells you something about how they think about sex, which can let you draw inferences about their motivations in opposing abortion.

34. there are other, valid reasons for opposing universal health care, cost being one (along with a number of subsidiary issues, such as rationing), the notion of ‘universal’ being a bit of a misnomer with waivers and whatnot existing for some but not others and individual mandates.
    But those are not moral arguments, which is the area in which the Catholic Church claims special expertise and in which the “culture of life” claims are always framed. Hardly anyone particularly cares what the Vatican thinks of the economic ramifications of the ACA and its possible alternatives, and it’s not something they feel compelled to comment on. (Similarly, their thoughts on just war theory don’t lead them to consider whether, e.g., having an air force as a separate service branch is right or wrong. Not every detail of implementation carries moral weight.)

35. sapient, I would not disagree with the result or intention of Roe but I know a number of people with legal background that think that the conclusion was reached the wrong way and that there would have been far better and less ‘attackable’ foundations available.
    Not being a legal expert even at home, I cannot really judge that.
    It has a long tradition in the US though to base longlasting precedent (good or bad) on bad initial reasoning.

36. “I know a number of people with legal background that think that the conclusion was reached the wrong way and that there would have been far better and less ‘attackable’ foundations available.”
    I know that these people exist, and they are people I respect, but I respectfully disagree with them. Unfortunately, their views are so pervasive in the discussion that they are taken as gospel by well-informed people such as you, Hartmut, who decline to form an independent view on the basis that YANAL.

37. .For example, a lot of conservatives seem to react by denigrating rape victims.
    Patrick, I picked this out of your comment because it is unnecessary and has high potential for digression. Any useful discussion on Roe or abortion has to exclude the extremes on both sides. In fact, this is probably a useful limit on any worthwhile discussion: ignore the extremes and get to the merits. I am not on board with most of the rest of your well presented comment, but don’t have time for the thought and analysis needed to make a solid response.
    Hogan, I agree my arguments are not moral arguments. They were expressly non-moral in the sense that I was pointing out to Dr. S, who was arguing a moral comparison, that opposition to universal healthcare does not have, in every instance, a moral component. As opposed to war and the death penalty, that is.
    Hartmut/Sapient–exactly, some think it’s good law, others disagree, others go the next step and say it’s for the states to decide. I am in the latter camp.
    Unfortunately, I have a schedule for the next two weeks that makes meaningful participation in this thread impossible. I may drop in from time to time, but please don’t take my non-response as rudeness. I really am jammed, slammed and underwater.

38. If I misunderstood your objection, I hope you’ll explain it.

    I see now that you were only objecting to what you imagined to be Brett’s objection to a legal definition for statutory rape.
    I don’t see Brett objecting to statutory rape so much as using statutory rape as a counter-move to the notion that “forcible rape” is redundant; IOW he is granting standing to the idea of statutory rape, not denying standing. I also saw that Brett was also raising some objections to nonspecific situations where rape may be charged that aren’t really rape. I might be indulging in some mindreading, there, but that’s how I read Brett.
    I hope that clarifies some. If not, I can give it another go.

39. Of course, since McKinney isn’t around to explain his comment that “exactly, some think it’s good law, others disagree, others go the next step and say it’s for the states to decide. I am in the latter camp,” and since he’s probably the only one here who would argue for that position, it won’t be any fun to engage in such an argument.
    But just to throw it out there, I’m not sure why the states should have been left to decide whether a woman has a Fourteenth Amendment constitutional right (whether it be a privacy or liberty interest, or both) to make decisions about her own medical care. The scope of the Fourteenth Amendment seems like a federal Constitutional issue to me.

40. wonkie:
    Of your list of atrocities: there’s a Repubican in South Carolina ( I think) who wants the word “victim” to be removmed from laws concerning rape, stalking and domestic violence and replaced with “accuser.”
    It was a state legislator from Georgia, and I think it’s the most blatant indication that the real argument isn’t about abortion.
    Patrick:
    I’ve never understood this debate.
    That’s because it isn’t a debate. It’s a subjugation. It’s separating women from rights they’d have if they were men. Seriously, a receiver of a rape cannot be called a victim until the man who is accused is convicted? If the wrong guy is tried, hasn’t she still been attacked?
    If the very first post in this thread is concerned about parsing contraceptives vs. abortifacients, then we’re already in big trouble here.

41. Is there situation analogous to abortion where the state intervenes to require a person, upon pain of punishment, to risk life and limb to save the life of another?
    I mean, carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth is not without real risk to the the mother, and even if everything goes according to plan it is not a pleasant experience even for those who want to do so(indeed, it is decidedly painful and unpleasant).
    So, is there anything akin to this in western society (let’s say) outside of requiring a pregnant woman to give birth via criminalizing abortion in some manner?

42. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
    I’ve been told that once you begin administering CPR to someone, you have to continue until a legal authority (not sure whom, maybe an emergency worker) declares the victim dead or until recovery. I don’t see anything to that effect in the WP article, any EMTs or first responders who know the specifics? Not sure if the duty to continue CPR overrides your personal safety concerns, I would assume not.

43. Perhaps all women have a duty to host in vitro embryos in their uteri, under the duty to rescue theory. Maybe we should let the states decide.

44. Julian – thanks, though as the WP article notes there doesn’t appear to be a duty place oneself in significant peril to rescue others nor does there appear to be a duty to rescue that lasts, e.g., many months.

45. ’tis pity McKinney Texas won’t be around, but I’ll address some of his points anyway.
    if left undisturbed, the vast majority of fetuses will be born as human beings
    This is absolutely 100% false. “If left undisturbed” all fetuses, without exception, will die. They *must* be actively sustained to live and grow — the woman’s body is not a mere passive container.

46. I also wonder whether forcing a woman to carry a child to term should be considered “involuntary servitude” under the 13th Amendment.

47. I’ve been told that once you begin administering CPR to someone, you have to continue until a legal authority (not sure whom, maybe an emergency worker) declares the victim dead or until recovery.
    Having recently taken a Red Cross CPR class, this is not quite right. You’re under no obligation to start or continue CPR if doing so places you in danger.

48. This is absolutely 100% false. “If left undisturbed” all fetuses, without exception, will die. They *must* be actively sustained to live and grow — the woman’s body is not a mere passive container.
    If anything this position is highlighted by the way that US culture focuses on policing pregnant women’s behavior with regard to cigarettes, alcohol, food choice, pre-natal vitamins, etc.
    Ugh is on to something there

49. @Patrick: If abortion is morally equivalent to murder, then abortion should not be permitted even in cases of rape or incest. If abortion is morally equivalent to murder, then I can’t think of any real-world scenario that would justify abortion other than a serious medical threat to the life of the pregnant woman.
    I actually come at this from a slightly different (albeit closely related) angle.
    IF you believe that life begins at conception (which is why abortion is murder), and
    if your church routinely performs funeral services when a member of the congregation dies (which I believe is usual),
    do you then hold a funeral service whenever a woman in your congregation has a miscarriage? And if not (which is virtually always the case), what is your rationale for not doing so?
    Somehow, I rarely get an answer to that question.

50. If life begins at conception, the architect slaughters a lot of innocents: around 80% of conceptions either don’t implant in the uterus or miscarry within a few weeks.

51. do you then hold a funeral service whenever a woman in your congregation has a miscarriage? And if not (which is virtually always the case), what is your rationale for not doing so?
    Somehow, I rarely get an answer to that question.
    Well, yes, because it’s a bullshit question. After all, why should you really be surprised if someone is inconsistent in this manner? We all are. This is why Wittgenstein rejected general definitions; they’re a toy of philosophers (a person is defined as having attributes a-g, etc.) but have little to do with the way we live, speak and conceive of the world.

52. “I might be indulging in some mindreading, there, but that’s how I read Brett.””
    Yeah, that’s pretty much my point. There’s been a lot of verbiage in the last couple of days, to exactly the effect that “forcible rape” is redundant, and I think that’s nonsense. That doesn’t mean that all, or even most, rapes which aren’t “forcible” aren’t really rape. “Forcible” has a meaning, and it’s possible to do horrible things to people without employing force. It’s also possible for an act to be legally rape without anything AT ALL being morally wrong about it.
    It’s also, regrettably, and quite contrary to the claims of some feminists, quite possible for a woman to lie about whether she was raped, and who did it, which is why, no matter who convenient some might find it, we can’t dispense with the presumption of innocence in the case of this one crime.
    “If abortion is morally equivalent to murder, then abortion should not be permitted even in cases of rape or incest.”
    And the law in question didn’t have anything at all to do with “permitting” abortion, just whether it would be funded by the taxpayers. Those aren’t the same thing, and most rights are understood to exist even without the government writing somebody a check.
    “Not-quite-OT: what Dr. Kermit Gosnell did has him up for eight counts of murder, last I saw.
    Worthy of noting, I think. There are laws in place to keep the slope from becoming frictionless.”
    And no lack of people determined to keep those laws from working, and grease the slope, which is why those eight counts represent just a tiny, recent fraction of Gosnell’s killings over the years: There were people who knew what he was doing, and meant to keep him doing it. Let’s not pretend otherwise, he wasn’t hiding under a stone.
    And quite likely there are other Gosnells out there, not hiding, but benefiting from pro-choicers who don’t support late term abortion of viable infants, but who don’t, you know, want anything done to stop them, either.

53. why should you really be surprised if someone is inconsistent in this manner?
    Actually, I’m not surprised. But that’s because my experience tells me that the overwhelming majority of those who claim a religious basis for opposing all abortions don’t really believe their own arguments.
    They don’t believe life begins at conception. But they do believe that sex, specifically sex outside wedlock, should be punished. Preferably by a forced marriage. But being a single girl trying to bring up a child alone at least provides a horrible example to deter others. But since admitting that you don’t care much about the baby, just punishing the mother, would lose support, better to go with a false (but more supportable) argument.
    That is also why they oppose both contraceptives and sex education. Too much information might undermine the case for punishing sex. Which is what’s really important to them.

54. Brett:
    The problem with the “forcible rape” stipulation isn’t that it’s *redundant*, it’s that it’s *restrictive*. “Forcible rape” means that only a rape where the woman fights back — enough to satisfy prosecutors or a jury — actually counts. You can read some harrowing examples of this old legal standard at Sady Doyle’s.

55. McKinney Texas wrote:
    “Patrick, I picked this out of your comment because it is unnecessary and has high potential for digression. Any useful discussion on Roe or abortion has to exclude the extremes on both sides. In fact, this is probably a useful limit on any worthwhile discussion: ignore the extremes and get to the merits.”
    I’m sorry, McKinney, but you don’t get to make that pronouncement. Already in this thread we have had one person characterize women as changing their mind after sex and then accusing their partner of rape. And the whole conversation was kicked off by someone who attempted to pass a law driving a wedge between rape they consider to be more serious or more victimizing than other rape.
    So suck it up, I guess. I understand that you don’t wish to be associated with those people. But the proper method of distancing yourself from them is to actually distance yourself from them- not to cry social faux pas when liberals discuss or address people you wish liberals would ignore.

56. Brett: “It’s also, regrettably, and quite contrary to the claims of some feminists, quite possible for a woman to lie about whether she was raped, and who did it, which is why, no matter who convenient some might find it, we can’t dispense with the presumption of innocence in the case of this one crime.”
    I agree that it’s difficult to convict someone of rape when the only evidence is testimony of an alleged victim. But Doctor Science’s post wasn’t about the standard of proof for convicting a defendant. It was about a woman’s right to obtain an abortion if she’s been raped. First of all, a woman shouldn’t have to prove “rape” in order to obtain an abortion. But certainly if there’s a law against her being able to obtain an abortion except in the case of rape or incest, she shouldn’t have to do more than testify to the rape in order to obtain the abortion. Her testimony could then be one item of evidence in any potential conviction of the rapist.

57. “It’s also possible for an act to be legally rape without anything AT ALL being morally wrong about it. ”
    I don’t understand this sentence. Are you saying that rape can be a moral act?

58. “It’s also possible for an act to be legally rape without anything AT ALL being morally wrong about it. ”
    I don’t understand this sentence. Are you saying that rape can be a moral act?
    Brett can of course answer for himself. But as I understand it, if the age of consent is 18, and an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old have sex, and there is no exemption for people who are close in age, then even if the people involved, or you or I, believed it was consensual, legally there has been a rape.
    But has there been any moral wrong? It depends on the circumstances, of course, but as for me, in most cases I doubt it.

59. Well, if abortion is the ‘murder’ of a ‘person’, then….
    women who commission an abortion should get life in prison or capital punishment….
    as pointed out above, all miscarriages should result in a funeral……
    all fertilized embryos at fertility clinics should be implanted and carried to term. Perhaps we need to institute a draft…..
    all uterine implantations should be monitored with alarms to insure prompt attention in the event of possible miscarriage…..
    fetuses should be issued a SSN, fingerprinted, and be subjected to background checks to insure they are not terrorists…..
    all sex should be subject to obtaining a permit to insure if said proposed act is intended to propagate the species or not…..
    drinking or drug taking during pregnancy should result in prosecution and prison time……
    males who engage in sex leading to unanticipated conception should be charged as accessories or co-conspirators in the event of an abortion……
    the right of all fetuses to bear firearms shall not be abridged….
    But mostly, it is simply tragic to see a bunch of guys declaiming on the rights of women who face this terrible decision. I mean really…what if the shoe was on the other foot? I don’t see a lot of empathy here. To me it’s simply this:
    WHO GETS TO DECIDE?
    And the answer is equally obvious: THE WOMAN.

60. Thanks Jamie. I didn’t think of statutory rape.

61. Ah, Abortion On The Internet! The time when a bunch of men get together and decide what women should be permitted to do with their bodies.
    It’s also, regrettably, and quite contrary to the claims of some feminists, quite possible for a woman to lie about whether she was raped,
    Yeah, it’s estimated that less than 10% of rape accusations turn out to be false IIRC. Rape is actually the most underreported crime out there. I find, generally speaking, that people who are hung up on false rape accusations — and make no mistake, you bring it up every single time that rape or abortion are the topic of discussion, and I can prove it — have some other axe to grind. What it is, I can only speculate.
    and who did it, which is why, no matter who convenient some might find it, we can’t dispense with the presumption of innocence in the case of this one crime.
    Nobody is talking about doing any such thing.

62. “Yeah, it’s estimated that less than 10% of rape accusations turn out to be false IIRC. Rape is actually the most underreported crime out there.”
    It’s quite possible, you know, for rape to be both under reported AND over reported, in the sense that a lot of real rapes go unreported, and a fair number of unreal rapes get reported. What’s the rate for false accusations of armed robbery? Assault?
    “Nobody is talking about doing any such thing.”
    Oh, really? Perhaps you don’t listen to feminists much, or just don’t reason through the import of what they’re saying.

63. and a fair number of unreal rapes get reported.
    Except that’s not true, and the statistics bear it out.
    What’s the rate for false accusations of armed robbery? Assault?
    Beats the shit out of me! You brought it up, you tell me.
    Why are you so hung up on false rape accusations, Brett?

64. Some congregations perform funerals (or a similar ceremony) in cases of miscarriage if the mother desires it. I have heard that it is a common practice in Japan (non-Christian). Maybe lj has something to say about that. My memory is a bit fuzzy there but I think I have also heard of beliefs that the spirit of a child that was miscarried/aborted/etc. will try again and again until it’s finally born properly. This kind of belief takes a lot of ‘guilt’ away from the process.
    —
    I have no statistics but false claims of assault seem to be a constant nuisance for police forces, especially if a political motive has to be suspected. Over here the most notorious cases are those of people cutting themselves in swastika shape and claiming that they have been attacked by nazi skinheads. What’s especially perfidious there is that there are lots of real attacks but the few false claims make it easy to ignore them if convenient.
    —-
    sapient, I have not made a claim of merit about the Roe decision. I just stated that people I consider as informed and reasonable have their doubts.
    I may state that I personally do not like the system of precedent based law at all (for the same reason that I loathe the ‘tradition’ system of the RCC). Precedent (or falsly assumed precedent as in ‘Corporations are people’) is imo far too open to abuse.

65. Oh, really? Perhaps you don’t listen to feminists much, or just don’t reason through the import of what they’re saying.
    I am a loss to connect the linked piece to any attempt to dispense with the presumption of innocence. Can you please explain what you’re talking about?

66. See, Brett, here’s how I know you have a larger bone to pick: You aren’t applying your usual . . . rigor? OK, let’s go with “rigor,” to the topic at hand.
    1. For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate to the FBI’s estimate that 8% of forcible rape charges turn out to be unfounded. My reply to that is, “So what?”
    If I were to tell you that — again, for the sake of argument — 8% of all firearms in circulation were eventually used in the commission of a violent crime, or that 8% of all legal CCW holders would commit a violent crime, your reply would almost certainly be a dismissive “So what?” As rightly it should.
    It means that 92% of all forcible rape reports are real. Ninety-two percent! That’s close to statistical certainty that any given case is a real one. And we’re talking here about a crime that even you concede is underreported, so the probability is probably even higher, since we can both conclude that an unreported case is a real case.
    2. The reasons why rapes are underreported are the very reasons that make false reports vanishingly unlikely. Women who report being raped, in addition to the physical and mental trauma of the rape itself, are going to be subjected to humiliating medical examinations, subjected to humiliating and skeptical questioning by police investigators, and are going to be examined, second-guessed and slut-shamed by attorneys and media, up to and including both tacit and open insinuations practically asked for the crime to be committed.
    The number of women who would willingly put themselves through that when it didn’t happen is so small as to be ignorable.
    So the fact that, as soon as rape or abortion is mentioned, you jump straight to “WHAT ABOUT TEH FALSE ACCUSATIONS?!?!” indicates that something else is going on. If I were speculating, I’d get into the intersection of so-called libertarianism with the “men’s rights” movement, but I’m not going to speculate.
    erhaps you don’t listen to feminists much, or just don’t reason through the import of what they’re saying.
    I’d venture to guess that I know a hell of a lot more feminists than you do. I sure don’t know any who believe in the elimination of the presumption of innocence for rape or any other crime. Nor does the WaPo article you link to advocate any such thing, and to say that it does is a simple and easily disprovable lie.

67. I wouldn’t put too much weight on Catholic “moral wrongs”. Some Catholic theology tends to be rather disconnected from scripture.
    And reality, for that matter. IMVHO, and with no disrespect intended toward practicing Catholics.
    More to the point, the fact that some subset of the population objects to a practice on religious grounds is not a sufficient reason to make it unavailable to everybody else.
    No ham for you! No coffee! No charging interest for loans! Try some of those on and see how it works out.
    As I read it, Roe is about the best job of walking a tightrope between the various positions on abortion that could be imagined. It’s probably about as good as we’re going to get.
    This argument will never end.

68. Abortion is a question of dueling rights. The rights of a woman vs. the rights of a zygote/embryo/fetus. I don’t believe that a zygote (note: that’s the first 4 days) has the full rights of a human being and, therefore, the woman’s rights trump. Ditto for an embryo (note: 4 days to 8 weeks).
    However, I believe a full-term fetus (38+ weeks) has the right to life, trumping the woman’s right to kill it. The question, for me, is when, exactly, the developing fetus acquires enough rights to block the woman’s right to have it killed. For me, based on the above, somewhere between 8 and 38 weeks (during which time a LOT happens).
    Honestly, I’m not exactly sure where to draw that line. “Viability” has problems, because it’s a fuzzy line that moves with technology. IIUC, some states use 24 weeks, which looks like an effort at hitting that mark (though I would hope there is a carveout for the rare instances when the mother’s health is in grave danger b/c of the pregnancy – hell, even if you think abortion is murder, there’s a thing called justifiable homicide). It’s better than banning abortion outright. It’s also better, IMO, than allowing abortion-on-demand all the way up to full-term (health of the woman immediately trumps all objections and thus a “late term” abortion justified by health risk to the woman is always gonna be ok by me).
    The thing is… I’m still very uncomfortable with the idea of even partial bans (i.e. no abortion after X weeks except in XYZ circumstances). Who am I to say? The above is my rough cut at the right answer, but damn it’s rough. So on that basis I’m going to dictate to someone else? Ugh. I am also very leary of the motivations of the “pro-life” movement, for reasons that have been adequately expressed above.

69. These arguments were invalid in 1861, and still are in 2011:
    If you think slavery is wrong, then don’t own one.
    If you think abortion is wrong, then don’t have one.
    It’s my property and my choice what I do with it.
    It’s my body and my choice what I do with it.
    The government shouldn’t interfere with a state’s rights.
    The government shouldn’t interfere with a woman’s rights.
    If the slaves were free, they couldn’t take care of themselves.
    If abortion were stopped, there would be unwanted children.
    It’s all right to sleep with them, but they are not equal.
    It’s all right to use their organs and tissue, but they are not people.
    People will own slaves anyway, so we should just regulate the trade.
    People will have abortions anyway, so we should just make them hygienic.
    They sing, they weep, they pray, but do they have souls?
    They have heartbeats, brainwaves, distinct genetic codes, but are they human?

70. Abortion and slavery are not even close to being the same.
    In order to argue it, you have to actually believe that an adult human being and a zygote are morally the same, which is ridiculous. One is a person. The other is a potential person. At times, it’s: a) a clump of cells; b) a tadpole; c) a recognizeably human baby with brainwaves and such.
    The people who were slaves existed and would exist whether or not anybody owned them. Their forebears did, in fact, back in Africa before people came and took them by force. The arguments about how they couldn’t take care of themselves were obvious falsehoods when they were written. The people who owned them did not suffer any added pain, health risks, or any other harm by owning them. On the contrary, slave ownership was benificial (when the economics worked, particularly after the invention of the cotton gin) to the owners, who enriched themselves by stealing the labor of other people.
    Conversely, pregnancy is no picnic. There are serious health risks, there is a good deal of pain, etc. A pregnant woman is the sole support for a developing zygote/embryo/fetus. Without her, it dies, end of story. Now consider an unwanted pregnancy. The woman does not consent to support the zygote/embryo/fetus. You propose to force her? On what basis?

71. Abortion is a question of dueling rights. The rights of a woman vs. the rights of a zygote/embryo/fetus. … The question, for me, is when, exactly, the developing fetus acquires enough rights to block the woman’s right to have it killed.
    I used to think of abortion in those terms but I don’t think it’s quite the right frame. It would be if we were talking about two individuals capable of surviving apart from one another, but we’re not.
    As such, we’re not just talking about blocking a woman’s right to have the fetus killed, but also forcing the woman to continue to carry the fetus to term and undergo childbirth. It is this latter situation that I was asking for an analogy to above. If abortions were banned at 24 weeks, that four full months of unwanted pregnancy followed by childbirth (natural or c-section).
    I think that’s untenable and, indeed, unconstitutional for numerous reasons. Indeed, if we imposed four months of pregnancy followed by childbirth as punishment for a crime I think it would easily fall within the bar of cruel and unusual punishment and, indeed, would amount to torture.
    How do we then justify imposing such a burden on someone who has committed no crime?

72. Ugh,
    Yeah, I got to that in my response to MKS’s slavery comparison. You’re right about that, and it changes the calculus.
    Which, in the end, is why I come back down to what I said in the final paragraph of my first post (who am I?).

73. If abortions were banned at 24 weeks, that four full months of unwanted pregnancy followed by childbirth (natural or c-section).
    I don’t know that this invalidates Rob’s framing. It seems to me that this only leads to an argument for a different number. Then again (thinking as I type), once you get to a certain point, the answer is not an abortion, but a live birth of some sort, on-demand, unless there is some reason that an abortion is significantly safer for the woman.
    I guess I’d put it this way – if a woman wants to end a pregnancy and it’s possible to do so reasonably safely without the fetus dying in the process, there’s no need for an abortion.
    I’m very, very, very open to a counter argument based on significanly lower risks of later-term abortions relative to live births. I just don’t know how much safer an abortion is that late in the pregnancy than a birth, or if there’s a way to address the problems of child birth with the emphasis on the safety of the woman rather than the fetus such that it allows for the possibility of live birth at much lower risk to the woman, but much higher risk to the fetus, than would a typical birth where the primary goal is to deliver a living infant.

74. I invite you-all to look at “John Rambo”‘s comment as a specimen. The text is C&Ped from the cited blog; “John Rambo” is in fact an MBA from north-east India.

75. I assumed Rambo was either trolling or attempting performance art. I was leaning toward the former, and thus chose to ignore. DNFTT.

76. Rambo’s offering reminded me of this, which I’ve seen in a number of versions over the years.
    Or in other words, I don’t see that American men are any better (or worse) than American women. As if you could usefully generalize in the first place.
    Other than the entertainment value, I agree that there’s no Rambo substance worth responding to.
    *****
    Meanwhile, back on topic, this discussion reminded me of a couple of Crooked Timber threads from a year or so ago. Just in case anyone is interested.

77. hairshirthedonist:
    significanly lower risks of later-term abortions relative to live births.
    *Of course* abortions are much lower-risk. Think about it: my first labor was 5 hours and that was considered “getting off easy”, even though it was the most work and the most pain of *my life*. Not to mention details like very significant “normal” blood loss (which I happen to recover from quite slowly), and becoming so exhausted that the midwives were getting ready to transfer me to the hospital next door, and [redacted for TMI].
    The average first labor is more like 12 hours, and I know someone who was in labor for *3 days*. There’s at least a 1/3 chance of a C-section, which is major surgery.
    At every stage of pregnancy, abortion is *always* less risky.
    a typical birth where the primary goal is to deliver a living infant
    Absolutely untrue. The primary goal of an uncomplicated labor is to have *both* parties alive and healthy. If you absolutely have to make a choice — which is exceedingly rare these days, but was a fact of obstetric life in all earlier eras — saving the *woman’s* life is the primary goal. Not least because the chances of the baby dying anyway have always been significant, so if you (the doctor/midwife) prioritize saving the woman, you’re much more likely to have *someone* alive for your efforts two months from now, when the bills come due.

78. Building off what DS just said…
    Hell, I know someone who was in labor for *5* days (she was dead set on “natural” childbirth and only caved when the docs drew a line in the sand). Labor is no freaking joke.
    Of my group of close friends, a slight majority of births have been C-sections. Not because anybody *wanted* them, but because they were medically the right call for various reasons. Placenta problems, breech position, amniotic sac leaking at 34 weeks (my wife), the aforementioned 5-day labor (she wasn’t dilating properly)… stuff like that. And that’s a bunch of healthy, well-cared for folks.

79. I just realized that “John Rambo” is very likely doing search-engine optimization spam — the blog owner has outsourced the spamming to India, I figure — so I’m deleting him with prejudice.

80. My comment was based on admitted ignorance about the risks of late-term abortions, not a belief that pregnancy and child birth are somehow “easy.” I have witnessed three live births, one vaginal (induced early) and two by C-section, and lived with my wife throughout all three of her pregnacies and subsequent recoveries from child birth. All three pregnancies and births had complications, thus the inducement and C-sections.
    What I lack any experience with or significant knowledge of is late-term abortion. As I wrote, I was very, very, very open to counter argument, and because I trust Doc Sci, I will take her word on the relative risks of late-term (post-viability) abortion v. live birth. But the details regarding child birth in the comments from Doc Sci and Rob regard the wrong side of the question for me.

81. Russell:
    “This argument will never end.”
    Show me a single argument in American history that has ended. Meanwhile, the internet and other media in this culture have as their marketing life’s blood the unending nature of all argument. It’s a type of American masturbation, which of course does nothing to lessen either rape, abortion, or arguing.
    We are arguably permanently aroused argumentatively. If we weren’t, some large percentage of the GDP would disappear.
    It’s like George Carlin’s complaint about whichever Commandment warns against coveting thy neighbor’s goods — well, goodbye American economy.
    Meanwhile, this guy should move to the U.S. and get elected as a Republican to the House of Representatives — he meets all the requirements:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8301100/Court-bans-man-with-low-IQ-from-having-sex.html
    I especially like the stipulation that the fellow’s sexual activity be closely supervised except when he’s alone in his bedroom.
    Rambo and David Vitter take note.

82. From here (quick googling – don’t know if there’s an agenda, and emphasis mine): http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
    The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16–20 weeks—and one per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks.[13]
    Footnote:
    13. Bartlett LA et al., Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2004, 103(4):729–737.
    And from here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/ns/health-pregnancy/
    The U.S. maternal mortality rate rose to 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2004, according to statistics released this week by the National Center for Health Statistics.
    1 in 11,000 works out to about 9 in 100,000. That’s a difference of 4 in 100,000. That’s only a measure of mortality, not other health risks, but it’s fairly close in absolute terms. I’m not sure how to weigh those numbers in deciding what to think about late-term abortions, in a very general way. Individual cases with specific, known risks to the woman would be a different story, of course, making these stats moot.

83. russell: “As I read it, Roe is about the best job of walking a tightrope between the various positions on abortion that could be imagined. It’s probably about as good as we’re going to get.”
    This is absolutely true. And Blackmun walked the tightrope so brilliantly and with such intellectual attention and honesty that Roe v. Wade is an inspired piece of writing. It’s also instructive to read not only Blackmun’s opinion, but the other justices (especially since we have such easy access to many of the historical underpinnings of the law via the Internet) to learn about some of the attitudes that existed at the time and beforehand.

84. The more I think about it, though, the more I think the law is too ill-suited in real-world applications to make meaningful distinctions about such relative risks, so it should be left out of individual decisions on late-term abortion v. (attempted) live birth, regardless of what I’m coming to think are purely academic questions of relative risks and their moral implications.
    (I hope everyone is enjoying my real-time, on-line equivocation.)

85. (I hope everyone is enjoying my real-time, on-line equivocation.)
    Let me know when you run out of other hands; I have a couple I’m not using.

86. Hmmm…musing further out loud, I think that the most reasonable conclusion is that abortion should be available, on demand, to any pregnant woman until she is no longer pregnant.
    I think that follows from the view that (i) the forced continuance of a pregnancy is akin to, if not the same as, involuntary servitude; and (ii) forced childbirth, and probably in many ways forced pregnancy, is torture. The state, not being in a position to constitutionally inflict torture or impose involuntary servitude (absent conviction for a crime) on anyone, at least in the United States, therefore can’t criminalize abortion.
    Thoughts anyone?

87. HSH —
    Thanks for looking up the stats. It’s also important to know that late-term abortions almost always involve a pregnancy that has turned to high (or catastrophic) risk, where the chances of the baby getting out alive have already plummeted.

88. I should note that I don’t mean to suggest that there aren’t other equally compelling reasons why the state shouldn’t be able to criminalize abortion.

89. “I think that follows from the view that (i) the forced continuance of a pregnancy is akin to, if not the same as, involuntary servitude; and (ii) forced childbirth, and probably in many ways forced pregnancy, is torture. The state, not being in a position to constitutionally inflict torture or impose involuntary servitude (absent conviction for a crime) on anyone, at least in the United States, therefore can’t criminalize abortion.”
    As with other things that are defined as killing someone (self defense, accidental death, etc.)we have defined abortion as a justifiable act. I am fine with that. Pretty much all of the other subtlety (anti torture, involuntary servitude) seems too much of stretch to me, and unnecessary.
    I find myself wanting to scream at the the screen sometimes that I am both anti-abortion and pro-choice and I find nothing inconsistent in that view.
    I also find it consistent with my view that in the absence of a compelling reason the government shouldn’t be the arbiter of personal moral decisions. Abortion, drugs, euthenasia, etc.
    I also don’t think teaching contraception to fifth graders is a brilliant idea unless the parent has decided that fifth grader is mature enough to have the right kind of conversation about the subject.
    I also think that having a discussion about the common sense of abstinence along with any contraception discussion should be mandatory.
    But then I think you should try everything to prevent unwanted prenancy in teenagers and we should, as a society, take a much dimmer view of adults that don’t take proper precautions and resort to abortions of convenience. Much like we take a dim view of those of us who still smoke.
    We should do all those things.

90. It’s also important to know that late-term abortions almost always involve a pregnancy that has turned to high (or catastrophic) risk, where the chances of the baby getting out alive have already plummeted.
    Point well taken.

91. Ugh,
    I follow the logic, but that does leave the fetus out of the equation entirely.
    It’s one thing to hold the rights of a woman to be greater than those of a fetus (I do). It’s another, I think, to accord the fetus no rights whatsoever.
    So no, I don’t think that’s the right answer. But as always, I’m not sure about it and have no desire to use the law to enforce my version of the right answer.

92. “But as always, I’m not sure about it and have no desire to use the law to enforce my version of the right answer.” Fortunately, Rob in CT, your views accord with Roe v. Wade, as to most people’s.

93. Yes. There is the moral debate and there is the legal debate. There is substantial overlap, but they’re not the same thing. One can wrestle with the morality of abortion but ultimately conclude the the law is a clumsy thing to wield here.

94. I follow the logic, but that does leave the fetus out of the equation entirely.It’s one thing to hold the rights of a woman to be greater than those of a fetus (I do). It’s another, I think, to accord the fetus no rights whatsoever.
    Yeah, I came up against this when I started to re-read Roe v. Wade.
    Sort of thinking out loud here (and not really arguing with you RinCT), but between a pregnant woman and the fetus there is no question that the woman is entitled to the full panopoly of rights accorded by the Constitution (let’s just limit this discussion to the U.S.), which no one sane involved in the debate would deny. The same cannot be said of the fetus.
    The issue the Court wrestles with in Roe is: when is the fetus sufficiently developed such that it has not only some sort of legal rights but those rights are sufficiently strong to justify the state criminalizing abortion to protect the fetus and visiting the result upon the pregnant woman. And we get the balance it struck almost 40 years ago.
    What the Court doesn’t wrestle with (or if it does I didn’t get that far upon re-reading) is that the remedy states have crafted to vindicate the rights of the fetus is itself unconstitutional as applied to the pregnant woman who wishes to end her pregnancy, IMHO. And that remedy subjects the woman to involuntary servitude and cruel and unusual punishment in violation of her undeniable Constitutional rights, as I mention above.
    And just as we do not subject Person A to involuntary servitude or cruel and unusual punishment to save the life of Person B (and certainly not without Person A having been convicted of a crime), why are we doing so in the case of a woman who wishes to end her pregnancy?

95. (pardon me for skipping ahead, if this has already been responded to)
    Hartmut: “On the first point quite some consent can be found between both defenders and opponents that the decision was far from ideal from a formal point of view ”
    (assuming that ‘consent’ means ‘consensus’)
    I have *never* seen this. Anybody who I’ve ever seen express this has gone on to oppose abortion.

96. What I really like about this post is that it unpacks what abortion is from the abstract moral arguments that come with it (even though that’s what the comment thread devolved into). So much of it seriously revolves around sexist attitudes about sex. The forcible rape thing is a perfect example of that because it’s so obvious. The fact that some pro-life people make rape exceptions in general is telling, but the “forcible rape” thing certainly speaks to the “she probably deserved it” crowd. The demonizing of women that engage in sex is so much more prevalent in this conversation than anyone wants to admit. The muddled position the american people have about abortion derives way more from this sexism way than it does from the idea that abortion kills a child. Hell, it’s hard to even find pro-lifers that take the idea of the latter to it’s logical conclusion.

97. The “abortion is just like slavery because they’re both denials of personhood, and that’s why we should ban abortion” argument is stupid and anyone who uses it is stupid.
    Allow me to defend.
    Note that I am going to leave aside low hanging fruit, like the fact that slavery didn’t deny slaves personhood. That’s a modern rewriting of history. Slaves were considered people (who could be married, have their souls saved, etc), they were just considered to be black.
    So, lets try an analogous argument and see what happens:
    Eating cows is just like slavery, because slavery denied slaves personhood, and eating beef denies cows personhood. And that’s why we shouldn’t eat beef.
    Lets assume that the defender of the “abortion is like slavery” argument would disagree with the cow argument. There are probably at least a few exceptions out there, but lets go with it to see where it takes us.
    In order to agree with the abortion argument, but not the cow argument, you would need some reason why one holds and the other is false.
    But if you leave aside minor difficulties like the history being wrong, they’re precisely analogous in every way except that one deals with blastocysts and one deals with bovines.
    The only difference you can draw between the two would be to argue that blastocysts are totally different from bovines, and specifically, that they are different in such a way that cows do not have personhood and blastocysts do.
    But if you can provide that, and demonstrate that blastocysts have personhood, then you don’t need the slavery analogy to make your point. In fact, the slavery argument does NO WORK WHATSOEVER in advancing your conclusion because you must first prove your conclusion before the slavery argument works.
    The slavery argument is just an attempt at using a bit of rhetoric to make your opponent’s feel bad, associate them with something bad, and hopefully get them to shut up. So when people use it, just point out that if they actually believe its a good argument then they’re idiots, and if they don’t believe its a good argument then they should shut up and stop arguing dishonestly.

98. “The demonizing of women that engage in sex is so much more prevalent in this conversation than anyone wants to admit. ”
    It would be interesting, Console, for you to provide examples of that. Under Roe v. Wade, no one has to prove anything in order to obtain an abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. It’s just that people realize that, during the third trimester, a fetus can feel pain, and has developed to the point that if good medical care is provided, it can emerge as a human. I don’t see anyone here who is in favor of punishing women who have sex (although certainly the “pro-life” movement includes such people).

99. I have heard that it is a common practice in Japan (non-Christian). Maybe lj has something to say about that.
    Indeed I do! From my reading and third hand experience, abortion in Japan is safe, available, and illegal. Wikipedia says that it is ‘de facto legal‘ while this journal article has “In Japan, the artificial abortion is a penal offence; only in the presence of certain conditions it is authorized under the provision of the Eugenic Protection Law which was promulgated in 1948.”
    Here is another article about abortion that gives a tour of the situation.
    The reason for the strange situation is because both abortion and contraception are not reimbursed by National Health, so abortion is a way for doctors to get earn income that, if not reported, is tax-free. There is also a strong lobby that is against oral contraceptives. These are sort of interlocking conditions that function to avoid making abortion a hot-button issue here.
    About funerals, Buddhist temples often conduct funerals for the fetus (look up Mizuko kuyo in Wikipedia, as I think I am at my limit of links) William LaFleur’s Liquid Life: Abortion and Buddhism in Japan, gives an overview of the ritual and its history and suggests that it is an appropriate ceremony, while Hardacre’s Marketing the Menancing Fetus in Japan argues that it is a way of exploiting women by threatening them with the retribution of the soul of the fetus. There’s a lot more involved (upswing of new religions, relationship of temples to their parishoners, the syncretic nature of Japanese religious beliefs), but I hope that gives you some starting points.

100. Ugh and Sapient have convinced me to sit down at some point in the not-to-distant future and actually read Roe v. Wade.
     Patrick, I think by now it’s clear that “MKS” was just doing a drive-by cut ‘n paste.

101. Highly pertinent post by Ta-Nehisi Coates:

     It’s been some time since I read “What Hath God Wrought,” but my recollection is that in the mid-19th century men actually lived longer than women. As a society, the Western world has obviously made significant strides in reducing maternal deaths. (In Afghanistan some 1,800 women die every year per 100,000 births.) This is excellent news. But it can not obscure perhaps the most specific and nameable species of male privilege–of all the things that may one day kill me, pregnancy is not among them.
     This is the era of internet intellectuals, mostly dudes, who excel at analogizing easily accessible facts to buttress their points. It’s a good skill to have, and one I employ myself. But it isn’t wisdom. Like most people, I have deep problems with the termination of life–and that is what I believe abortion to be. Still a decade ago, I learned that those problems were abstract, and could not stand against something as tangible and imposing as death.
     My embrace of a pro-choice stance is not built on analogizing Rick Santorum with Hitler. It is not built on what the pro-life movement is “like.” It’s built on set of disturbing and inelidable truths: My son is the joy of my life. But the work of ushering him into this world nearly killed his mother. The literalism of that last point can not be escaped.

102. Hah. Beaten to it. I was just about to post that, matt.

103. To finish off the TNC post mattt quotes above:

     Every day women choose to do the hard labor of a difficult pregnancy. Its courageous work, which inspires in me a degree of admiration exceeded only by my horror at the notion of the state turning that courage, that hard labor, into a mandate. Women die performing that labor in smaller numbers as we advance, but they die all the same. Men do not. That is a privilege.

104. But it can not obscure perhaps the most specific and nameable species of male privilege–of all the things that may one day kill me, pregnancy is not among them.

     Interesting. With pregnancy-related death rates at about 14.5 per 100k live births, the number of women that die each year from this is in the hundreds.
     Prostate cancer kills ~30k people (all men, I’d guess) per year. Breast cancer kills ~40k people (mostly women; again: guessing) per year.
     I’m not saying there’s no extra hazard, there, but risk of dying is noise-level compared with other ways of dying. And of course not trying to take anything away from the other taxing aspects of carrying a child inside your body. But “of all the things that may kill me one day, prostate cancer is not one of them” isn’t something I hear women say particularly frequently, or at all. Nor do I hear (thankfully) men sighing with relief that their risk of breast cancer is minimal compared with that of women. That whole conversation sounds entirely too much like “thank God it’s not me” for my taste.
     But TNC might have had some other flavor in mind when he wrote that.

105. What the TNC post reminds me of is a story I heard a couple of years ago on the radio about previously “pro-life” women, some pretty radically so, who, when faced with their own problematic pregnancies, came to realize what kind of decision it was that they were trying to make for other women. The abstraction of their previous opposition to (legal) abortion appeared trivial in light of the very real issues they had come to face.
     Something somewhat related to that, which I’ve been thinking about, is that society can function quite well with legal abortion. Those of us who have been born already have little, if anything, to fear from legal abortion, or, more precisely, the legality of abortion. But with abortion outlawed, many women, on any given day, would face some very real and grim prospects because of the illegality of abortion. I don’t see much of a case for that not representing societal dysfunction.
     That’s not to say that overly high (let’s assume we can agree on a definition for that) abortion rates couldn’t also represent societal dysfunction. But I think that sort of dysfunction could be best addressed in ways other than outlawing abortion, and would stem from factors other than the simple legality of abortion, as I think is evidenced in Doc Sci’s post.

106. With pregnancy-related death rates at about 14.5 per 100k live births, the number of women that die each year from this is in the hundreds.
     That could change for the worse were abortion further restricted. And what percentage of women are pregnant in any given year, as opposed to the percentage with breast tissue, or the percentage of men with prostates?

107. Surprisingly, the per-100k death rate for prostate cancer for men comes in right around 20. Breast cancer comes in around 28.

108. I’m not sure I believe any of what I’ve said above; I could be working with faulty numbers, or I could have made a math error. Feel free to work it out yourselves.
     I thought HSH had made a telling point, there, at 1:37 PM, and it is an excellently made point, but the way the math works out, it’s not as telling as it first appeared.

109. Slarti: True, but at least men don’t have people telling them that prostate cancer is the fulfillment of God’s plan, their highest destiny and a requirement for the species. (Well, I don’t, anyway, and I hope you don’t either.)
     sapient:
     Under Roe v. Wade, no one has to prove anything in order to obtain an abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy.
     Many states have waiting periods and counseling requirements intended to prove that a woman seeking an abortion has heard every possible argument for not having an abortion. Some states have spousal notification requirements, although it’s not clear whether those are constitutional. Some states have recently considered laws mandating that a woman seeking an abortion have a mandatory ultrasound (whether it’s medically necessary or not), apparently to prove that they have considered this decision the way legislators want it considered. Again, those haven’t been tested in federal court, but very few restrictions and conditions for even pre-third trimester abortions have been struck down since Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

110. Marty:
     I am both anti-abortion and pro-choice and I find nothing inconsistent in that view.
     I do, because I don’t know what you mean by “anti-abortion”.
     I mean, I’m anti- “someone waking up in an icewater bath, missing a kidney”, but that doesn’t make me anti-kidney transplants. How can you be anti- a particular medical procedure? One that on occasion saves lives?
     I also don’t think teaching contraception to fifth graders is a brilliant idea unless the parent has decided that fifth grader is mature enough to have the right kind of conversation about the subject.
     My experience as a parent is that 5th-graders these days do in fact need to know that contraception exists, what general types are available, and who to talk to about it, because a non-trivial number of the girls are past menarche.
     They *certainly* IMHO need to know that most of the adults of their acquaintance use contraception and consider it a crucial part of an adult relationship, which they’re not ready for yet.
     I also think that having a discussion about the common sense of abstinence along with any contraception discussion should be mandatory.
     The way it’s usually done in the US, I have to disagree — but I’ll put that in another post, I think.

111. Hogan, my comments referred to the decision of Roe v. Wade itself, not the subsequent chipping away at it.
     Roe held (and Blackmun reaffirmed his own view) that during the first trimester the only parties involved in an abortion decision should be a woman and her physician; during the second trimester, a state can intrude only to the extent that would institutionally assist in providing for the health of the mother (in other words, requiring licensed facilities, etc.); and in the third trimester, the state has an interest protecting a viable fetus, but that interest never overrides the life or health of the mother.
     I don’t consider the kinds of obstacles you mention as being consistent with Roe v. Wade, although of course you’re right that some have been upheld. Still, women don’t have to prove anything in order to obtain an abortion during the first two trimesters, even if they do have to put up with humiliating b.s. (The fact that poor women have to come up with money to pay for the procedure is, of course, an injustice.)

112. True, but at least men don’t have people telling them that prostate cancer is the fulfillment of God’s plan, their highest destiny and a requirement for the species.

     Good point.
     There are some people that say things like that, but they are, blessedly, a relatively very small portion of the population.

113. “I do, because I don’t know what you mean by “anti-abortion”.”
     Really? You have no idea? Or you just don’t know to what extent I am anti-abortion? What exactly is your question?
     Well, I think that abortion is the taking of a life. So, I am against it. That means that there are few reasons I think it is a good idea. There are some(life of the mother, rape). None of them include the convenience of an adult woman who had consentual sex.
     All that aside, I am still supportive of the individuals right to make that choice. I just don’t have to agree with it.

     My experience as a parent is that 5th-graders these days do in fact need to know that contraception exists, what general types are available, and who to talk to about it, because a non-trivial number of the girls are past menarche.
     They *certainly* IMHO need to know that most of the adults of their acquaintance use contraception and consider it a crucial part of an adult relationship, which they’re not ready for yet.

     I don’t disagree with this, I disagree that it is the place of anyone outside the parents to make the decision that a particular fifth (fourth/sixth) grader was ready for that discussion. Sorry, if that wasn’t clear.

114. I disagree that it is the place of anyone outside the parents to make the decision that a particular fifth (fourth/sixth) grader was ready for that discussion.
     Why should we believe that parents are particularly skilled at getting such questions right? I mean, when the parents screw up teaching their kids about birth control, we all suffer.
     And what exactly is the problem with children learning about sex-ed before they’re “ready”? Seriously, I don’t understand why this is a problem. Can someone explain?
     For example, we don’t generally give parents the ability to decide when their kids learn about the Holocaust. It seems to me that learning about the Holocaust is much, much more traumatic than learning about sex ed….

115. “Why should we believe that parents are particularly skilled at getting such questions right? I mean, when the parents screw up teaching their kids about birth control, we all suffer.”
     Sorry if you suffer. But the question always amazes me, particularly in this context.
     I mean, why should we believe that the woman, who is the very best person to decide whether this child should be born or not, is capable of assessing the emotional maturity of said child to determine a good time to have this discussion?
     No, we should leave that to the government to decide.
     Along with whether they should have a toy in the McDonalds Happy Meal.

116. Sorry if you suffer. But the question always amazes me, particularly in this context.
     The point is not my suffering. The point is that a lot of parents are bad parents and fail to teach their children sex ed. As a result, their children suffer, and cost society a lot of money, which I have to help pay for. I don’t want to have to care that children learn sex ed, but I do because parents in this country keep failing in their jobs.
     I would expect a conservative, of all people, to appreciate the problems of incompetent people failing to do their jobs properly and saddling the rest of us with their problems.
     I mean, why should we believe that the woman, who is the very best person to decide whether this child should be born or not, is capable of assessing the emotional maturity of said child to determine a good time to have this discussion?
     Again, please explain to me, what is the specific problem with teaching children sex ed too early? This is the second time I’ve had to ask. Will I have to ask several more times or will two times do the trick?
     No, we should leave that to the government to decide.
     I’m confused. Are you saying that children should not be taught any emotionally significant material without their parents’ written consent? Do you really think that history class shouldn’t cover war or crime or the civil rights movement or the existence of other religions than Christianity?

117. So, having re-read most of Roe (I skipped the historical discussion of abortion), including the dissent, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey’s syllabus, confirms to me my view above that none of justices in those two cases fully grappled with the effect of fully criminalizing abortion.
     They all seem to adopt the balancing test of Roe, where the woman has some rights and the fetus has some rights, and differ when and under what standard the state may intervene. Under the Roe majority, the right of a pregnant woman to end her pregnancy is “fundamental” and a state cannot interfere with that right until its interest becomes sufficiently “compelling,” which is after the first trimester for such things as licensing the doctors who terminate a pregnancy, and after the second trimester for purposes of criminalizing abortion altogether (except in cases for life/health of the mother). Casey allows certain conditions/restrictions so long as they do not constitute an “undue burden” (whatever that means).
     Under the dissent’s view in both Roe and Casey (I think), the right to end a pregnancy is part of the liberty interest generally protected by the 14th amendment but not a “fundamental” right. As such, a state can intervene to circumscribe the interest so long as it has a rational basis for doing so. Since protecting the fetus is such a basis, criminalizing abortion at all stages of pregnancy is permissible (perhaps with a constitutional requirement to have an exception to protect the life of the pregnant woman).
     This kind of balancing of individual vs. state interests with respect to citizens and their rights, fundamental or otherwise, may make a certain sort of sense in most cases, where allowing a state to curtail, say, first amendment rights in the presence of a compelling state interest affects those rights and those rights alone.
     I would submit (to the extent anyone cares), however, that’s not the case with criminalizing abortion. The justices seem to think that the only considerations are the 14th amendment due process rights of the woman and the ability of the state to circumscribe those rights by intervening on behalf of the fetus, and that’s it. But that analysis fails to consider what position a decision permitting states to wholly criminalize abortion leaves the pregnant woman.
     As I say above, such a decision subjects the woman to involuntary servitude, in violation of the 13th amendment because it has not been imposed as punishment for a crime for which she has been duly convicted. Further, forced pregnancy and childbirth is akin to torture and thus unconstitutional if inflicted by the state.
     If that’s the case, then abortion bans fail even under the Roe/Casey dissents’ rational basis standard, because the method by which a state effects the ban is itself unconstitutional. That is, the state’s interest cannot be constitutionally vindicated and thus it is without a remedy.
     Further, I don’t such a view leaves room for a state to impose things like waiting periods, spousal notifications, parental consent, songram viewings, etc., as the same unconstitutional conditions are being imposed.
     I mean, maybe I’m wrong about this and there are other situations where the state can constitutionally force involuntary servitude* and torture upon someone, but I can’t think of any.
     *There is the draft, which has been upheld as not violating the 13th Amendment’s involuntary servitude bar, but that seems hard to square with the text and don’t have time to review the SCOTUS decision upholding the draft (tho’ I imagine the reasining is that its an “ok” constitutional violation because of a compelling state interest, or maybe that banning the draft is not what the drafters of the 13th A. had in mind despite its language sort of thing).
     Anyway, sorry for the long comment.

118. No, we should leave that to the government to decide.
     You mean our elected representatives, be they federal, state or local? To decide what gets taught in public schools? And, as Turb already asked, not in so many words, what’s so special about sex ed as opposed to all the other potentially gross, upsetting, weird, icky, uncomfortable, or disturbing stuff we have to teach our kids for them to get a worthwhile education?

119. ” And, as Turb already asked, not in so many words, what’s so special about sex ed as opposed to all the other potentially gross, upsetting, weird, icky, uncomfortable, or disturbing stuff we have to teach our kids for them to get a worthwhile education?”
     It’s different than history, or even the biology of sex. Use of condoms is not a trigonometry class. Sex education is different. It is not gross, upsetting, or icky or disturbing. It should be personal, and intimate and sensitive.
     It should not be something we should have labs on at school.

120. And what exactly is the problem with children learning about sex-ed before they’re “ready”?

     What’s the problem with parents being the arbiter of what materials their children are exposed to? Why should a child’s parents have to justify their preferences to others?
     I do think there’s an age where a child should possess some minimum knowledge of sex, notably conception and contraception. I’m completely open to a discussion about what that age should be.

121. It should not be something we should have labs on at school.
     Why not?
     And, just to be clear, are you now saying that you oppose all sex-ed in schools? Before it seemed like you objected to schools deciding what age to start sex-ed, but now it seems that you’re opposed to sex-ed even for high school seniors. Is that right?

122. Well Turb, I think that the biology of sex is appropriate at some age of course. Sex education is aa pretty broad term so I would say that some level of sex education in high school would be appropriate, but I am not sure that mandatory sex education(without parental consent to curriculum) is necessary.

123. What’s the problem with parents being the arbiter of what materials their children are exposed to?
     Parents find it difficult to talk to their children about sex. It is psychologically hard for them. As a result, they tend not to do it. Either at all, or at least not early enough. In my experience, parents consistently underestimate how much their kids know about sex. They suffer from willful ignorance. And their kids suffer as a result.
     Moreover, we don’t seem to apply this “my kids must be forbidden from learning X!” approach in any other area besides sex-ed, so I’m curious: why the difference? It seems like there’s a belief that teaching children sex-ed before they’re “ready” damages them somehow…how? Is this the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
     Why should a child’s parents have to justify their preferences to others?
     In the general case, parents need to justify their decisions because children are part of society, and society has obligations to children. Children are not property of their parents. That’s why if you refuse to feed your kid, you damn well better justify your “preferences” to others, because society is going to put you in prison.
     In the case of sex-ed, if parents in the US had a good record of teaching their children sex-ed at an appropriate age, I’d have no interest in having schools do it. But they don’t. There are lots of teenagers in this country who believe absurd wrong things because (1) their parents never bothered to talk to them honestly about sex (perhaps their kids were never “ready” for it) and (2) their parents enrolled them in school districts that don’t teach proper sex ed. Ensuring that your kid has age-appropriate sex-ed is part of the job of parents and many many parents fail: they do a bad job as parents. The consequences of their failure are borne by their children and the rest of us taxpayers. I’m sorry, but I don’t want to keep paying for parents’ failures.
     I do think there’s an age where a child should possess some minimum knowledge of sex, notably conception and contraception.
     What are the negative consequences of teaching them sex-ed if they haven’t quite reached that age yet? I’ve asked Marty three times now and he hasn’t been able to answer so maybe you can help.

124. I do think there’s an age where a child should possess some minimum knowledge of sex, notably conception and contraception. I’m completely open to a discussion about what that age should be.
     How about “When they’re old enough to have sex”?

125. ” I’ve asked Marty three times now and he hasn’t been able to answer so maybe you can help.”
     Well, I only count twice but… the answer is that, I BELIEVE, that bad teaching at the wrong age can have bad emotional results. I don’t worry about that as much if they get a bad math teacher in fourth grade, despite the negative impact that has.

126. Yeah, but they’re going to get bad teaching at that age no matter what, from the internet, from friends, from music, from the culture at large.

127. I BELIEVE, that bad teaching at the wrong age can have bad emotional results.
     I’m sorry but I don’t understand. How exactly would that work? Have you ever seen anyone, anywhere who has suffered severe emotional trauma from a sex-ed class?
     It seems like you’re suggesting that sex-ed information is magical in that it can hurt people and I just don’t understand how that could work in the general case.
     I mean, we all have beliefs, but I try not to talk about my beliefs unless I have a rational basis for them.

128. “I mean, we all have beliefs, but I try not to talk about my beliefs unless I have a rational basis for them.”
     ok.
     I do agree with this:

     Ensuring that your kid has age-appropriate sex-ed is part of the job of parents

     I am not sure yhat “many many” is supportable:

     and many many parents fail: they do a bad job as parents.

     and, really, this is my point:

     their parents enrolled them in school districts that don’t teach proper sex ed.

     although probably not the way you meant it.

129. I think that kids are more likely to be traumatized by bad sex ed they get from their parents–the devastating silence being one form of education that teaches a devastating message–sex is too awful/ mysterious/ fascinating to discuss rationally and therefore is relegated to the realm of the not-planned for and not-thought about (though deeply desired).

130. It seems we have two issues mingling here: who gets to decide what kids learn in school, and at what age they should learn those things. Or maybe the question is simply who gets to decide at what age kids should be allowed to learn certain things, assuming that we agree that they should be learning those things at some point.
     The very idea of public schools puts the direct decisions about what kids learn in schools and when in the hands of, broadly speaking, “the government.” Of course, it is a democratic government, and we have some collective input into the decisions it makes. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that no one should ever disagree with any decision the local school board or the state or federal government might make on such matters, sex ed or otherwise, or that, if they do disagree, that they should remain forever silent about it.
     So how do we arrive at appropriate ages for various subjects to be taught? I don’t think it’s by asking all the parents what they think and choosing the highest age suggested among all suggested. I don’t think it’s by teaching each kid whatever each kid’s parents think their kid should learn at whatever age. I think there has to be a good faith effort to make an objective determination that a sufficient number of people can live with.
     Were I to begin an attempt to arrive at the appropriate age for teaching a given subject, I would start with the age at which I would expect the child to be able to grasp the material intellectually. There’s a minimum. After that, depending on the nature of the subject, I’d go with emotional readiness. Beyond that, I don’t know. That might be it.
     As to fifth graders learning about, say, condoms, I guess it would depend on the level of detail. I don’t know what sort of laboratory-based material would have to be presented. I’m not sure what that would ential – maybe anatomically correct mannequins? That might be a bit much. Has anyone heard of such a thing? Are the boys being sent into the bathroom to put condoms on, or what?
     I mean, if it’s just a matter of being told generally what condoms are and how they work, I don’t see the big deal, particularly if there’s already agreement that the biology of sex is appropriate subject matter for fifth graders. So long as you can discuss penises, semen, sperm and vaginas (and micro-organisms that cause STDs), what’s the big deal about saying you put a condom on your penis to block the semen containing the sperm from entering the vagina to prevent preganancy (and block exchanges of micro-organisms to prevent STDs)?

131. Boy, I remember when my wife was preganant. That was something. She couldn’t spell or type.

132. HSH —
     Believe it or not, they use bananas.

133. Doctor Science, you mean they make children roll a condom over a banana? Doesn’t that scar them for life? Do all the children have to get rushed to a psychiatric hospital in an ambulance from the terrible trauma of it all? I mean, some of those children must not be “ready” so I can’t bear to imagine the unspeakable damage that might occur.

134. I ate two bananas today. What are the chances?

135. Turb, don’t forget allergies, to bananas or latex. Dangers abound.

136. But yes, such “lab work” is a high-school thing, not 5th grade.
     I can’t remember where I first heard this point, but there’s some evidence that parents are in fact the *worst* people to teach their children about sex. The reluctance of parents to talk (and children to listen) may not merely reflect parental squeamishness, but a true, instinctive incest taboo. So saying “children should learn about sex from their parents” is the same as saying “children shouldn’t learn much about sex”.
     Yes, intimacy is personal and important. But it’s also very important to know stuff like what your (and the other sex’s) parts are *called* and what they do. One of the standard modern teaching techniques is to go around the room and make the (high school) students say the names of various body parts out loud, to de-sensitize them so that they can talk to a doctor if they have to.

137. It should be personal, and intimate and sensitive.
     Is Marty confusing sex ed with actual sex?

138. How can you be anti- a particular medical procedure? One that on occasion saves lives?
     This is where you lose me. Is abortion really just a medical procedure to you? Or did I miss your analogy.

139. Moreover, we don’t seem to apply this “my kids must be forbidden from learning X!” approach in any other area besides sex-ed, so I’m curious: why the difference? It seems like there’s a belief that teaching children sex-ed before they’re “ready” damages them somehow…how? Is this the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
     There is a highly organized movement that tries to forbid to even talk about a lot of things they do not like at school (evolution is just the tip of the iceberg).
     An important part of the homeschooling ideology* is to keep the children ‘safe’ from knowledge that the parents consider harmful to their souls, minds and bodies (usually in that order). Financial problems (of parents and/or schools) are a distant second.
     —
     Over here there is a nearly 100% overlap of those that claim that sex-ed should be the sole responsibility of parents with those that will under no circumstances teach their own kids about sex. Until rather recently the theory was in pious (Roman Catholic) circles that the priest should explain the biological facts to couples going to marry in the preparatory meeting (there are even f-ing manuals for that**).
     The Bavarian Ministry of Education got its windows broken once a week for some time by a catholic organisation (not officially endorsed by the church) that demanded to cease all sex education in all schools for everyone. For them an ‘individual opt-out’ (not legal either) was not enough. Public Sex-ed had to be denied in general.
     Today it is more a problem for traditional Muslims but the state takes a hard line on that. One could say over here it is actually a crime to keep certain information from children. That does not mean that there is no dispute about appropriate age but that’s another cup of fermented leaves.
     *I exempt here those parents that do homeschooling because there is no acceptable school available. I know of some liberals doing it because the public schools in their area have been taken over by religious and political fundamentalists that even steep so low as to incite other ‘conservative’ children to beat up the offspring of liberals.
     **couldn’t resist the pun

140. I forgot something I wanted to put in the previous post.
     I would also consider myself anti-abortion but pro-choice. This in the sense that any abortion that can be avoided reasonably should be. That means great efforts should be taken to avoid a situation where an abortion becomes a reasonable choice. That does not mean that the primary choice should be taken away from the persons directly involved except in extreme circumstances (e.g. when the woman is provably unable to make an informed choice)

141. What are the negative consequences of teaching them sex-ed if they haven’t quite reached that age yet?

     The negative consequences are “no”. See, the thing about being a parent is that I am responsible for my child, not you. I get to decide; you don’t.
     So it’s not so much me having to explain myself to you; it’s that I am unconvinced by you. That you are unconvinced by me doesn’t matter to me in the least, because it’s my decision. Well, my wife’s, too, but we tend to agree on this point more often than not.

142. As having friends who teach at the high school level, and friends who teach at the elementary school level – 5th graders are having sex. And those are just the ones that make the news.
     They are sneaking to the auditorium to engage in sexual activities up to and including PIV intercourse.
     This is the reality. Your little 11 year old boy or girl could possibly have a friend trying to encourage him/her to engage in something.
     Either the state through the schools can teach them, parents can teach them, friends can teach them, or they can figure it out on their own. Those are the choices. The latter two are bad ones, IMO, for all that I was self-taught (my parents never really had a discussion with me, but didn’t look askew at books I got from the library when I was curious). Which leaves us the first two – and well, anecdotally at least, it seems a lot of parents are failing the responsibility of teaching sex ed appropriately for the realities on the ground.
     Versus the realities in their head, or for what they want their precious little angels to actually be. You can’t make policy as if the normative world is the descriptive world.
     Well you can. It just means the policy is FUBARed.

143. One point that I believe is important (probably because I learned a new word with it) is the observation that an increase in socio-economic development of a group or a nation correlates highly with a drop in the mean age of the onset of menarche.
     This seems to underline DFS’s observation above and it suggests that you have to teach children earlier, whether parents (like me) are happy about it or not. This article notes that the mean age of menarche in the US has dropped from just over 13 to just over 12. While you might argue that is a small change, it corresponds roughly to moving sex education from Junior High School to Elementary school.

144. This sex ed discussion is absolutely amazing to me. I’m flabbergasted. I don’t even know what to say.
     The “birds & the bees” conversation mostly does not happen and if by some minor miracle it does, it’s probably poorly done/received. How do I know this, besides personal experience? Well, the teen pregnancy rate strongly suggests it (though from a historical perspective that’s actually improved dramatically since the 50s. I wonder why? Could it be… contraceptives?)
     I went through sex ed in highschool. I don’t remember what grade… I think 9th. By that point, I “knew” some things about sex. Just enough to be dangerous, IIRC. I guess that stuff I heard on the school bus, read in books/magazines, saw on TV, whatever (pre-HS)… I guess they scarred me for life. Really messed me up!
     FFS, this is ridiculous.

145. …it’s that I am unconvinced by you.
     Unconvinced of what, specifically?

146. The negative consequences are “no”. See, the thing about being a parent is that I am responsible for my child, not you. I get to decide; you don’t.
     Yeah, I know a guy who is offended about his kids learning about subtraction in math class. He won’t have it. He insists that it is “dangerous” to teach them about subtraction until they’re “ready”. When I asked what the danger is, he just says “No, I’m responsible for my child not you and I don’t have to tell you anything”. Subtraction kills apparently. Who knew?
     Slarti, you’re a smart guy, and I hope you realize, as a matter of logic: when you can’t provide a logical justification for your policy preferences, that might indicate that they’re garbage. You don’t have to tell me anything and I don’t have to tell you anything, but you’ve convinced me that you don’t have a rational argument. I don’t see how your irrational treatment of sex-ed serves your kids but hopefully your otherwise a good parent.

147. When I grew up (that is 3 decades ago) sex-ed stretched from elementary school to the end of highschool* (in the latter as part of biology). Iirc it started with the general idea of pregnancy long before it moved toward anatomy. The actual sex act came more or less last. In later years more and more details were added like venereal diseases, contraception, deviant** sexuality. AIDS was a late add-on because at the time it was still relatively new in our parts.
     I think this is a very reasonable approach but as we have seen not long ago this very approach by Obama became the basis for a RW smear campaign of ‘Obama wants to teach our toddlers to have intercourse’.
     Btw, I did not witness a single case of teen pregnancy at the schools I attended and have heard of only one case that happened there before my time (and that girl was in her last year at school, i.e. about 17 years old).
     *I’ll ignore the differences between the German and Anglosaxon/American school system here
     **meant in the neutral sense as deviating from the ‘norm’ without attaching a judgement of merit.

148. There is the moral debate and there is the legal debate. There is substantial overlap, but they’re not the same thing.
     There is also the political/historical debate. It is possible to simultaneously believe that
     1) abortion should not be illegal
     2) Roe v Wade is garbage as Constitutional law
     3) absent Roe v Wade, abortion would have continued to become legal in more and more of the US via legislative action. We would still have a few places today where it is illegal (heck, we have “dry” counties left!). But we would have avoided a lot of the culture wars and the takeover of the Republican Party be the religious right.
     Yes, the last is a counter-factual. But IMHO pretty persuasive nonetheless.

149. Uh, let’s all try to avoid taking potshots at other posters’ parenting skills, plz.

150. I think the religious right would have found something else instead. There ‘needed to be’ culture wars and this topic was just the most convenient. I see the culture wars more like the Southern Strategy, a tool to be used on the way to power.

151. Perhaps someone a lot younger and/or female and/or a parent can update me on something regarding sex-ed.
     When I was in 5th grade (half a century ago, i.e. pre-Roe), one day they kicked all of the boys out of class for an hour or two, and the girls got a film and lesson. Does that still happen? Do the parents have to sign off? Is it, at least in part, sex-ed (i.e. girls get at least a little in school, but boys don’t – at least at that point)?
     Thank you, anyone with current info.

152. wj: It’s hard to remember, but abortion wasn’t even the religious right’s issue until Francis Schaeffer made it so in the 1980s. When Roe v. Wade was decided, most Protestant evangelical organizations either supported it or were indifferent; opposition to abortion was considered a Catholic issue. The notion that Roe caused the rise of the religious right is a kind of founding myth.
     There were several things that sparked the politicization of evangelical Protestants, but one of the main ones seems to have been the revocation of tax exemption for racially-segregated Christian schools. That is, this really was the Southern Strategy in another guise.

153. Unconvinced of what, specifically?

     Unconvinced that I should let others, mostly complete strangers, make my choices for me.

     Yeah, I know a guy who is offended about his kids learning about subtraction in math class.

     Sorry, I don’t believe you.

     Slarti, you’re a smart guy, and I hope you realize, as a matter of logic: when you can’t provide a logical justification for your policy preferences, that might indicate that they’re garbage.

     This cuts both ways, I hope you realize. If you think that your preferences for the education of my children trumps (for example) mine, you’re going to have to prove it to me. Not vice versa, note. I don’t have to convince you that my way of raising my children is better than your ideas of how I should raise my children. I hope you can see the silliness in that kind of scenario.
     Also note: it’s always my prerogative to have a say in this. Always. I have a say in how the public schools form their sex ed programs, and if I don’t care for that, there are other avenues open to me. The same is true of pretty much everyone else, at least in my state. So, even if I had remarkably stodgy views on exposing my kids to the fruit of knowledge of human sexuality, I could pretty much ensure that their education, to the degree I could control it, conformed to those views.
     Similarly, I could constrain their mathematical education, were I somehow mathematically stodgy. They just wouldn’t be able to pass any of the standard tests, and would be unable to enter college until they had, themselves, rectified the omissions in their education. This difficulty with obtaining things like a high school diploma and progressing on to college doesn’t hold with sex education.

154. This difficulty with obtaining things like a high school diploma and progressing on to college doesn’t hold with sex education.
     Well, if one ends up pregnant or with a pregnant girlfriend while still in high school, it can certainly throw some monkey wrenches into the works.

155. Slarti, repeating over and over and over “ROAR! I have the POWER! I decide what information my children are exposed to!” is not advancing the conversation. We know you have the power. No one is questioning that.
     The question is do you have any rational basis for insisting that your children not get age-appropriate sex-ed. So far, you haven’t provided any. As a parent, I’d think that you’d want to make sure you acted rationally for your kids because when parents act irrationally, they tend to screw up and hurt their kids.
     I’m sure you agree that my subtraction-hating friend is not being a good parent: he’s screwing up his kids and making their life harder. And even though he has the authority to do so, that’s not good for anyone. And I think his inability to explain the dangers of learning subtraction are a big warning sign: if you can’t explain your actions, even to yourself, what the heck are you doing?
     So again, no one is questioning your authority to shield your kids from anything. But I’m asking you about the wisdom of doing so in this very specific case. The mere exercise of power does not constitute wisdom.

156. it can certainly throw some monkey wrenches into the works

     I agree.

157. wj, not a direct answer to your question, but I too was in 5th grade half a century ago, in Catholic school no less. One day without warning (I don’t think the parents got any either) they kicked the boys out, but unlike in your experience, they did talk to the boys as well as the girls, just in a different classroom. They sent home a pamphlet — I remember it vividly to this day — “To the Parents of Fifth Graders.”
     I don’t think it was remotely what I would now call sex education. It told us girls that we would be having periods soon and that was about it. You certainly didn’t talk about sex in fifth grade in Catholic school in 1960 or 1961.
     Bottom line, my sex education — from parents, or school, or the world — was for all practical purposes non-existent during my childhood years (to age 18), even setting aside the fact that my own flavor of sexuality was never so much as mentioned in the world I grew up in. A more reticent family than mine I don’t think you could find. My mother, one day when I was about 10 and with discomfort dripping everywhere, asked me if I had heard of periods from other girls. No, I hadn’t. She gave me a book to read. It did mention sexual intercourse, half-explicitly and half obliquely and in passing, and honest to any deity you would like to name, I did not believe it literally for one nanosecond. (Age 10.)
     Later, sex was the initial and explicit trigger for my rebellion from the guilt-ridden puritanical world I grew up in. (Hey, I went to college from 1968-1972. What can I say.)
     I was determined to do better by my kids in relation to sex education, and I tried, but I would much rather have had more help. (My kids were homeschooled. I may get to that later.)
     An early opportunity came when Magic Johnson announced he was HIV-positive. We were rabid basketball fans; even my kids at ages 4 and 5 heard this news. My son sort of fearfully asked if he could get that sickness. My answer led to our first conversation about sex, and to one of the most hilarious and precious conversations we ever had. (Which will remain a private memory.)
     After that I bought Usborne’s How Your Body Works and we looked at it a lot for a couple of years. The surprising and interesting thing to me was that the kids weren’t the slightest bit interested in the pages about sex, what they were obsessed with was babies and pregnancy. I don’t think the explicit mention of sex scarred them for life (to say the least), it just rolled off their backs until later, when they were “ready” for it.
     This is anecdotal, and, especially as the parent of a family that homeschooled, I would like to say something about public policy in relation to sex education among other things. But this is too long already. Maybe later.

158. Slarti, repeating over and over and over “ROAR! I have the POWER! I decide what information my children are exposed to!”

     Not only am I not doing that, but you should be aware that when you’re trying to represent things that I have said, quotation marks should be reserved for actual statements of mine.

     The question is do you have any rational basis for insisting that your children not get age-appropriate sex-ed.

     Oh. That’s the question? I thought the question was:

     And what exactly is the problem with children learning about sex-ed before they’re “ready”? Seriously, I don’t understand why this is a problem. Can someone explain?

     I think I’ve answered that one at length. The problem is: you don’t get to decide; I do.
     Now, if you’re proposing that the current sex ed classes are just not advanced enough, and that you’d really like to have labs that somehow involve legal minors AND teachers without criminal repercussions, then…you know what? You have to convince me. No amount of attempted table-turning that demand that I explain myself is going to work here, I’m afraid.

     insisting that your children not get age-appropriate sex-ed

     Now you’re moving goalposts. I have never once argued that my children not get age-appropriate sex ed. Sorry, but I haven’t.

     The mere exercise of power does not constitute wisdom.

     Thanks for that little gem. The next time I want to be really insulting, I’ll consider using it.

159. “2) Roe v Wade is garbage as Constitutional law”
     wj, if you believe this, I’d like to know why. After all, seven out of the nine justices of the Supreme Court ruled with Blackmun; one justice concurred; only one justice dissented. It’s “garbage”?

160. Sorry – actually there were two dissenters, but 7 justices joined the opinion of Blackmun, although there were more concurrences. That’s what I get for reading the opinion online in a format I’m not accustomed to looking at.

161. when you’re trying to represent things that I have said, quotation marks should be reserved for actual statements of mine.
     My apologies. Obviously, you never said that and I did not mean to imply it was a quote.
     I think I’ve answered that one at length. The problem is: you don’t get to decide; I do.
     You have not answered the question. An answer to the question would be a statement of the form ‘the precise problem that occurs when children take a sex-ed class before their parents think they are “ready” is that the knowledge of sex causes psychological trauma that leads recurrent nightmares…’ or something like that. Your “you don’t get to decide; I do” answer is a good answer for a totally different question, namely ‘Who has the authority to specify how Slarti’s children are educated’.
     Now, if you’re proposing that the current sex ed classes are just not advanced enough, and that you’d really like to have labs that somehow involve legal minors AND teachers without criminal repercussions, then…you know what?
     Slarti, I’m not a child molester. I have no interest in child molesting. I have no interest whatsoever in teachers having sex with children. No one here does. No one. I don’t know what makes you think that people you’ve been talking to for years are actually child molesters or people who want to institute universal child molestation programs in schools, but you are very very wrong.
     Take a look at my first few comments in this thread. Marty objected to schools teaching sex-ed to children, especially before they’re “ready”. I asked him to explain what harm comes from teaching students sex-ed before they’re “ready”. That’s not an advocacy for any change in sex-ed programs at all.
     Thanks for that little gem. The next time I want to be really insulting, I’ll consider using it.
     Why? You’re really good at implying that people are child molesters based on nothing, so I think you’ve got insults covered.

162. So, if someone really does want to have a conversation about when it’s okay to teach kids what about sex, how about it? Maybe if everyone got a bit more specific, we’d find that there’s really not much disagreement.
     This whole lab thing is bizzare, btw. How did we go from high school kids putting condoms on bananas to teachers doing something or other of a criminal nature with minors? C’mon…

163. You have not answered the question.

     I answered the question you originally asked. That you don’t care for the answer, or are otherwise unsatisfied with it, is not really my problem.
     The question of why one wouldn’t want their child to get sex education before they were “ready”, as you put it, is self-answering: because they’re not ready. Your definition of ready and mine might vary, and I’m not going to presume what yours is, or presume that you know and agree with mine, so it’s pointless to answer it any more deeply than I did.

     I don’t know what makes you think that people you’ve been talking to for years are actually child molesters or people who want to institute universal child molestation programs in schools, but you are very very wrong.

     Really? That’s what you got from my comment? That wasn’t what I was saying at all. I was simply pointing a possible why not on the question of sex ed labs in schools. A question you asked, recall.

     This whole lab thing is bizzare, btw

     I agree, but it wasn’t my idea.

     You’re really good at implying that people are child molesters based on nothing, so I think you’ve got insults covered.

     Oh, for Pete’s sake. Really? Verbal retaliation for an imagined slight? This is what you’re doing, here?

164. Okay. So, Slart, what, if anything, about sex do you think it is appropriate to teach, say, fifth graders in public schools?

165. is it really necessary to demonstrate how to put a condom on? some things just seem kind of, well, obvious.
     maybe it’s just me.
     plus, a banana? in many folks’ cases, seems like that could lead to some unrealistic expectations. just saying.
     also – my general impression of sex ed from when I was a kid was that moms and dads were grateful to have a relatively neutral way to bring the whole topic up.
     maybe that was a mass and unjustified foisting of responsibility off onto the public sector, but the sighs of relief were palpable, if not audible.
     next day, the boldest boys asked the boldest girls what they had seen in *their* presentation, and vice versa. the more bashful among us were in awe.

166. Re: the kicking the boys out & talking to the girls… I do vaguely recall that they split us up for at least part of the sex ed class. Some was together, some apart.
     This was in public HS, in CT, in ~1990. I recall being told about the various risks (pregnancy, disease, and emotional issues – as in, basically, sex may mean 1 thing to a person and another to another) and taught how to use a condom (don’t recall how that was illustrated). I remember them telling us about the failure rates of each contraceptive, and which ones offered what protections vs. disease.
     It was pretty good, IMO, though probably too late (freshman year of HS, I was 13-14).

167. Russell,
     It’s pretty important to get it on the right way (instead of inside out) and to make sure there isn’t an air pocket at the tip. Some basic instruction is useful there, I think.

168. Wow, interesting post and comments.
     Not that anyone cares, but since I’m making comments I’ll state that my thinking on abortion is along the lines of Marty’s, anti-abortion (I don’t favor it but view it as a personal decision anyone should be at liberty to make within reasonable constraints imposed by law to protect viable unborn).
     Since Turbulence has raised the notion of psychological trauma related to the sex ed process, I would like to point out that there are very real potentials for such among those who have abortions, as they may have second thoughts or deeper thoughts later in life about what that process was actually about.
     As I read the comments on sex ed, I reflected on a recent conversation I had with my son-in-law regarding his two teen-agers and what he and my daughter have told them. For him this conversation presented no problems or awkwardness since he enters the process while they are all observing the various reproductive activities of the farm animals, horses and cattle, principally. This includes breeding and birthing and presents a good opportunity to address the biological processes and issues from an animal perspective, to point out the difference between animals lacking rational abilities and humans who, although having similar hormonal urges, still have potential to control their instincts. Beyond these observations then he is able to build on the moral and behavioral implications of human sexual actions, including religious teaching related to marriage and family. Most of this happens early enough that discussion of some of the more mechanical aspects of birth control and disease prevention in school is pretty routine.
     The rural life has some benefits.

169. plus, a banana? in many folks’ cases, seems like that could lead to some unrealistic expectations. just saying.
     Maybe a carrot?
     Father O’Donnell’s anatomy class:
     “Mary Margaret Quinn, what organ of the human body grows to eight times its normal size when aroused?”
     “Oh, Father, I can’t answer that! Not in front of the lads!”
     “Very well. Jimmy O’Casey, what organ of the human body grows to eight times its normal size when aroused?”
     “‘Tis the pupil of the eye, Father.”
     “Very good, Jimmy. Mary Margaret, I’ve got three things to tell you. The first is you’ve got a lot to learn about anatomy. The second is you’ve got a filthy mind. And the third is you’re in for a life of bitter disappointment.”

170. Pedophilia and sex education? Interesting topics. Anybody have any reliable stats on the incidence of pedophila among the general population? Among public school teachers (maybe this would come in the form of incidence of complaints among public vs private school teachers)? The stats I have were privately developed by an institutional client. Defining pedophilia as an adult sexually attracted to children 17 or under, the perceived incidence is 6 in 100, with 3 in 100 acting in one form or another on their inclination. There are obvious significant differences between a pedophile whose interest is in post pubescent subjects vs. infants and small children, but still I was very surprised at the numbers. Much higher than I would have expected. Back to work.

171. Since Turbulence has raised the notion of psychological trauma related to the sex ed process, I would like to point out that there are very real potentials for such among those who have abortions, as they may have second thoughts or deeper thoughts later in life about what that process was actually about.
     This has been very frequently stated, but never actually proven. If you have some empirical evidence to back up these “very real potentials,” GOB, I’d be interested in seeing them.

172. Defining pedophilia as an adult sexually attracted to children 17 or under, the perceived incidence is 6 in 100, with 3 in 100 acting in one form or another on their inclination.
     If an adult is anyone 18 years or older, that would mean 18 to, say, 24 year olds who are attracted to 17 year olds are pedophiles. Maybe that study somehow accounted for that sort of thing, but, if not, 6 in 100 doesn’t sound overly high to me at first glance.

173. wj:
     I checked the “Family Life” curricula of some NJ schools. They all have separate boys & girls classes in 5th grade, and often in 4th as well, to explain the physical changes of puberty. Some are starting to introduce some of this material in 3rd grade, which I can see as important given how rapidly some girls are developing these days.
     All districts notify parents several weeks before the unit starts, so the parents can opt their children out if they prefer.
     Marty:
     This is absolutely the kind of education that I think should *not* be left to parents as a default. Not only because a lot of parents won’t (for one reason or another) tell their kid what’s coming before it happens, but because not all kids are on the same schedule. The whole class needs to know that their bodies are changing, that it’s normal and natural, and (very important) that being “early” or “late” isn’t a bad or wrong thing.

174. The rural life has some benefits.
     Indeed it does, including a higher teen pregnancy rate, at least according to the CDC. Mind you the correlation is maybe less rural/urban and more related to poverty and quality of education, but still.
     Also, FWIW, among developed nations, the US has the highest rate of live births to 17-and-under women by a HUGE margin. Nearly double that of the UK, and four times as much as Germany or France. So we’re definitely doing something wrong that other countries are doing right.
     

175. So we’re definitely doing something wrong that other countries are doing right.
     Not enough atheism?

176. I answered the question you originally asked. That you don’t care for the answer, or are otherwise unsatisfied with it, is not really my problem.
     You answered the question with a non-sequitor, i.e., not a real answer.
     Look, if you don’t know what the answer is, just say “I don’t know”. But pretending that “You don’t get to decide” is a serious answer to “What specific harm comes from taking a sex-ed class to early?” is just absurd.
     The question of why one wouldn’t want their child to get sex education before they were “ready”, as you put it, is self-answering: because they’re not ready.
     But that’s not a question I asked. Of course people don’t want their kids to do ANYTHING before they think their kids are ready for it. That’s a tautology. When discussing whether schools should offer sex-ed classes though, the harm that comes from teaching too early matters and that’s what I’m trying to get at. We know what harm comes from teaching too late: misinformation, unwanted pregnancy, disease, etc. So what is the harm from teaching too early? If the answer is “none”, then I don’t see what we gain by eliminating sex-ed classes or by postponing them so late that they’re ineffective.
     Really? That’s what you got from my comment? That wasn’t what I was saying at all. I was simply pointing a possible why not on the question of sex ed labs in schools. A question you asked, recall.
     Slarti, I’m going to ask of you something that is going to be very difficult for you. I want you to assume that Marty and I are the sort of people who think that raping children is wrong. Can you give us that courtesy? Or is that too difficult?
     You see, if you had given us that courtesy before, you would not have suggested universal child rape as a potential problem. In the context of the discussion, I thought it was pretty obvious that ‘lab’ referred to stuff like putting a banana on a condom. And I’m thought it was extremely obvious that no one was in favor of having school teachers have sex with millions of children all across the country. But if you were honestly, sincerely confused about that, let me clarify: no one is in favor of that. Normal people didn’t consider it because it is insane.
     I agree, but it wasn’t my idea.
     Labs (as in, condom on a banana) were not your idea. Child rape on a massive scale where millions of teachers have sex with tens of millions of students? That was your idea. Take responsibility. No one here was thinking that. Except for you.

177. …I thought it was pretty obvious that ‘lab’ referred to stuff like putting a banana on a condom.
     See what happens when you wait too long for sex ed classes?

178. hsh, to be fair, the banana really enjoys it that way. Much less permanent than getting all those piercings.

179. I would like to point out that there are very real potentials for such among those who have abortions, as they may have second thoughts or deeper thoughts later in life about what that process was actually about.
     Right. So no one ever has second thoughts about who they married, or how many kids they did or didn’t have, or the college they chose to go to, or the fact that they chose not to go to college at all, or whether the job they took straight out of college was a bad career choice, or they preferred the rural life to the city life after all?
     People may have second thoughts later in life about practically everything.
     So what?

180. Defining pedophilia as an adult sexually attracted to children 17 or under
     “Attracted to,” or “having a preference for”? Because the former seems like a very loose definition to me.

181. Hogan, it’s sexual attraction, not attraction. To round out the definition a bit more, it’s an adult who, throughout adulthood, has a sexual attraction to children 17 and under. Not 18 year olds dating 17 year olds, although it can be an 18 year old who is attracted to 7 year olds.

182. On the subject of collective vs parental decision-making about what children learn and when, for anyone who might be interested, the Parker v. Hurley decision is interesting and readable.

183. ‘So what?’
     All of what you listed is true and could cause regret if one thought later that they should have made a different decision. None on the list appears to have a significantly moral dimension as the act of abortion might if one decided later in life that they had committed an act that was morally wrong.

184. All of what you listed is true and could cause regret if one thought later that they should have made a different decision. None on the list appears to have a significantly moral dimension as the act of abortion might if one decided later in life that they had committed an act that was morally wrong.
     And so we should…?

185. OK folks, I just put up a new post for the sex ed discussion, so move over there for that one, and we can keep the abortion discussion here.

186. None on the list appears to have a significantly moral dimension as the act of abortion might if one decided later in life that they had committed an act that was morally wrong.
     I disagree. Many decisions and choices we make, especially about sex and relationships, may have a significant moral dimension. Or at least in my morality they may.
     Decisions about jobs, career paths, living situations, and child-raising ditto.
     It seems to me that there is always the potential for a moral dimension to questions of how we treat other people, non-human beings, and the earth itself. I don’t see that abortion is in a class by itself in this regard.

187. Child rape on a massive scale where millions of teachers have sex with tens of millions of students? That was your idea.

     Do tell. Cite, please, and also the English to Klingon to Mandarin to English path that you took to derive that meaning from anything that I said. Plus added pharmaceuticals.
     Seriously, Turbulence: you have to get off of this. It’s not anything close to what I said. But you already know that.

188. None on the list appears to have a significantly moral dimension as the act of abortion might if one decided later in life that they had committed an act that was morally wrong.
     GOB, are you advocating for something here? Is this just a general cautionary tale, or a suggestion that the law needs to step in because of the moral dimension?

189. Hogan, it’s sexual attraction, not attraction. To round out the definition a bit more, it’s an adult who, throughout adulthood, has a sexual attraction to children 17 and under.
     I understand the “sexual” part. What I’m getting at is the difference between an adult who has ever been sexually attracted to a 17 year old (e.g., me) and an adult who has seldom or never been sexually attracted to anyone other than a 17 year old (not me).

190. Child rape on a massive scale where millions of teachers have sex with tens of millions of students? That was your idea.

     Do tell. Cite, please, and also the English to Klingon to Mandarin to English path that you took to derive that meaning from anything that I said. Plus added pharmaceuticals.

     Slarti, you did write this:

     Now, if you’re proposing that the current sex ed classes are just not advanced enough, and that you’d really like to have labs that somehow involve legal minors AND teachers without criminal repercussions, then…you know what? You have to convince me.

     Let me break it down for you. You suggested that I wanted to replace sex-ed classes in schools around the country with “labs that somehow involve legal minors AND teachers without criminal repercussions”. Now, I can’t imagine what sort of sex-ed replacement lab might involve criminal repercussions for “legal minors” and teachers…except for teachers having sex with children. Which would be child rape. And since we’re talking about education policy, your idea boils down to child rape on a massive scale. Involving millions of people.
     But perhaps I’m wrong. What exactly were you thinking of Slarti when you wrote about LEGAL MINORS and TEACHERS and CRIMINAL REPERCUSSIONS. I mean, did you think that putting a condom on a banana in front of children was illegal?

191. Now, if you’re proposing that the current sex ed classes are just not advanced enough, and that you’d really like to have labs that somehow involve legal minors AND teachers without criminal repercussions, then…you know what? You have to convince me.
     This is what you did write, Slart. What was it supposed to mean? Why would there be any mention of legal repercussions? I would’t have suggested the specific meaning Turb did, mind you, but it’s not an outrageous interpretation, given how vague this is. (My interpretation, as presented earlier, was far more open, but didn’t necessarily rule out Turbs.)
     Why not just clarify it and end the outrage duel you guys seem to be having? What did you mean?

192. What did you mean?

     A: what I meant was that I couldn’t unpack “sex ed lab” in any way that didn’t involve possible legal problems. It’s not up to me to assign any specific meaning to Turbulence’s why-not response to that idea, so I didn’t.
     But thanks for asking! If only others could be as courteous, rather than casually manufacturing the absolute worst imaginable interpretation, and treating that interpretation as if it was words that came out of my mouth.

193. ‘GOB, are you advocating for something here? Is this just a general cautionary tale, or a suggestion that the law needs to step in because of the moral dimension?’
     I’m generally OK with the law and I’m not advocating. What I’m suggesting that needs awareness and understanding is that young people (teenagers) make decisions across a large spectrum of issues without much knowledge and experience to help them.

194. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabeli_Fontana
     In 1999, at the age of 16, she appeared in the Victoria’s Secret lingerie catalogue. The shoot caused controversy, as Victoria’s Secret stated that they would not use girls younger than 18.
     I just googled “age of vic”, which immediately autocompleted to “age of Victoria’s Secret models,” to find this. I can’t say I didn’t see the catalogue Fontana was in when I was about 30. I honestly don’t know. And I can’t say that, had I, I wouldn’t have found her attractive, you know, sexually. I hadn’t heard of her that I know of before finding her through google today. She does look familiar, though.
     I would imagine that more than 6 in 100 adult men who did see her in that catalogue found her sexually attractive. I also doubt that this was a unique event in the world of magazine models. If I’m right about those things, what does that mean about the occurrence of pedophilia according to the definition McKTex provided? Does something like that “count”?

195. At the end of the day, I don’t really care about Slarti’s weird comments. I just want an answer to the question I’ve been asking, over and over: what specific problems come from having children take a sex-ed class before their parents think they’re ready?
     (Note: I’ll happily stipulate that all parents have the legal authority to lock their kids in dungeons and isolate them like cult members. I’m not questioning any parent’s right to act like a psychotic cult leader, so please, don’t waste time explaining to me how I’m not the boss of you.)
     I don’t know why this question is so difficult to answer, but apparently it is incredibly difficult, like, beyond human comprehension. Is there anyone who can answer this question?

196. what specific problems come from having children take a sex-ed class before their parents think they’re ready?
     The application of that knowledge outside the classroom has more potential severe negative consequences for children than, say, subtraction (I’d say division but if they try to start to divide by zero it’s all over)?

197. I never bought the idea that teaching kids about sex will result in them having it. That makes very little sense to me.
     Even if true, they’re gonna find out things about sex (probably half-truths) via the ‘ole grapevine. If it’s true that info will lead to behavior, then what is the result of leaving them with only the misinformation they pick up on the bus? Duh.

198. “But perhaps I’m wrong. What exactly were you thinking of Slarti when you wrote about LEGAL MINORS and TEACHERS and CRIMINAL REPERCUSSIONS. I mean, did you think that putting a condom on a banana in front of children was illegal?”
     In front of children, in a bedroom, on film?
     yep.

199. I’m not discussing anything other that abortion, if anything at all, on this thread after this, but, Marty, HUHHH???? WTF does that mean?

200. Maybe you were just making a joke about fruit.

201. The application of that knowledge outside the classroom has more potential severe negative consequences for children than, say, subtraction (I’d say division but if they try to start to divide by zero it’s all over)?
     Just to be clear, are you suggesting that there exists some group of children who, because they take a sex-ed class will engage in sex but would not have engaged in sex for several years in the absence of that class? Am I reading you correctly? Is the idea here that the kids are ignorant of the mechanics and as soon as someone explains that, they’re off to the races? Or is it that they understand the mechanics just fine, but because they don’t know how to do it safely, they refuse to try? Or something else?
     Perhaps I’m mistaken but I think the basic mechanics of sex aren’t necessarily why sex-ed classes are helpful; teenagers can figure out mechanics on their own or from movies. The problem is that when they do, they’ll believe that they can prevent pregnancy and STD transmission by douching with bleach or some other insane thing that a friend told them.
     In front of children, in a bedroom, on film?
     I have no idea, none at all, about what you’re talking about. You’re going to need to write in more detail if you want me to comprehend.

202. “I mean, did you think that putting a condom on a banana in front of children was illegal?”
     In front of children, in a bedroom, on film?
     yep.
     Pretty specific questsion, pretty specific answer, what confuses you. If you filmed some guy putting a condom on a banana in front of a fifth grade girl sitting on his bed and posted it on the internet it would be considered porn. Not very hard core but…probably illegal.

203. Pretty specific questsion, pretty specific answer, what confuses you. If you filmed some guy putting a condom on a banana in front of a fifth grade girl sitting on his bed and posted it on the internet it would be considered porn. Not very hard core but…probably illegal.
     What does this have to do with sex-ed classes in school?
     I mean, this is kind of creepy…we’re not talking about porn. So why are you bringing it up? Is the distinction between education policy and porn that confusing?

204. If you’re teaching K-12 classes in your bedroom, you’re not doing it right.

205. “I mean, this is kind of creepy…we’re not talking about porn. So why are you bringing it up? Is the distinction between education policy and porn that confusing?”
     Seems only to you. I didn’t bring up putting condoms on bananas. A visual I don’t want my fifth grade daughter to have provided by a stranger even in a classroom.

206. Sex-ed thread, everyone. Move along.

207. If you filmed some guy putting a condom on a banana in front of a fifth grade girl sitting on his bed and posted it on the internet it would be considered porn. Not very hard core but…probably illegal.
     I cannot think of a single jurisdiction in the United States where this is true.

208. Hsh, fine with me, I joined late and will gladly move along. But, after raising four kids I am certain that some subjects don’t lend themselves to a cookie cutter approach to teaching or parenting and this is one.

209. What I meant was the Doc Sci put a separate post up about sex ed, so we wouldn’t have to discuss it on a post about abortion.
     If you’re going to move over to that one, I’d be interested to know how schools should approach sex education, if at all, in your opinion, given what you say about the cookie-cutter approach being inappropriate.

210. that Doc Sci, not the Doc Sci…sheesh.

211. Marty:
     I think that abortion is the taking of a life. So, I am against it. That means that there are few reasons I think it is a good idea. There are some(life of the mother, rape). None of them include the convenience of an adult woman who had consentual sex.
     Let me unpack here, because I think you’re saying things that many, MANY Americans also say and agree with, so you’re, in a way, standing in for at least 40% of the country.
     First of all, a heart transplant also ends a human life. We all (I think) agree that heart transplants are an unambiguous good, because we recognize that the issue isn’t whether a medical procedure ends “life” or “human life”, but whether it ends a human person.
     So by saying abortion is about “human life”, you have already let yourself get away from the track of the actual issue, which is about *personhood*, not life.
     Do you think abortion kills a human person?
     Second, you refer to the convenience of an adult woman who had consentual sex
     It’s nonsense to call the issues involved in deciding whether to carry a pregnancy to term matters of “convenience”. Do you really mean to say that labor is an “inconvenience”? Well, that’s what your words mean, and frankly I think you know better.
     Even the easiest pregnancy, birth, and parenthood involve permanent changes in one’s body and mind. I honestly don’t know what you’re thinking, to lump all these things under “convenience”.

212. Doc,
     I am very clear that in supporting a woman’s right to make this choice that I believe she also has the responsibility to take all precautions to not create the life she will be taking.
     Abortion as contraception for poor planning on the part of an adult is a matter of convenience. Or would you describe it differently?
     Forgive me if I don’t play the personhood/ human life game. I am not off track, you are obfuscating by playing word games. A fetus is alive, then it is dead. Call it a human being or a person or a life or whatever, you know what I mean by the words.
     I am not “off track”. If you prefer personhood, then ok.

213. Marty:
     Abortion as contraception for poor planning on the part of an adult is a matter of convenience. Or would you describe it differently?
     Yes, I would. Actually, I have no idea what you mean by “a matter of convenience”, here.
     I’d say that (non-insane) women do not use abortions as contraception because abortions are “more convenient” than other methods, unless those other methods have been made unnecessarily expensive (or difficult to obtain) by outside forces. For instance, by governments that limit access to contraception, or by men who refuse to use the only kind available.
     Abortion is, by its medical nature, a lot of trouble, physical discomfort, and expense. I don’t understand what you mean by using a dismissive term like “convenience” for it.
     I am not off track, you are obfuscating by playing word games. A fetus is alive, then it is dead. Call it a human being or a person or a life or whatever, you know what I mean by the words.
     No I don’t, that’s why I’m asking!
     I don’t think I’m obfuscating, I’m trying to make a philosophical and logical argument to show that the way we generally talk about “fetal life” is a mish-mash. And I think it’s a smokescreen, a fog of incoherent muddy concepts and buzz phrases squirted out like a metaphor collision cloud of squid-ink, to conceal what’s really bothering people.

214. Let me clear the fog for you, when people say that a fetus is a human life, a person, or any other description when describing abortion as killing a human being they all mean the same thing. It is not philosophically complex.
     They mean the fetus is a person like you or me only smaller and less mature.
     The people who make it a mish mash are the ones who are trying to define some arbitrary line post conception that it suddenly gets one more cell of a particular type that then qualifies it for personhood.
     It would be easier to discuss it if the pro choice people would quit trying to redefine the instant of personhood and just say that they believe killing a fetus is acceptable no matter when that instant happens. No more mish mash.

215. Doctor Science, in some countries it is indeed more ‘convenient’ to get an abortion somehow than contraception. Ireland was such a case for many years when contraceptives were illegal but the state did not require a pregancy test for crossing over to Britain (for a short period the state tried to establish a de facto travel ban for pregnant women but iirc it got shot down by the European Human Rigths Court). In Poland the state visit by the late JP2 had the perverse effect that catholic girls decided that abortion was more convenient because the pope preached that contraception=abortion => if one does one of these in any case it is better to choose the rarer one.
     The ‘convenience’ was not in the procedure but in adverse effects connected to the other choice.

216. Let me clear the fog for you, when people say that a fetus is a human life, a person, or any other description when describing abortion as killing a human being they all mean the same thing. It is not philosophically complex.
     For whom are you speaking besides yourself, here, and when did they appoint you?
     I’d note for everyone reading here, also, that you’ve made multiple references to women “failing to plan properly,” but not a single reference to men bothering to put on a fricking rubber. All the easier to cast women who get abortions as moral monsters, I suppose — I mean, first they don’t even bother to take the pill or get an IUD, then they just run off and kill the fetus as a matter of convenience! Can you believe it?!

217. Phil,
     If men had any choice in the matter I would dscuss their responsibilities in this context. Mens responsibilities for the same lack of responsible sex all kick in after the woman makes the decision. Other than their responsibility to provide emotional support through a difficult decision.

218. If men had any choice in the matter I would dscuss their responsibilities in this context.
     But they DO have a choice in the matter: Wear a condom, every single time, no matter what, regardless of what you think or know your sexual partner is doing, until you and your sexual partner are absolutely, positively sure you want to attempt to have children.
     If you expect me to join in some “Men don’t get to decide about the abortion so it’s not their responsibility to use birth control properly” kick, I hope you brought a book, because it’s going to be a long wait.

219. In fact, if all men would do that one simple thing, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, because accidental pregnancies would be a statistical blip, and non-medically-necessary abortions would be rarer than dodo birds.

220. Turb: Just to be clear, are you suggesting that there exists some group of children who, because they take a sex-ed class will engage in sex but would not have engaged in sex for several years in the absence of that class? Am I reading you correctly? Is the idea here that the kids are ignorant of the mechanics and as soon as someone explains that, they’re off to the races? Or is it that they understand the mechanics just fine, but because they don’t know how to do it safely, they refuse to try? Or something else?
     Perhaps I’m mistaken but I think the basic mechanics of sex aren’t necessarily why sex-ed classes are helpful; teenagers can figure out mechanics on their own or from movies. The problem is that when they do, they’ll believe that they can prevent pregnancy and STD transmission by douching with bleach or some other insane thing that a friend told them.
     I’m just saying that it wouldn’t surprise me, especially when we’re talking about teaching sex education to 5th graders (as opposed to, say, high school freshmen) if that leads to some, non-de minimis, amount of them to have sex alot earlier than they otherwise would. Is that really that an astonishing a suggestion?
     And I think there is a real lack of consideration of general, school-specific social context going on here. By which I mean, to illustrate via an example, the high school I attended was fed by basically two junior high school. The Jr. HS’s weren’t that far away from another but they were, in turn, fed by separate elementary schools, such that you generally had two sets of kids put together in high school that had never gone to school with one another (I assume this is generally the pattern more broadly in the US, so sorry if everyone knows this already).
     Anyway, one group of these former Jr. HS students was shocked that the other group was drinking alcohol in Jr. HS, and the latter group was shocked that the former group was not.* Although less talked about so I’m not as certain about it, it wouldn’t surprise me if the same sort of “you didn’t/we did” division existed with respect to sex.
     And it thus wouldn’t surprise me, in that context, if sex ed was taught to the 5th graders** who would be matriculating to the, er, more sober Jr. HS led to a significant increase in sexual activity at that Jr. HS. But maybe not, I just don’t think it’s some kind of outlandish thought.
     *I would guess this situation has probably changed.
     **my recollection that real sex ed didn’t start where/when I grew up until 7th grade.

221. It would be easier to discuss it if the pro choice people would quit trying to redefine the instant of personhood and just say that they believe killing a fetus is acceptable no matter when that instant happens.
     It might be easier, but not all pro choice people agree with that, so it’s not something they would all say.
     “Pro choice” people think and/or believe all kinds of things, and exist along at least a broad a spectrum as “pro life” people. Maybe more so.
     Hence, a mish mash.
     It’s not a simple topic, so simple answers are sadly unavailable.

222. In fact, if all men would do that one simple thing, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, because accidental pregnancies would be a statistical blip, and non-medically-necessary abortions would be rarer than dodo birds.

     Although I agree with the spirit of this comment, I’d like to point out that the contraceptive effectiveness of condoms when used correctly is 98%, and of course they’re not always used correctly. You always have to factor in pilot error which (according to this, but more thorough treatment here) reduces condom effectiveness to a rather lower value.
     Kind of like abstinence: if done incorrectly, pregnancy can result.

223. “Men don’t get to decide about the abortion so it’s not their responsibility to use birth control properly”
     Never said any such thing, but, I notice that any time the subject of women having responsibilities to go with their rights then suddenly we are talking about men.

224. Well, women don’t get themselves pregnant, do they?

225. Well men don’t get themselves pregnant do they?

226. I notice that any time the subject of women having responsibilities to go with their rights then suddenly we are talking about men.
     This may come us an enormous shock to you, Marty, but biology doesn’t care about things like responsibility and fairness. Sometimes, just because of the way the world is built, you’re going to have responsibilities without any accompanying rights.
     (Furthermore, since I’m not a woman, I’m not about to mansplain to them about their proper responsibilities.)
     Although I agree with the spirit of this comment, I’d like to point out that the contraceptive effectiveness of condoms when used correctly is 98%, and of course they’re not always used correctly.
     Which is a great argument for age-appropriate sex ed classes teaching kids how to use them correctly!
     Well, women don’t get themselves pregnant, do they?
     Hey, some people apparently think they don’t have anything to do with it at all!

227. Marty really is edging uncomfortably close to “If women want to be allowed to have abortions then they have to take all the responsibility for contraception, too” here. Of course, if he’d actually bother making an argument instead of resorting to cryptic one-liners and tiresome tu quoques, maybe we’d be able to discern a position. Or maybe not. Who knows?

228. Well men don’t get themselves pregnant do they?
     No, they get women pregnant.
     (This is stimulating.)

229. Phil,
     I thought that post and some of the comments on the sperm cake you linked to were a bit overwrought. I mean, I agree with the general cultural discussion around it, but the cake itself just seemed like a harmless goof to me, or, at least, possibly so. The people who bought and/or liked that cake may have been sexist sperm-worshippers. Then again, maybe they just thought it was funny, and the underlying message was nothing more than, “It’s great that you’re going to be dad. Congratulations.”
     It struck me as an instance where people who generally think a lot about things (let’s call them “the thinkers”), moreso than many others (let’s call them “the easy-goers”) do, take the outputs of the easy-goers, who don’t give a ton of thought to things like the (potential) underlying meaning(s) of a cake’s decoration, and construe an intent and/or a meaning to those outputs that would require the level of thought that the thinkers would apply to their everyday choices, but that the easy-goers don’t normally bother with. It’s a bridge to far by way of tenuous implication.
     Just curious what you thought.

230. I didn’t start with cryptic one liners. I started with a well defined position that women have both rights and responsibilities. Men also have rights and responsibilties, we just happened to be talking about womens in this thread.
     Keeping in mind that I was asked to clarify my position as anti-abortion and pro-choice as the beginning of this chain of disc ussion.
     When people discuss abortion, it almost always (in my experience) quickly devolves to all of the exceptional situations that are clearly (to me) more difficult moral decisions that create a more understandable decision for having an abortion.
     It almost always leaves the, much larger, number of abortions by healthy adult women undiscussed.
     I believe there is significantly less moral grounds for those abortions than the other reasons.
     I still don’t believe the law should impose my moral judgement.

231. “Sometimes, just because of the way the world is built, you’re going to have responsibilities without any accompanying rights.”
     Really? Like when?

232. a bridge too far, unless far is a place

233. “Sometimes, just because of the way the world is built, you’re going to have responsibilities without any accompanying rights.”
     Really? Like when?
     Like when you’re capable of helping to create a baby, but are not able to carry one.

234. It almost always leaves the, much larger, number of abortions by healthy adult women undiscussed.
     I believe there is significantly less moral grounds for those abortions than the other reasons.
     How do arrive at this much larger number? Do you have stats?
     And are there no reasons for abortion that carry us much (or nearly as much, rather than significanly less) moral justification as the health of the woman? Is that what you mean? How broadly do you define “health?”

235. I mean, I agree with the general cultural discussion around it, but the cake itself just seemed like a harmless goof to me, or, at least, possibly so.
     Lots of things that seem like harmless goofs can be nonetheless indicative of underlying cultural assumptions that are problematic. Here’s another one.

236. I don’t disagree that they can be. I’m just not sure that this:
     I really just hope this cake was made before the woman who actually had the baby went through labor. But I’m not holding my breath.
     Why there are so many female sycophants for this is a topic of another post.
     is the appropriate way to discuss the problematic, underlying cultural assumptions (or implications) of that cake.
     Why would anyone think that the cake wouldn’t likely be presented at a shower or some other event well before the woman went through labor? Why would a woman have to be a sychophant to have some involvement or other (not sure what that meant, really) with the presentation of that cake?
     I don’t dispute the whole virility/manliness cultural thing that diminishes the role of the woman in producing children. It just seems that the way the cake was used as the springboard for that discussion was overdone, particularly in the assumptions made about anyone who would purchase (or simply fail to be sufficiently offended by) that cake.
     You could probably make the case that such a cake would never exist without the underlying cultural assumptions discussed, and I’d probably agree, but I don’t see why that requires the condemnation of the individual people who might then buy one.
     (Not that it much matters, really, that we agree on this particular topic. I’ve probably written more about this than was warranted.)

237. Marty:
     They mean the fetus is a person like you or me only smaller and less mature.
     And I think this statement is *nonsense*.
     A single cell is *not* “a person like me”. It does not do any of the things that make me a person — because, as our law and culture agree, personhood is in our *brains*.
     To claim that you think a single cell — or a blastocyst — is a person is wildly illogical, and also demeaning to actual persons. And it’s particularly demeaning to the actual person whose life is going to be weighed against this so-important cell, a person who is always a woman.

238. “And I think this statement is *nonsense*.”
     And I think the 40% you talk about would not agree. So we disagree.
     I don’t think it is in any way demeaning, particularly to the person who creates the person. You started as a single cell, so did I, we were persons then.
     However, it would be reasonably impossible to abort a single cell so you are taking an extreme position we aren’t really discussing.

239. A single cell is *not* “a person like me”.

     I think Marty used the word “fetus”, which is (if I’m not totally mistaken) not compatible with “a single cell”.

240. “because, as our law and culture agree, personhood is in our *brains*.”
     Just curious, how have we agreed to this? Because, if we are talking about end of life being brain death it is not an equivalence.
     If you walked into a hospital room and the doctor declared the patient brain dead, BUT, it was likely that within nine months the brain would again begin to function no one in our society would agree to take away life support barring other health factors.

241. I think Marty used the word “fetus”, which is (if I’m not totally mistaken) not compatible with “a single cell”.
     He also discussed “arbitrary lines post conception”, so perhaps folks can be forgiven if they find his precise meaning not quite clear.
     For the record, the fetal stage begins approximately 9 weeks after fertilization.
     I still don’t believe the law should impose my moral judgement.
     I think this is a very common pro-choice position.

242. If you walked into a hospital room and the doctor declared the patient brain dead, BUT, it was likely that within nine months the brain would again begin to function
     ?
     ?
     ?
     ………………………

243. I think Marty used the word “fetus”, which is (if I’m not totally mistaken) not compatible with “a single cell”.
     He also just said we were all “persons” when we were single cells, so . . .

244. russell is right, I took Marty’s dismissal of “arbitrary lines post-conception” to mean that he takes conception to be the only appropriate line dividing “human person” from “mere human tissue” — so logically by his lights, a single cell does count as a human person.
     Marty:
     And I think the 40% you talk about would not agree. So we disagree.
     Yes, but I (at least) am not agreeing to disagree.
     As a scientist, I’m used to accepting theories that are, from the POV of common sense, preposterous — e.g. wave-particle duality. I can accept such wacky, counterintuitive ideas because there’s a really solid bridge of logic and observation, getting me from my solid, commonplace experience over the canyon to the ground of quantum physics.
     If you’re going to convince me that I should think of a single cell as a person, you need to make a bridge of logic to do it. So far you’ve mostly said that it’s obvious and what everyone always used to believe, but clearly (a) it’s not obvious to me, and (b) most people used (pre 1850 or even later) to believe that personhood began at quickening (first detectable fetal movements, 3-4 months), at birth, or somewhere in between.
     Conversely, you seem very reluctant to follow the logical trail I’ve laid out — you find it confusing and suspicious, though I myself always find logic refreshingly simple if not simplistic.

245. Marty
     Just curious, how have we agreed to this? Because, if we are talking about end of life being brain death it is not an equivalence.
     Yes, I am talking about brain death.
     If you walked into a hospital room and the doctor declared the patient brain dead, BUT, it was likely that within nine months the brain would again begin to function no one in our society would agree to take away life support barring other health factors.
     Boy, do I think you are wrong.
     In the first place, who’s going to pay for this? Just as with a pregnancy, 9 months of life support doesn’t come for free. To be comparable to pregnancy, this would have to be happening to 2% of the population per year. The cost would be *boggling*, and might well break many hospitals and even states. People would have to *make choices* about who to save or not.
     In the second place, there would have to be all kinds of legal wranglings to make this situation tractable. What is the legal status of the dead/not dead person’s property? Can their spouse re-marry? When they come back to life, do they still have custody of their children? Do they still retain any licenses or earned privileges? If the body is disturbed or injured while the person is brain-dead, who is liable?
     We have legal mechanisms for answering all these questions for e.g. coma patients right now, but they’re clumsy and expensive — because the situation doesn’t arise very often, so each time it can be treated as a special case.

246. I have a thought game for Marty. If a fetus is human, than a post-birth baby must be human too, right? If the fetus cannot be killed, then the post-birth fetus, now a baby, can’t be killed either,surely? I can’t imagine an arument that would explain why a child’s life was less valuable after birth than before.
     So… what are the implications of that in terms of warfare?
     Would it be OK to bomb an enemy nation and kiill their cildren post birth but immoral to bomb them with something that caused abortions?
     Or is it OK to kill children on the say-so of a politicain in time of war?
     If so then why isn’t it OK to kill children before birth if a politcians says it’s Ok by passing a law?
     Because to me the real issue isn’t wether or not life has begun. For me the issues is whether or not cognition has begun. Nearly everyone, including most likley you, Marty, can rationalize the killing of children for some purpose. I find the killing of a pre-cognitive bundle of cells far less morally reprehensible than the killing fo a living terrified child in a war.
     I have another related question: how come people who claim to be pro-life are so often willing to kill other people for no reason beyond some jingoistic slogans especially when the otehr peole are often children? (This question is not meant to imply anything about Marty. I’m thinking more of your Malkin type who was literally a cheerleader for Bush while claiming to be prolife).

247. “Conversely, you seem very reluctant to follow the logical trail I’ve laid out ”
     I am trying. Perhaps I am missing something. In this thread, or another I missed, did you lay out a logic trail for personhood that is based on a societal concept of a brain being the requirement? Also one that stands up against the simple logic that a brain in progress counts?
     First detectable fetal movements seems very arbitrary based on advances in ability to detect movement that moves those goalposts a lot since 1850.
     I would not assume that I find any of this confusing although I do find it a little simplistic and arbitrary.
     And while I did say fetus (thanks Slart) lets work with a single cell assuming you could know that it exists and get to it before it could become two. The discussion is no different.

248. “Boy, do I think you are wrong.”
     Having spent the better part of three of the last six years in hospital rooms, 12 months of that time with a relative in an induced coma, I have to strongly disagree with you.
     Given a high likelihood of revived brain function no family member would agree to removal of life support and our current system has no enforcement of that without their consent. The cost would be minimized as much a spossible by where that was provided, but it would be provided.

249. I enter in a bit reluctantly. I’m not sure if any amount of discussion will move anyone, unfortunately, but
     First detectable fetal movements seems very arbitrary based on advances in ability to detect movement that moves those goalposts a lot since 1850.
     The goalpost only moves if you are talking about outside observers. The quickening is when the woman who is pregnant first feels movement. Blackmun’s opinion uses that specific term
     “quickening” — the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero
     link
     Now, the observer is not defined, but given that the woman is the one with the ringside seat, it seems silly to assume that it is some other person who is the observer. I’d suggest that semantically, quickening underlines that it is the woman’s perception that is paramount. I’d also point out that if you want to argue that quickening is the first motion detectable with the addition of (potentially intrusive) medical machinery, this is a rather interesting twist on conservative notions of privacy and personhood.
     The mp3s for the oral arguments for Roe v Wade are here

250. Interesting input lj. Thanks for the links.

251. No worries, and apologies if the point about conservative notions was too sharp. Over at Crooked Timber, they have a lot of philosophical thought experiments, which get a bit much IMHO, but when you start invoking the progress of technology, you have to wonder where one draws the line and the gedanken just starts to flow, to the point of invoking The Minority Report and Dickian notions of pre-cogs, which doesn’t help so much.
     But the whole question of external observer versus the woman is what makes this whole question so difficult. So it leads me to note that in the discussion of sex education, you strongly argued that outside entities should not impose some particular type of education on children without parental consent. But here, you are arguing that the ability to monitor fetal movement on a potentially microscopic level dictates a re-evaluation of the traditional trimester line. This is not to suggest that your whole line of reasoning rests on this, but it seems like an interesting disjunction.
     Certainly, this can be turned around and one could argue that it is hypocritical to support the intrusiveness of sex education in schools, yet not have the conviction to apply intrusiveness in the service of life that begins immediately after conception. Still, I feel more comfortable advocating some intrusiveness in terms of education when the impact to society and to other people is great, while not accepting such intrusiveness when it is primarily a question, quite literally, inside the woman.

252. Lj, (from airport again so short) use of technology doesn’t preclude parental input or demand external decision making. It can enhance parental knowledge, down to the single cell level presumably.

253. Marty,
     Don’t mean to take advantage of your inability to give more detailed replies, but I don’t see how you can argue for more governmental restrictions on abortion because parents have access to more information. You’ve argued in this thread that abortion is (primarily?) a way for women to avoid taking responsibility for consensual sex. Why would the presence of technology to show us the movement of a blastocyte, or even precisely identify the exact moment when an egg is fertilized justify the government preventing a woman from having an abortion after that point? The opposition to RU-486 (and I wonder what your position is on that) suggests that it is not a question of what parent’s know, but the desire to dictate what women can do.

254. Marty, are a sperm or an ovum “persons?” They’re made of exactly the same thing as the persons in which they exist, and carry identical DNA, so if they’re not, why not?

255. lj, (tarmac new airport) I have not once argued for ANY governmental restriction on abortion. Read the thread, my position is anti-abortion, pro-choice.

256. Marty, I apologize. I missed or forgot the part of the thread where you said you were prochoice.

257. Sorry Marty, I misread this
     I am very clear that in supporting a woman’s right to make this choice that I believe she also has the responsibility to take all precautions to not create the life she will be taking.
     Abortion as contraception for poor planning on the part of an adult is a matter of convenience. Or would you describe it differently?
     
     While I greatly appreciate the first part, to make the claim that abortion is a byproduct of a lack of responsibility on the part of the woman suggests that there is a need to enforce a woman taking responsibility. I’d suggest that by making the argument in the way you are doing, you are opening the door for others to argue that somehow, something must be done to take responsibility. Being anti-abortion in the first trimester seems to contradict being pro-choice.
     Anyway, I’ll leave it there, as I said earlier, this is a debate that is very difficult to move people on, myself included.

258. No problem wonkie. I seem to meet a lot of people that don’t think abortion is the right choice but think it is still their choice to make.
     They don’t speak out a lot about why they think it is the wrong choice because it doesn’t fit on either side of the battle lines.
     I would like to have more of a discussion in our society about why it is bad (or ok)and when, and no discussion about why it should be legal or illegal.
     We have those discussions oddly framed in the legal discussions but they become counterproductive because they are framed as “when the government should intrude”.

259. I am very clear that in supporting a woman’s right to make this choice that I believe she also has the responsibility to take all precautions to not create the life she will be taking.
     And, see, again, I’m clear that if you’re the one that’s so anti-abortion, it’s your responsibility to prevent unplanned pregnancies.

260. “to make the claim that abortion is a byproduct of a lack of responsibility on the part of the woman suggests that there is a need to enforce a woman taking responsibility.”
     lj,
     While I have a just a few minutes at a computer. If that is the suggestion you got from it i was completely unclear. I believe that this both a matter of personal choice and personal responsibility. Both partners, Phil being correct, have responsibility to prevent the creation of an unwanted person.
     A woman, generally, has the ability to impact that the most through her own birth control methods and ensuring her partner wears protection. He can only ensure he is wearing protection.
     An adult pair of humans (any relationship status) having unprotected sex that creates a person incurs a set of responsibilities for both the man and the woman. In the short term, those responsibilities are clearly much greater for the woman, so she has more rights in the short term, and should.
     I believe that the set of factors that should be acceptable for having an abortion in this case is very small, in essence, the actual life of the mother. (writing quickly maybe a others that don’t come immediately to mind).
     BUT, this is a moral and cultural argument I am making. NOT a legal one. *I* believe this and *I* would like it to be a discussion in our society about what WE believe knowing that we will not all agree on those boundaries.
     And I will not be angry when someone believes in first trimester abortions or defines the start of life at quickening.
     I will be very disappointed when someone defines it at birth(as I look at my twin grandsons who were delivered by C-section at 27 weeks, they are now 11).
     But we could have a better discussion if we weren’t discussing the law.

261. He also just said we were all “persons” when we were single cells, so . . .

     Fair enough. I can only defend Marty on one point at a time, though, and not every single argument he might have made prior to that point.

262. Thanks Marty, I appreciate the clarification and my apologies for the misunderstanding. I also know how aggravating it is when you feel like you need to respond to someone, but only have a limited amount of time, so my apologies for keeping at you on this.

263. lj, no problem, thanks for the discussion.

264. Just wanted to say thanks to marty for the thoughtful post at 10:18.
     I share lj’s thought that, at this point, nobody’s likely to move off of whatever point of view they currently hold on abortion.
     By the time a situation is at the point where abortion is one of the options, it’s already a bad situation. It’s really never anyone’s first choice. It’s quite often accompanied by other not-so-great things like poverty, or failed relationships, or regret over reckless behavior.
     And even though (as one can readily see by reading the Roe ruling) it’s some combination off awkward and ill-advised for the law to weigh in on matters of metaphysics and religious belief, those are all very very real considerations for the actual, concrete people faced with making decisions about whether or not to bring a life they have started to fruition.
     Legal issues aside, it’s just a freaking hard place for people to be.
     I don’t think I really have anything useful to contribute to the discussion other than to note that it’s a hard, complex, painful issue. There are no simple answers. I don’t see any, at least.

265. “The one thing all humans agree on is that it is Ok to kill other people.”
     Do you have a cite on that?
     It seems to fly in the the face of obvious facts.

266. Back on Usenet, custom was that the certain subjects never were worth discussing, because all you’d get was flame and no light, but at infinite length, and thus no one interested in productive discussion would go remotely near them were: abortion, gnu control (people grepped in the old days — hey, I’m sorry Kibo isn’t still doing that)), and vi/emacs wars.
     If anyone changes their positions as a result of this thread, I’d be curious to know. Otherwise my conclusion would be that things haven’t changed.
     Also: never argue whether Kirk or Picard were better captains, and which ship could beat which ship.
     Meanwhile, anyone want to make.money.fast? Or find an immigration lawyer?
     I’m feeling all warm and nostalgic. But these customs evolved — very quickly — for good reasons.

267. http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/23/bobby-franklin-miscarriage-naturally/
     Awesome. One of them finally took their loony logic to its ultimate conclusion: if you’re gonna ban abortion, you’re gonna have to investigate every miscarriage, and put women in jail.

Comments are closed.