anti-abortion folks still get abortions

I was originally not going to post, but a series of inconsistent replies (not necessarily by you) and reading more from the author of the cited article, has sort of prompted me into saying something.First things first. Despite being 100% for abortion rights, I found the cited article rather poorly written, and essentially base propaganda. The author appears to be just that, a propagandist. I'm not sure why it was found to be of note.IF these anecdotes are real, then it points to some definite measure of hypocrisy with specific individuals. That's a surprise? Some people can be hypocrites? Yes, so can AA people. More insulting to my sensitivities was the author's attempts to pad her article. Did no one else notice the similarities between sets of anecdotes? One might start wondering if in fact any of these are factual rather than urban myths.Then there were the studies. In addition to the problem of apparently conflicting measurements, there was an immense problem with equivocation (or at least ambiguity). Stats on religious identity is presented as if this supports the anecdotal picture she was painting. But it doesn't. We cannot know what those people meant by their religious identification, and whether it was meant to imply agreement on all items held by those denominations. For example I could very well be Catholic but believe abortion is okay.Neither were the stats on thinking whether abortion was immoral, or disagreeing that "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally." Particularly that last statement is so broad I am sure some who are pro choice, would not necessarily agree with it. But lets address the morality question. People definitely do things they believe are immoral, if/when they feel realities in life make it the best decision beyond moral questions. For example a poor, starving person is likely to steal despite maintaining a moral position against theft.Desperation makes strange bedfellows.If she was wanting to make her point her stats needed to be much more accurate to the specific claim she is making. In fact it would have been much more important to find out how many people against abortion are having abortions. It really wouldn't mean anything if 30% of all abortions are for those opposed to it, when only 3% of those opposed to abortion are having them. She supplied nothing about this.Some people apparently may be hypocrites, or take advantage of a freedom when available, which they would rather not have as a freedom in general. I suppose another interesting stat is how many of them would not have had abortions if it had not been free. That could explain their duplicity, that they know they are weak and want to impose social pressures to gain traction on a decision. That's much like the gambling addicts against legalized gambling, the drug addicts against drug legalization, etc. Well I am glad to see you saying this, but it is not true that this attitude is part of all prochoice or sex-ed materials/instruction. Indeed there is a great hypocrisy on this score across prochoice and sex-ed advocates. Indeed you can see it going on right within this thread. You have people arguing how good sex is for people, and bad that people don't, but its good that people have sex ed, because it results in people not having sex.The sexual moral hypocrisy of Xians is pretty much stretched over both sides here. Not to press this point, but you had in the past specifically argued that this was not possible. This is certainly one of the hypocrisies within the sex-ed prochoice crowd. Children should be educated so that they can make informed decisions, and given access to items to make sex safe, yet at the same time they are not supposed to actually engage in such activity and if they do they will be punished for doing so, and often adults are for having allowed for such activity to take place (including supplying protection), and most certainly they are for engaging in such behavior with a kid, because no kid can ever be thought to be "informed".There really is less hypocrisy in religious proscriptions against an activity, and then not aiding people (in this case kids) in that activity, even if it means those people might suffer if/when they engage in that activity. That sort of goes along with the idea that you can't argue abortion should be legalized because it will mean less women will be hurt while engaging in it. There is no hypocrisy to say one does not care if more women are getting hurt doing something they are not supposed to be doing, which ironically happens to be (to their eyes) trying to harm another person. There is quite a bit of hypocrisy to be seen on the PC side, when such arguments are used.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I'm amazed at the number of people that pretend under an age we know to have been set arbitrarily (and differentially) humans are actually another species.Do you have a reason to believe this? The longtime virgins I knew had wholly unrealistic attitudes about sex and relationships, as well as neurotic tendencies.I want to ask you this seriously, do you think you could pick a virgin out of a crowd based on this "purity"? And what does it give them? Sex does not cause diseases. There is also no evidence that sex causes mental problems. The worst case scenario is an unwanted pregnancy, or pregnancy which results in health issues, of course these can be avoided by limiting some specific sex acts or by using protection.On the flipside it has been shown to increase both physical and mental health.

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

You invoke my name, then deliver a description that has no relationship to my position. Let me make this clear to you... My relativism does not say anything is "OK" based on different times. The most it would say is that it is viewed as "OK" to those people of those times. Its a statement of fact, not a moral conclusion.Further, there is no absolute moral code such that people could be judged objectively wrong for finding such practices okay. That does not make their practices OK, it makes their practice morally neutral.On top of that, to a relativist, people who are opposed to such practices are also viewed as having a valid position. Thus it is wholly errant to choose one set of practices and use that as some statement that relativists "approve" that behavior. They will approve or disapprove of many different behaviors, and state that there is no objective criteria to judge which is more correct.Finally, my own position has no concept of okay in a moral sense at all. One can like or dislike something, and can be identified by the qualities of moral choices one makes. No specific action has any intrinsic moral meaning, but rather it is all based on context.Hope this helps.I note you did not respond to my earlier reply, critiquing your cited article.{AbE: If someone had asked if it would or should be OK for men to bugger each other (or if it must be related to kids then teach kids about buggering), or to perform abortions, or for one gender to be allowed breaks within/immunity from military service, just because people believe that is so... what would you say? If it is different than your answer own answer to the question you posed to RR, what is the basis for this?}This message has been edited by holmes, 03-27-2006 12:22 PM

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

And that means??? My question was a response to your statement that you had judged virgins to exhibit some "purity" that others do not. Sex causes disease? Can I ask which ones and what are the mechanisms? If you mean that diseases can be transferred during sex that is different than sex causes disease. Breathing can transfer plenty as well, but my guess is you don't say breathing causes disease.If you have two people of known health status, and they do not carry any diseases, and they have sex, no disease forms due to their having sex: yes or no? Again, sex itself is not a causative factor here. There are usually problems which effect sexual behavior, and that is why people seek help. People do not go insane because of sex. AIDs is caused by HIV, which is a virus. It is spread in many different ways. Do you say that blood transfusions cause AIDs, or that blood transfusions help people, though if the blood source contains HIV a patient may become infected? John Holmes became infected with HIV through drug use. If I remember correctly at the time he contracted it he was no longer able to have sex because of drug usage.Magic Johnson contracted HIV through sex with a person who had HIV. If he had had sex with someone without HIV he would not have suddenly gotten it. It is unknown how the person he contracted it from got it.The other issues you mention are not caused by sex, they are viral or bacterial. Having sex with an uninfected person, or engaging in sexual acts which cannot allow transferral prevents one from getting anything. These issues do not suddenly spring forth abiogenetically because one has sex.Women are capable of having yeast infections without sex. You made the claim, I questioned it. I look forward to your putting your money where your mouth is and posting links to support your outrageous claims. Lets start with HIV since you hyped it so much. Show where any study provides evidence the condition is caused by sex.

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

Okay, but I want to make sure you understand I was not simply arguing that I did not think those were okay. I was also trying to make the point that what you wrote was not a relativist position either. You don't have to respond to this, unless you believe your position was accurate to relativism, and wish to argue that case.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-27-2006 07:15 PM

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

Ahem... given the set up I stated, beyond pregnancy from unprotected vaginal intercourse, what health issues are there? There is no inherent risk to sex. Those that exist because it involves contact between humans, one or more of whom carry a disease, can be minimized or completely negated.Eating and breathing around other humans carries risk, the same kinds of risks. Do you praise those that do not eat or breathe around other people? I am in an open sexual lifestyle. I and my gf have had sex with many women and men. To date we have never contracted nor suffered any STDs. I'm not sure what you mean by unprotected. Do you count sex without a condom, though having been tested for STDs unprotected? Do you count not engaging in risky sexual behavior, as compared to no risk sexual behavior, as unprotected?As it is, I'd say imposing "unprotected" is unfair. That would be like me saying okay go eat a bunch of fruits, vegetables, and meats but never wash or cook them. Seriously do that and then talk to me. The fact is as a matter of common sense people generally wash and cook foods to protect themselves, not against the food, but illnesses which may be carried on or in food.The same SHOULD go for sex. If we were less obsessed with sex and viewing it as inherently "dirty", common sense rules would be followed, and we wouldn't be facing the pandemic we are today. If we had everyone tested, and managed to impose a form of quarantine (like we do for ANY other deadly contagion) , it would also disappear. Or if we come up with a way to defeat it medically, it will also disappear.In Africa, a family is already immune to the virus thanks to a gene mutation regarding their immune system. Thus for them it is not a risk.If people stopped eating and breathing we could stop so many illnesses it would be incredible. Of course everyone would be dead, or lets pretend they could somehow live, it would pretty much suck. Actually we have a pretty good idea. It was a variant of SIV (a simian virus, changed to something humans could suffer from, like the bird flu thing). It was first transferred to humans by those killing simians (that would be monkeys) for meat. It could have been from eating the meat or infected blood from the monkeys entering cuts on the hunters' body.So again, no sex as cause. Your "thoughts" seem to crumble to dust when one attempts to look at the technical points it relies on. That's exactly why they are important. Devil is in the details and all that.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-28-2006 10:16 AM

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

Can HIV be spread via masturbation of a partner when there are no cuts on either person? How about oral sex with a condom where the person does not cum into the condom during oral sex?Give me the mechanisms and stats on that.In truth one can say there is no protection against anything. That does not make all things to be feared or not engaged in. Would you say to someone that blood transfusions cause HIV? How about breathing or eating causing pneumonia or meningitis? Long walks at night cause Nile Fever? Somehow I doubt that.One can contract an illness when exposed to another infected individual. Contact with an infected individual is a cause, the method is superfluous. If one is not infected then sex will not spread it either. Hence two or many more people of known negative status having sex beyond "two people married together" will not spread anything. No guilt, no accessory to the crime.Knives can be used for all sorts of things. That some murderers plunge them into unsuspecting victims, does not mean knives cause or are accessories to murder.

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

Here's my responses to a few of RR's musings... Its amazing that you analogize forcing a person to where a helmet while riding, to stopping having sex entirely. The correct and obvious analogy would be to stop the person riding at all, if one wants people to stop having sex entirely. Or if one wants to go with the helmet, then have people take sexual precautions.A helmet is a precaution to reduce risk. Indeed one can reduce the risk of sex to lower percentages than getting injured while riding with a helmet. Okay, here's the thing that I don't get. You come in here gangbusters about how it should be illegal for everyone else. Yet you then explain you and a gf have actually used it and now feel guilty.If this is true, instead of starting with everyone else, why aren't you and your gf petitioning and demanding that you guys get locked up for murder? I mean if this is your serious belief, why not put YOUR nuts where your mouth is?Or why not punish yourself, or allow yourself to be punished by a body of evangelicals for your crime, if the state is not willing? That is possible of course.And you can't hand me an argument that your case should be an exception because you did it before realizing it was wrong, or that it was legal and therefore you shouldn't be punished. If you believe what you did was wrong then you still need to be punished or somehow held accountable and your should be demanding your own case be tried before those of others.So there ya go, as far as I can tell until you make yourself the pinup boy for people that should be in prison right now for a capital crime, I really can't believe anything you say about what should happen to someone else.Heck you don't even have to wait until Roe v Wade is overturned. It is murder according to you, right? March right down and turn yourself in to demand justice for your unborn victim.{AbE: Or maybe I should simply ask: What do you feel should be done to you and your gf, for having had an abortion? If the answer is nothing, why shouldn't that be good for everyone else? If the answer is some form of punishment, why are you not seeking/imposing it on yourself?}This message has been edited by holmes, 03-29-2006 10:08 AM

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

You didn't answer my post #153. What do you want to impose on people? What punishment do you think people who engage in abortion should have inflicted upon them? Is it as serious as murder?Whatever your answer, why are you not trying to have that done to you and your gf first? Why are you not in the front line saying society needs to punish you most severely to set an example for others?

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

That was an interesting post, but didn't really answer any of my questions. No one is telling you to pull it out of your pants, nor that you shouldn't have the views you do about what to do in life. Conversely you ARE suggesting that society should tell me what to do with my views. That's not really fair is it? I agree with the middle point, but not the others. There are certainly no factual bases for your suggestions. Uh, well whether they are learned the hard way or not, if you force people to do them by law then you are forcing them on me. As it is people have not learned what you seem to have learned the hard way. I don't believe if people were left to do what they want that this world would get ugly, certainly no uglier than a world with one group trying to impose one set of morals on everyone else.And what does this have to do with living like cavemen? Cavemen had low technology, and clearly they survived whatever their moral systems were. Being free to choose would not lower my technology, knowledge about the world, nor make us less able to survive as the cavemen did. It would have to cost plenty. You'd have police, court systems, and prisons to deal with everyone that didn't agree with you. Oh yeah, and you'd still have to have doctors for diseases and psychological problems, including for the health and psych problems associated with living in a repressive environment.Is there a reason we could not reduce STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and psychological problems by having better medical systems and encouraging people to feel more at ease with their sexuality?

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

First your sort of answer to my original question... Well I think it ought to be and that's why I asked my question. If you are for laws against abortion then you are saying that shouldn't be enough for others.Are you for laws against abortion? If so, why are you not trying to have yourself punished, rather than appealing to the fact that it happened to be legal at the time? I'm not sure who "they" are, but it doesn't stop diseases from spreading. And polygamy or simply sex with more than one partner in a lifetime has not been shown to have any inherent problems. So does making sure others are tested, using protection, engaging in low to no risk sex acts, and for pregnancy not engaging in vaginal sex at all.And no one ever got pregnant from homosexual sex.

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

I'm still interested in knowing if you are for making abortion illegal, and if so, what punishment would be involved? Given that you suggested the personal suffering you went through should be good enough for you, why not keep abortion legal and let that be enough for everyone else?

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

Being sent to jail wouldn't have prevented you from doing it, it would only have punished you for doing it. The question is if you feel others should be punished afterward, why not you now? Why not you first?

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

Heheheh! I tells ya, even more than having them volunteer to take care of unwanted children, if those that had abortions (or were complicit in them) were rushing to be jailed I might take it all much more seriously.

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

You could also make news. Go out now and start a trend. I can't wait to see it on the news. Uhoh... blame society? Well actually society was not "accepting" of abortion. I though AAs point out that it was a court that overthrew the will of the public on this issue.As it is many pro choicers do not necessarily recommend abortion. They just weren't going to punish you... big difference. Wait a minute, you can't help doing something unless there are laws which deter you? Oh no it is! You've turned into a bleeding heart blame society liberal! Heheheh.In any case, if because it was legal you did no wrong, then the people today are doing no wrong and it never will be. So I guess its not that bad after all huh?And now people can blame you for putting money in the abortionists' pockets to keep them going. As well as not getting yourself punished as you should be to be a deterrent for others. Let me explain something which has already been explained: those wanting to have abortions are not deterred by laws against abortion. If they really want to then they will go and try to have one. The laws may deter some people squeamish about having to go the back alley route, but not those determined to end a pregnancy.I guess what we'd be hearing if laws had been in place is your whining that we need stiffer laws about pregnant women being allowed to go to Mexico, because they might have abortions. And to blame everyone else for encouraging you to encourage your gf to go to Mexico to have it done, because they didn't pass such laws. Will that be a good enough answer when you meet God? Humans could legalize murder for fun in the coloseum, would that make your doing it less culpable to morality and God?Oh yeah, I guess this shoots down any further appeals you might make to absolute morality.

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)