No, Terry and Labash are not serious about abortion. The only way to reduce abortion is to increase sex education, contraceptives and healthcare for women. They say nothing about these things. Their opposition to abortion is performative. They do not want to reduce abortion; they want women to stop having sex. Well summarized by Gail Col…
No, Terry and Labash are not serious about abortion. The only way to reduce abortion is to increase sex education, contraceptives and healthcare for women. They say nothing about these things. Their opposition to abortion is performative. They do not want to reduce abortion; they want women to stop having sex. Well summarized by Gail Collins:
"All this is basically about punishing women who want to have sex for pleasure. It’s a concept with a long tradition in American history. Back in 1873, Congress began to pass a series of laws prohibiting dissemination through the mail of birth control literature, drugs or devices. Later, when a journalist asked Anthony Comstock, founder of the New York Commission on the Suppression of Vice, whether it would be all right for a woman to use contraceptives if pregnancy would endanger her life, Comstock snapped: 'Can they not use self-control? Or must they sink to the level of beasts?'"
At some point, every woman who wants to have sex must face the decision what to do if she becomes pregnant. Because ultimately, that’s what sex is about.
Modern contraceptives make it very unlikely a woman will get pregnant.
Before 1900, women often died in childbirth. This was a natural consequence of pregnancy, because human babies have large heads. Death was often, ultimately, what sex was about. It is exceedingly rare today thanks to modern medicine. Would you say that a woman should seriously consider the likelihood of dying in childbirth before she has sex?
Would you say that a woman should seriously consider the possibility of dying in an airplane crash before she flies? Science and technology have all but eliminated air crashes, accidental pregnancy, or dying in childbirth. It makes no sense to worry about remote possibilities that our civilization has eliminated.
Perhaps than both men and women should from the activity with the potential to produce "accidental" children if either one is unprepared for that possible result. Yet I also understand that due to human nature, (see your Comstock quote and its implication that men lack self-control), abstinence cannot be public policy.
No, Terry and Labash are not serious about abortion. The only way to reduce abortion is to increase sex education, contraceptives and healthcare for women. They say nothing about these things. Their opposition to abortion is performative. They do not want to reduce abortion; they want women to stop having sex. Well summarized by Gail Collins:
Don’t Be Fooled. It’s All About Women and Sex.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/opinion/roe-v-wade-senate.html
QUOTE:
"All this is basically about punishing women who want to have sex for pleasure. It’s a concept with a long tradition in American history. Back in 1873, Congress began to pass a series of laws prohibiting dissemination through the mail of birth control literature, drugs or devices. Later, when a journalist asked Anthony Comstock, founder of the New York Commission on the Suppression of Vice, whether it would be all right for a woman to use contraceptives if pregnancy would endanger her life, Comstock snapped: 'Can they not use self-control? Or must they sink to the level of beasts?'"
Sounds like Comstock is arguing that men are on the level of beasts who have no self-control.
How is the natural consequence of sex punishment?
At some point, every woman who wants to have sex must face the decision what to do if she becomes pregnant. Because ultimately, that’s what sex is about.
Modern contraceptives make it very unlikely a woman will get pregnant.
Before 1900, women often died in childbirth. This was a natural consequence of pregnancy, because human babies have large heads. Death was often, ultimately, what sex was about. It is exceedingly rare today thanks to modern medicine. Would you say that a woman should seriously consider the likelihood of dying in childbirth before she has sex?
Would you say that a woman should seriously consider the possibility of dying in an airplane crash before she flies? Science and technology have all but eliminated air crashes, accidental pregnancy, or dying in childbirth. It makes no sense to worry about remote possibilities that our civilization has eliminated.
I guess one must ask what “accidental” means.
In the context of contraceptives, it means the contraceptive failed and the woman became pregnant.
The meaning seems clear to me. I do not understand why you would ask such a thing.
Perhaps than both men and women should from the activity with the potential to produce "accidental" children if either one is unprepared for that possible result. Yet I also understand that due to human nature, (see your Comstock quote and its implication that men lack self-control), abstinence cannot be public policy.
Because “accidental” could mean misuse of a contraceptive. People make mistakes. It doesn’t mean the contraceptive is bad.
So what about her partner? Is he allowed to have sex for pleasure or should he, too, ponder deeply the consequences pre-foreplay?
Oh, men should definitely contemplate the consequences.
So us old folks are operating under false premises? ; )