Asymmetrical Information

Since birth control pills prevent a fertilized eggs from being implanted, a law that banned pre-implantation abortions would probably make the Pill illegal--after all, Plan B is just a hopped up version of the Pill. And that would be political suicide.

You do know this is very debatable, right? The design mechanism of the Pill is to prevent ovulation -- if it's working properly, there is no egg released to get fertilized. Another effect of the Pill is to make the cervical mucus less receptive to sperm -- again, preventing fertilization rather than implantation. And of course, some people do get pregnant while taking the Pill -- if breakthrough ovulation takes place, and the egg is fertilized, it does in at least some cases implant successfully.

Saying that the Pill prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg is an odd way to describe the situation, then, given that: (a) if it works properly, it prevents ovulation; (b) a subsidary effect lowers the odds of fertilization even should ovulation take place; (c) pregnancy can occur successfully in cases where an egg is fertilized despite the fact that the woman is taking the Pill; and (d) to the best of my knowledge, there is no strong data establishing that taking the Pill does effect the odds of implantation of a fertilized egg. Any such effect is a minor side effect if it exists at all -- certainly not the intended design mechanism of the Pill.

Would you say that such a law would prohibit other medications that might affect the odds of implantation, or increase the risk of miscarriage? Like, say, drinking too much coffee? Because that's a little nervewracking.

The Pill has multiple avenues of operation: one prevents ovulation, one makes it harder for the sperm to reach the egg, and one makes the uterine lining thinner and inhospitable to implantation, which is why your periods get lighter when you're on the pill. That's not really very controversial, AFAIK; certainly, my (liberal) (Upper West Side) gynecologist describes it thus.

There are physicians who point to this thinning of the endometrium as evidence that The Pill is an abortifacient. This claim is based on experiences with in vitro fertilisation which demonstrated that thinner uterine linings correlated with increased difficulty in getting the test-tube-fertilized eggs to implant. However, many more physicians (including some pro-life physicians) are unconvinced that this truly does decrease the likelihood that a fertilized egg will implant itself in the uterine lining. The reason for this is that the thinner uterine linings were observed only when ovulation has not occurred. When ovulation occurs, the corpus luteum releases extremely large amounts of hormones —approximately ten to twenty times as much estrogen and progesterone as seen in a non-ovulatory pill cycle.

In women who do not take The Pill, the uterine lining is usually unreceptive to implantation prior to ovulation. The purpose of the hormones released by the corpus luteum is to cause the endomitrium to thicken and become receptive to implantation (which occurs between six and twelve days after ovulation if the ovum is fertilized). Thus, simple observations that the uterine lining is too thin to support implantation during a cycle where no ovulation has occurred is insufficient to support the claim that there is a reduced likelihood of implantation in ovulatory Pill cycles. Currently, no research has been conducted on the behavior of the endometrium in ovulatory Pill cycles.[5]

This is from Wikipedia, so take it for what it's worth, but it does give links to further supportive references. In the current state of medical knowledge, any post-fertilization effect of the Pill is speculative.

(Certainly, if such an effect exists, it operates in only a very small percentage of cases. That is, and I'm making up the percentages here, the Pill cuts your odds of ovulating by 90% or more, the cervical mucus effect cuts your odds of fertilization even if you do ovulate by a further significant percentage, and a couple of percent of women who take the Pill every day get pregnant anyway. There isn't statistical room for this to be a large effect.)

Abortion is a religious issue, religion isn't supposed to make sense, if it made sense it would be science.

Why, yes, LizardBreath, if I make up the numbers, I can prove that there's a very large effect. My understanding is that the prevention of ovulation is less than 90%; how many abortions this would cause would depend then on how much the thickened cervical mucus works.

But it's sort of irrelevant; if it caused one abortion a year, it would still be an illegal abortifacient. That's why the loophole.

“Abortion is a religious issue, religion isn't supposed to make sense, if it made sense it would be science.”

Nonsense. You don’t need to drag religion into the discussion. Even an avowed atheist like Christopher Hitchens is against abortion. It is the taking of human life in its early stages. Only a post modernist deconstructionist pretends otherwise. Am I entirely consistent on the matter? Nope, I’m somewhat hypocritical like most of the American citizenry. There are no perfect answers. However, we can develop some sort of consensus to especially deal with abortion in the latter stages. Abortion in the final months , in my very strong opinion, is nothing short of murder. And no, I am not a Judeo-Christian “fanatic.” I am theological modernist.

It also prevents the courts from being flooded with frivolous suits. "We had sex I KNOW she was pregnant!" says he. "Are freaking CRAZY" says the judge.

(My apologies if two comments show up -- I thought I'd posted one, but I'm not seeing it.)

Why, yes, LizardBreath, if I make up the numbers, I can prove that there's a very large effect.

Not without some research showing that the effect happens at all. There is no data that shows that the Pill thins the uterine lining in ovulatory cycles -- guessing that it does is pure speculation.

But it's sort of irrelevant; if it caused one abortion a year, it would still be an illegal abortifacient.

You think? Under this standard, any drug or substance, legal for another purpose, that as a side-effect had some, however small, chance of impeding implantation or causing miscarriage would be an illegal abortifacient. That would include coffee, which, when drunk in large (but reasonable) amounts in the first trimester raises the risk of miscarriage.

I think Saletan's argument is more persuasive. The bill (according to the article; I haven't read the full text) requires "the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being." Taking your pill as you do every other morning could not be held to have that intent. This is also true for coffee, et cetera. So I don't think the exception is needed for that purpose.

However, the morning after pill is specifically for the purpose of terminating a possible pregnancy, and so requires the exception.

Abortion is a religious issue, religion isn't supposed to make sense, if it made sense it would be science.

This is known as a grenade. It has no purpose or function in life other than to explode when applied (and potentially create a diversion, exploitable by the pitcher of said artillery). Nothing to see here folks, just a shallow crater and blast mark.

Half Sigma: Nope.

Religion makes sense (even if any specific religion is or may be false) - even when arbitrary. (This is not to say that it always makes sense to everyone - but then the same is true of large areas of science. It is to say that people do find it sensible, just as mathematicians find esoteric mathematics sensible, and quantum physicists generally find quantum mechanics sensible, in the meaning of "not being nonsense", if not in the meaning of "being perfectly understandable and clear".)

The more realistic statement of the difference between religion and science is not "religion is nonsense and science is sensible", but "religion is faith (or inner experience), and science is demonstrable (or outer experience)", more or less.

Millennia of religious people are quite clear about their faiths making sense (at least to them - and even when they disagree with them, it's very rarely on the grounds that the creed or the faith is simply incomprehensible); equally a number of scientists have been unable to make "sense" of the implications of scientific theory and observation (in the quantum area, especially; the Schrodinger's Cat thought-experiment was developed by Schrodinger not as an example of how cool and correct that interpretation of QM is, but as an example of how nonsensical (technically "incomplete") it is.

It might be true (or it might be a false-but-mathematically-plausible interpretation), but that doesn't mean it makes sense).

(Full disclosure: I say all this as a life-long atheist, alebit one with no axe to grind for religion's neck.)

Pregnancy resulting from forcible rape (statutory rape and incest may be different) is vanishingly rare. I've no doubt the legislators were aware of that fact, as was the governor, so throwing in the part about how Plan B is still okay "such as in the case of rape" was just a way of making the law *seem* compassionate.

I don't think the legislature punted; I think it made a very wise and ingenious compromise. The "specific intent" language of the statute was, I would guess, very deliberately put in to allow contraception, including emergency contraception. If a woman is raped or engages in unprotected sex and she takes emergency contraception before it can be known whether she is pregnant, there is no violation of the statute. Kind of like quantum abortion or zen abortion: if an embryo is aborted and no one knows whether it ever existed, was it really aborted?

Pregnancy resulting from forcible rape (statutory rape and incest may be different) is vanishingly rare

The four "nightmare scenarios" commonly invoked as examples of necessary abortion -- pregancy from rape, incest, or the failure of properly-used birth control, plus abortion needed to save the mother's life -- are all incredibly rare. They get brought up all the time because (a) people get scared by things they can't control and (b) they're cases in which little if any "blame" can be placed on the mother. Women and men know that if they behave responsibly neither they nor their partner is at all likely to ever need an abortion -- but those four scenarios are ones you can't personally do much of anything to prevent. That's why virtually everybody favors exceptions for rape, incest, and saving the mother's life.

or the failure of properly-used birth control,

I'm not sure what your definition of "incredibly rare" is, but this page has a chart of effectiveness rates for various methods of contraception, expressed in terms of how many women out of every hundred using the method correctly will become pregnant each year. If you look at the chart, hormone shots and implants have a rate of less than one in one hundred -- everything else, including oral contraceptives, has a rate of one in a hundred or more, each year. Multiply that by ten years of having sex while using birth control, and that's around one in ten women who use a method other than shots or implants having an unwanted pregnancy despite using that method properly. If you count condoms as a responsible method of birth control, of course, the rate would be much higher.

Does one in ten sound "incredibly rare" to you?

Dan,

Apparently the legislators of South Dakota only find the last exception you list to be persuasive. Several other states including where I live are considering similar laws wherein the only exception is for the life of the mother. Given that an improperly implanted egg can readily cause permanent sterility this really bugs me. When I worked at Planned Parenthood there was a man who had to be restrained from going after the protestors. The only reason he and his wife were there was because her pregnancy was never going to result in her giving birth. Allowing it to continue was certain to result in two things a fetus that wasn't going to survive anyway and sterility for her. If they wanted to be able to ever have children they had no choice but to have an abortion as fast as it could be done and it was tearing them up. But there were the pro-lifers, screaming their accusations of baby-killing at them.

Never forget that two of the major movers in the pro-life movement, Joseph Scheidler and Randall Terry are unabashedly as anti-contraception as they are anti-abortion. THAT is what makes them and so many of their followers truly anti-choice.

Does one in ten sound "incredibly rare" to you?

No, but then nowhere near one in ten women who properly use birth control get pregnant accidentally during their lifetimes.

Your scenario applies only to women who have regular sex for decades while using ineffective birth control methods. There are plenty of methods available -- including oral contraceptives -- with yearly failure rates in the range of 0.09% to 0.3%. When combined with condom use by the male, the rate of failure becomes indistinguishable from zero. And, of course, there's always surgical sterilization.

If you count condoms as a responsible method of birth control, of course

Certainly not when used by themselves.

Apparently the legislators of South Dakota only find the last exception you list to be persuasive

As others have noted, they left the five-day window in there to alleviate people's worries about rape and incest.

Joseph Scheidler and Randall Terry are unabashedly as anti-contraception as they are anti-abortion.

I see no reason to care, as they've no chance of making birth control illegal. Besides, the guilt-by-association game isn't very useful, as anyone who worked for an organization founded by Margaret Sanger should know. :)

Wife abuse is correlated with miscarriage. Wait till somebody gets life no parole for beating his wife, and then she has a late period. With DNA tests we can now prove that a late period is an involuntary abortion.

Whether the pill works to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum is slightly moot.

IUDs definitely do. Another reason for the exemption?

Your scenario applies only to women who have regular sex for decades while using ineffective birth control methods.

Just so long as we're clear that you're defining oral contraception (with a failure rate, at least according to the linked page, of better than one in one hundred when properly used), and any other means of non-hormonal contraception other than surgical sterilization as "ineffective birth control methods." I think that still leaves a large percentage of sexually active women who are personally concerned about accidental pregnancy despite the fact that they use some contraceptive method as designed.

Qoute from Sigivald: " ... but "religion is faith (or inner experience), and science is demonstrable (or outer experience)", more or less."

So how is "faith (or inner experience)" any different from opinion? Can religion be summed up as simply "because I say so"?

At the risk of showing my denseness, is Lizard's math correct? If the rate is one per hundred a year, does that equate to one in ten after ten years? Why wouldn't it be ten women in 1,000 after ten years?

It reminds me of people who determine the odds of winning the lottery by positing that if the odds are one in a million, then if one buys two tickets, their odds become one in 500,000. I know that is wrong.

Signed,

Mathematically Challenged in the Midwest

PS~Feel free to insert Aha!-A-Reagan-Fan-who-does-not-understand-basic-math joke here. Go ahead, I can take it.

At the risk of showing my denseness, is Lizard's math correct?

Short answer? No, I'm being sloppy, but it's pretty close.

Long answer: If there's a 1% chance something will happen after one trial, that's a 99% chance that it won't. To figure out the chance that it won't happen after two trials, you multiply 99% by 99%. For the chance it won't happen after n trials, you take 99% to the nth power. Here, to get the chance that a woman who uses a method of contraception that is 99% effective in any given year will be pregnant after ten years of use, you take 99% to the 10th power, which works out to 0.904382075 according to the google calculator. So, close enough, especially since we're dealing with a range of effectiveness, in many cases worse than 99%.

It reminds me of people who determine the odds of winning the lottery by positing that if the odds are one in a million, then if one buys two tickets, their odds become one in 500,000. I know that is wrong.

Here, though, you've got yourself confused -- the lottery ticket buyer is right. Think of it with smaller numbers -- if the number to be drawn is between 1 and 10, if you buy one ticket your chance to win is one out of ten, whereas if you buy two tickets your chance to win is two out of ten, or one out of five.

(Corrections will be accepted in good humor -- it's been ages since I taught this stuff the chance that I'm screwing it up is significant.)

Just so long as we're clear that you're defining oral contraception (with a failure rate, at least according to the linked page, of better than one in one hundred when properly used)

According to this page, the failure rate of oral contraception, properly used, is 0.1%, not more than 1 in 100. Planned Parenthood also agrees that properly-used oral contraception results in less than 1 pregnancy per 100 women. The failure rate is worse than 1 in 100 for "typical use" -- i.e., use that is sometimes proper, sometimes not. And, again, that assumes that the woman isn't making the man use a condom too -- i.e., that she's a dumbass. The failure rate of proper combined use of contraception by both the man and the woman is a tiny fraction of 1%. Relying on a single point of failure when dealing with something as life-altering as pregnancy is the height of stupidity.

"And, again, that assumes that the woman isn't making the man use a condom too -- i.e., that she's a dumbass."

I use the pill only, as I am in a monogomous relationship and am allergic to latex (and sex wtih condoms blows anyway, just my opinion). Using only the pill is not being a "dumbass." And, what about all the women who cannot use hormonal methods b/c of medical conditions, unacceptable side effects, etc.? Are they all dumbasses for having sex at all (except if they are desiring pregnancy)?

Not a rant to anyone here, but I am getting sick of these birth control and abortion discussions. They feel like a personal intrusion onto my decisionmaking and every woman's decisionmaking about how she lives her life (maybe that's not rational, that's how it feels though). Maybe I'll take a brake from the blogosphere for a while. :)

I'm always a little curious why incest gets thrown into the list of nightmare scenarios. Besides a general societal ickiness factor and the off chance that the baby will end up like the freaks in The Hills Have Eyes (which I can't imagine is all that different than in the case of non-incestual offspring), is there any reason why incest is an acceptable reason to have an abortion?

I use the pill only, as I am in a monogomous relationship and am allergic to latex.

There are condoms made out of materials other than latex, as I'm sure you know. They aren't as effective against some STDs, but they work well for preventing pregnancy.

(and sex wtih condoms blows anyway, just my opinion)

So your pleasure is more important to you than the risk of pregnancy. I'm not sure how that refutes any point I've made.

"is there any reason why incest is an acceptable reason to have an abortion?"

Generally, the cases where it seems reasonable are those where it's redundant with the rape exception, (either straight-out, statutory, or because of a large age difference/power imbalance.)

It's never been clear to me why someone who's first cousin or younger brother knocked them up should have a stronger claim to an abortion right, either. And it's been especially unclear why she should have a stronger claim to a later-term abortion right-she knew who she was sleeping with during the first months of the pregnancy, after all.

It can't be the bigger risk of birth defects thing, since there isn't a general exception for people pregnant with fetuses that are known 100% through genetic testing to have birth defects on the list; and nor does the exception cease to operate if a genetic test comes up completely clean...

is there any reason why incest is an acceptable reason to have an abortion

The assumption, I think, is that incest isn't consentual sex, even if it isn't legally rape. Many incest victims are never physically forced or threatened into having sex, but it is still easy to see how a child might not feel able to say "no" to an older relative.

There are cases of incest where both parties really did want to have sex, and there is indeed no particular reason to treat those people differently from anyone else where abortion is concerned. But who wants to require that a girl pregnant with her father's child prove she didn't really want to have sex with him?

One reason incest may traditionally be considered grounds for abortion is due to the emotional issues a child of an incestuous union is likely to face. I don't like to rely upon anecdotal evidence but I seem to remember hearing that the suicide rate among children of incestuous unions is significantly higher than for the population as a whole.

This is pretty nutty

Gov. Rounds Signs Bill Banning Most S.D. Abortions

Religion may not need to make sense, but also needn't be relegated to not measurable by science, nor "because I said so."

There are several scientific studies underway now that specifically are designed for the topic of religion in the following context.

That a religious tradition or ritual causes the perception of mystical "union with the godhead" in its participants. That this tradition also helps to inculcate these perceptions into the fabric of the rest of reality. (i.e. builds community). That participants in such traditions report greater satisfaction with life, and less stress. (which can lead to better conditions for neurogenesis, and thus less depression.)

Just because something may be the opiate of the people, doesn't mean you need to dismiss it out of hand.

When I read the details of this bill I was more struck by the injustice of punishing only the person who performs the abortion, while the woman who gets the abortion gets off scot free. She can continue her life without interruption, after she has gotten her way, and the pregnancy has been ended.

Is there any other crime one can incite/pay for/contract for that does not result in a penalty for the inciter as well as the person who carries it out?

It looks as though the legislators of S.D. don't believe women are adults responsible for their actions. Or they are simply willing to deal out the punishment unjustly because they know that most women have had an abortion or know another woman who has had an abortion, and most people are close to someone who has had an abortion, and they wouldn't stand for a law that locked up people like THEM. And don't be too quick to assume that no one you know or love has had an abortion. You'd be amazed.

Is there any other crime one can incite/pay for/contract for that does not result in a penalty for the inciter as well as the person who carries it out?

I believe paying someone to commit a crime is called "criminal solicitation", and is generally illegal. So unless the bill explicitly says that it is legal to pay for an illegal abortion, I believe the mother *could* be prosecuted under South Dakota law.

"And, again, that assumes that the woman isn't making the man use a condom too -- i.e., that she's a dumbass."

Whoever said the above is a dumbass. You are unaware of reality, my friend. The percentage of sexual events where the woman is on birth control and the man uses a condom is less than 5%, my guess. Isn't going to happen, I don't care how many commercials the government runs.

The percentage of sexual events where the woman is on birth control and the man uses a condom is less than 5%, my guess.

I'm not sure why you think that stupidity ceases to be stupidity when it is widely-practiced.

Isn't going to happen.

What's that got to do with anything? I don't care if it happens or not so long as I don't have to hear any whining about how the woman "accidentally" got pregnant.

Fair enough. I don't see the point of the normative statement, though. Besides, if someone is against abortion because it's killing a human being, what would rape or incest have to do with anything, it's still a human being. You're either against killing human beings or not.

I would bet auto fatality rates are higher than pregnancy rates for women on the pill. Am I a dumbass for driving?

Besides, if someone is against abortion because it's killing a human being, what would rape or incest have to do with anything, it's still a human being.

A lot of pro-lifers oppose rape/incest exceptions for that very reason. Others would argue that while a woman who had consentual sex has consented to the possibility of pregnancy, a victim of forced sex hasn't, and therefore has no obligations to the fetus, even though it will die without her. But most, I think, concede the rape/incest exceptions because they know that that's the best abortion ban they'll be able to get. People's views on abortion on both sides are generally emotional rather than rational, and most of the country favors legal abortion in cases of rape and incest.

I would bet auto fatality rates are higher than pregnancy rates for women on the pill. Am I a dumbass for driving?

The reason not using a condom is stupid is that it makes the activity in question safer for no significant cost besides a degree of pleasure. The parallel to your situation is that it would be stupid to not take simple steps that make driving much safer just because those steps aren't as much fun -- e.g., staying sober at a party you know you'll be driving home from.

I appreciate your reasoned response.

It doesn't make any sense to be pro-life or pro-choice if consent is the dividing line. The whole issue of abortion is an individual deciding the fate of another individual, without their consent. The reasons for the pregnancy are irrelevent, but I note and perhaps agree with your conclusions regarding the emotion involved.

I must disagree with your labeling sex without 2 forms of contraception as 'stupid.' There are many behaviors and activities that have between 0-1% chance of unwanted death or birth. Avoiding all those potential issues would render everybody lying in bed all day every day so as not to face risk. I'll agree that the costs of using 2 forms contraception as minimal, but as it doesn't happen, I am unwilling to label 99.9% of the population stupid, and I don't think unreasonable expections of behavior should be considered when contemplating policy.

You may not want to listen to people 'whine' when they get pregnant while on the pill, but I think all they want to do is deal with a situation that had a low probability of occurance, and it really doesn't have anything to do with whether abortion is ok or not. Considering all the whining that occurs when consequences manifest in more predictable scenarios, it seems excessive to call those individuals 'stupid.' I would guess you've had unfortunate incidents/results happen in your life that some observers would be able to predict at a rate that exceeded 1%, and thus, by your criteria, could label you as stupid.

At any rate, I'm not really trying to change your mind, or debate you, it just made me laugh when you called a majority of our population stupid based off a statistic that was less than 1%. Your point is taken, .3% is better than next to zero, but I will not be wearing a rubber the next time I have sex with a chick on birth control, and she won't be asking me to, and I don't consider that stupid nor do I consider her stupid, or either of our behavior's stupid, and it has nothing to do with the legitimcy or lack thereof of abortion.

Cheers!

It doesn't make any sense to be pro-life or pro-choice if consent is the dividing line. The whole issue of abortion is an individual deciding the fate of another individual, without their consent.

That's only true from a one perspective. From another, the mother has already given her consent to carry a child by choosing to have sex. That's why the rape/incest exception carries some weight. So nobody's being forced to do anything without their consent -- they're just being forced to stick with the arrangement they already consented to. Now, if you're saying that the fetus hasn't consented to have its life saved, well, I suppose that's technically true. But the law (and common sense) says that we must assume that things want to live unless we have convincing evidence to the contrary. That's why the prosecution, in murder cases, isn't required to prove that the victim wanted to live.

I will not be wearing a rubber the next time I have sex with a chick on birth control, and she won't be asking me to, and I don't consider that stupid nor do I consider her stupid, or either of our behavior's stupid

Clever boy. You're two days of girlfriend forgetfulness away from a lifetime of child support checks. But hey, at least you have slightly better orgasms.

and it has nothing to do with the legitimcy or lack thereof of abortion.

Ah, but it does. Unless you believe fetuses have no rights at all -- which most people don't -- then abortion is a matter of balancing rights. You'd rather kill a fetus than use a condom, which isn't a particularly defensible balancing of rights to most people. :)

As I noted above, if pleasure is more important to you than avoiding your partner's pregnancy, that's fine with me. I just don't want to hear about "accidental" pregnancies resulting from that sort of thing. Deaths from alcohol poisoning are "accidental" too, but its amazing how infrequently they happen to people who drink responsibly. :)

"The reason not using a condom is stupid is that it makes the activity in question safer for no significant cost besides a degree of pleasure. "

Since pleasure is the whole point of the exercise (well, unless you're trying to make a baby, in which case you're not going to use a condom unless you're really dim (and, in that case, birth control would for once actually improve the breed)), a reduction of pleasure isn't really "no significant cost".

Is something that incidentally and slightly increases the chances of miscarage as a side effect of it's main, non-infanticidal purpose accurately described as an "abortifacient"? Would that make a lot of things abortifacients?

"Now, if you're saying that the fetus hasn't consented to have its life saved, well, I suppose that's technically true. But the law (and common sense) says that we must assume that things want to live unless we have convincing evidence to the contrary. That's why the prosecution, in murder cases, isn't required to prove that the victim wanted to live."

That's exactly what I'm saying. Thanks.

"You're two days of girlfriend forgetfulness away from a lifetime of child support checks."

Ummm.... .3% vs 2 days. While I appreciate the implied statement of my virility, I must confess, I can't screw that many times in 2 days.

"Ah, but it does. Unless you believe fetuses have no rights at all -- which most people don't -- then abortion is a matter of balancing rights. You'd rather kill a fetus than use a condom, which isn't a particularly defensible balancing of rights to most people. :)"

I'm pro-life, dude. Are you reading my posts? Your logic is suspect - unless I believe fetuses have no rights, then abortion is a matter of balancing rights. Huh? I believe fetuses have rights, that in no way whatsoever implies abortion is a matter of balancing rights. Murder is wrong, period. The only thing I have tried to convey, and apparently I've failed, is that for you to call 99.9% of the population stupid for not using 2 forms of birth control is disingenous, unhelpful, and hypocritical. You never addressed that point.

Upon a small late night amount of reflection, I don't think my previous posts would necessarily lead anybody to conclude I'm pro-life, sorry.

That being said, you neglected to respond to the other main point of my previous post, as you neglected the one I mentioned in the post above this one. Specifically, calling people stupid for not engaging in 'proper' behavior to lower the odds of undesirable outcomes from .3% to close to zero is easy to do on a blog, but can you say the same for yourself.

Ummm.... .3% vs 2 days. While I appreciate the implied statement of my virility, I must confess, I can't screw that many times in 2 days

0.3% is how likely a woman is to get pregnant in a year if she remembers to take the pill every day. Forgetting to take the pill two days in a row renders it useless -- hence my remark.

Since pleasure is the whole point of the exercise (well, unless you're trying to make a baby, in which case you're not going to use a condom unless you're really dim (and, in that case, birth control would for once actually improve the breed)), a reduction of pleasure isn't really "no significant cost".

Wrong; the whole point of the exercise is propagation of the species. The pleasure is an inducement to perform the act, and to perform it often, since it would otherwise be the most awkward and vulnerable position two people could find themselves in, not to mention that the female of the species (a) is only fertile for a handful of days out of every twenty-eight, (b) has a long gestation period once impregnated, and (c) is prone to implantation failure or early miscarriage from both purely natural causes and environmental factors.

The idea that two people should be able to engage in the exercise for pleasure only, without having to take precautions against the normal biological outcome that may occur -- precautions which, yes, could alter the nature of the experience -- nearly borders on egocentric nihilism (if such a thing is possible).

mouse: Been married much? Sex for pleasure is the glue that holds marriages together.

Been married much? Sex for pleasure is the glue that holds marriages together.

It is one of many things that hold marriages together.

But Ken's original reasoning is faulty anyway. Even if it was a given that pleasure was the sole purpose of nonprocreative sex, it wouldn't follow that a reduction in that pleasure must automatically pose a significant cost. I work in order to earn money, but that doesn't mean that the money I have to spend in order to work at all (for gas, parking, etc) is a significant cost to me.

Mutiply the cost of a lifetime of child support for one child by the chance of birth control failure and you get costs, per year of sex, on the order of $5000 for condomless sex with a woman using the pill in a typical manner, $1000 if she never makes mistakes in use, and around $100-$20 or so if the man uses a condom too. I wouldn't pay $400 a month for the privledge of not using a condom, personally. There's plenty of fun to be had in sex regardless.

mouse: Been married much? Sex for pleasure is the glue that holds marriages together.

I was addressing the fallacy in pure biological terms. Namely, the proposition that because a biological act produces pleasure "unless you're trying to make a baby," a couple is entitled to derive as much pleasure as possible and then, by extension, deal with the consequences (creation of a distinct human entity) after the fact. Garbage: making a baby, fundamentally, is why the act exists; call it success in reproduction, or call it whatever. Obviously there are other benefits, but I wasn't addressing those.

Hence, "egocentric nihilism" -- no distinctions in value permitted, all that matters is gratifying ME.

To one and all who complain about the emotional aspects of this debate:

We would not be having any of this if the pro-aborts had not:

1. Gone for the whole enchilada by asking SCOTUS to completely legalize abortion.
2. After getting that "right," say to their opponents "It's over. Get your heads outta that Bible, you sexist/reactionary/homophobic/racist/fascist Christers."
3. Attempt to use RICO laws to brutally shut down pro-life protest on this issue, an attempt which is the shame of this nation.

And we pro-lifers are supposed to shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well. Let bygones be bygones" when we have this shoved in our faces?!

Comments are Closed.