The Conservative War On Women

You've made this point a few times now. Repeating yourself isn't a discussion, it's soap boxing. What's the goal here?

Because I talk about it in general terms a lot, but here's someone actually using the argument right here in this thread. It's confirmation of what I've been talking about.

It's such perfect timing, in fact, that I can't help but wonder if it's a plant.

I also think that your supposition that abortion is viewed by significant numbers of people as simply another form of birth control needs a citation or two.

And note that everything he's saying is about controlling the behavior of women. The actual fetus barely gets even a mention. He's explicitly saying that women's sexual behavior needs to be controlled 'for the good of society'. The fetus is just a very painful thing he can twist on to force the woman to behave 'morally'.

I stand 1000% behind the idea that being anti-abortion and anti-contraceptives is about subjugating women, about removing their freedom and agency to make their own sexual decisions. And, if you read Crispus' post carefully, I believe you'll see exactly those arguments being made.

Via Justin McElroy on twitter:
Republicans Retreat on Domestic Violence

Even in the ultrapolarized atmosphere of Capitol Hill, it should be possible to secure broad bipartisan agreement on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, the 1994 law at the center of the nation’s efforts to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The law’s renewal has strong backing from law enforcement and groups that work with victims, and earlier reauthorizations of the law, in 2000 and 2005, passed Congress with strong support from both sides of the aisle.

Yet not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor last week when the committee approved a well-crafted reauthorization bill introduced by its chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Senator Michael Crapo, a Republican of Idaho, who is not on the committee.

Crispus wrote:

1. The definition of "consequence" is "something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition." There is no demonization there, nor do I see it as a loaded word. It simply describes what is. Babies are a possible consequence of sex, just like choking is a possible consequence of eating.

Yes, that is the dictionary definition of consequence, but in the context of how it is used (as I noted above), the inflection of the use is there. While that may indeed not be the case for you, I certainly hear it from others whose choice of words is pejorative.

2. Not all biological functions are created equally. The difference between eating and sex is that eating is required to live. Sex is not. Sex is an action that can be postponed, indefinitely, until a time when it can be performed with contraception. This can be done without killing the subject, which is not the case with eating. Hence why some would be quicker to condemn sexual consequences than they would eating consequences.

3. If someone contracted food poisoning by eating food in a risky, irresponsible manner (for instance, by eating something that was raw and unwashed), I don't think people would simply give that person a pass for their actions. They'd criticize that person for being irresponsible.

The other side of the coin is that even if I was engaging in risky eating by indulging in eating something that was raw and unwashed, no one is going to tell me that I shouldn't be admitted to the emergency room because I was being irresponsible.

Obviously, it takes two to tango, and the male does share responsibility. But the fact of the matter is, biology has dictated that the female carry the child. In a perfect world, I agree, the male and female would share that responsibility equally, perhaps with either party potentially becoming pregnant. But biology doesn't allow for that. That's where child support comes into play - it's the best method we've come up with, as a society, to pin sexual responsibility to males.

Except the cash is hardly equitable for a legal obligation that a woman be forced to carry to term because of an irresponsible act. On top of that, we do have ways of reducing abortions by providing OTC emergency contraceptives in case someone does act irresponsibly. However, there are plenty of cases where someone wanting to get Plan B has been stopped cold because someone at the local drugstore claims a their morality trumps the need of someone seeking that medication. What then?

Crispus wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

But people also eat for pleasure, do they not? And often people eat foods that are not specifically required to keep them alive, or binge and eat more than the necessary amount of nutrients and calories. Sex and food are both vital biological functions (one for the survival of the individual, and one for the survival of the species), that we long ago began to also enjoy for reasons of pleasure.

Do we not criticize people who eat irresponsibly, though? Aside from the example of intentionally eating inadequately prepared foods above, there's also the fact that we're attempting to curb eating behaviors that lead to obesity in the US today, and the medical care costs attributed to obesity are something for which the obese are criticized. Criticism for irresponsible use of biological functions is nothing new, nor do I think it's always wrong.

Well sure, but if the anti-abortion people were just criticizing women who have abortions, this discussion wouldn't even be happening right now. Unfortunately, the anti-abortion movement goes far beyond simple criticism.

General question - if a Jehovah's Witness became a pharmacist (bear with me, folks) and determined that your kid's ear infection was due to an insufficiency of prayer, and refused, on religious grounds, to provide you with antibiotics, would you consider that an infringement on your healthcare rights?

Tanglebones wrote:

General question - if a Jehovah's Witness became a pharmacist (bear with me, folks) and determined that your kid's ear infection was due to an insufficiency of prayer, and refused, on religious grounds, to provide you with antibiotics, would you consider that an infringement on your healthcare rights?

Of course not. A responsible person always knows that if you do not pay alms to the great goddess Minerva every fortnight you get what you deserve!

Tanglebones wrote:

General question - if a Jehovah's Witness became a pharmacist (bear with me, folks) and determined that your kid's ear infection was due to an insufficiency of prayer, and refused, on religious grounds, to provide you with antibiotics, would you consider that an infringement on your healthcare rights?

What, did you think that reference to choking on a fish bone was just a happy accident? ; D

Tanglebones wrote:

General question - if a Jehovah's Witness became a pharmacist (bear with me, folks) and determined that your kid's ear infection was due to an insufficiency of prayer, and refused, on religious grounds, to provide you with antibiotics, would you consider that an infringement on your healthcare rights?

I suppose that would depend on whether the pharmacist was working at Walgreens or if I were a JW myself, going to my JW-only pharmacy.

I think you're mistaking Jehovah's Witnesses for Christian Scientists. The only treatment that JWs refuse is a blood transfusion - antibiotics are A-OK.

Crispus wrote:

Or, maybe, that person just sees voluntary sex as the woman being irresponsible, and feels that's not a good enough reason to warrant something as significant as an abortion. The religious aspect, which you continually harp on in your posts, doesn't have to be a part of their reasoning at all. Personally, I sympathize with the non-religious criticism myself. I'm ok with abortions up to three months, but only because I think that's a reasonable compromise on the whole issue, and because the fetus at that point is so undeveloped.

But if contraception was a 100% guarantee that conception could be prevented, I'd give strong consideration to banning abortions entirely except in those cases of rape/incest/mother's health. I think sex, especially unprotected sex, requires responsibility, and it rubs me the wrong way when a fetus has to pay the price for its parents' irresponsibility. It just doesn't seem fair.

I reject the concept of sex as an action with no consequences, because that's not biology, no matter how much we might wish it to be otherwise. So, with that outlook, it DOES seem fair to me that if a woman has sex without contraceptives, she could be barred from aborting her pregnancy. By granting such a woman an abortion, I feel society grants her the ability to be as careless with her body as she desires, which I feel hurts both her and society. If some people feel that makes me a person who hates liberated women, so be it. I personally view that outlook as one which simply accepts the shortcomings of our biology.

I also believe that abortions are a significant action - it's surgery, after all - so it bugs me when I hear people talking about it as if it were just another form of birth control.

I am trying not to make this a personal attack but that whole post made my skin crawl.

When you say voluntary sex is irresponsible, I am assuming that you mean anytime a woman has sex, unless she is being raped, she had better be prepared to procreate? There are a lot of reasons people have sex. Good reasons. A major part of being a functioning human is not being limited by our biology. Would you not want people to be treated for STDs? There are far more facets to sex than just the biology.

You could make your exact same argument for having teeth pulled. You lack of tooth protection was irresponsible, tooth removal is a surgery and should not be taken lightly.

I know this post was a rambling and some what stream of conscious, but I felt the need to respond.
Also, "voluntary sex" is probably the most disgusting term I have seen in a while.

NathanialG wrote:

I am assuming that you mean anytime a woman has sex, unless she is being raped, she had better be prepared to procreate?

Any time that a man and a woman have vaginal sex, they had better be prepared for the possibility that the woman ends up pregnant and then has to make the decision whether to carry the child to term or have the pregnancy aborted. The first time my wife got pregnant, it was despite a condom *and* the pill. We were at a point in our lives where we had been discussing the possibility of having kids, so it was not an unwelcome situation.

Rallick wrote:

I think you're mistaking Jehovah's Witnesses for Christian Scientists. The only treatment that JWs refuse is a blood transfusion - antibiotics are A-OK. ;-)

Gotcha - I have a hard time telling the various cults apart.

I'll just put this here...

Regarding the rise in violent sexual assault in the military the most adroit argument is to blame the victims.

Question For Fox News: How Much Rape is Too Much Rape?

A blue-rinse lady making the argument that rape is what happens when men and women spend too much time together. The same blue-rinse lady who also threatened Obama's life on the air, oh so casually (15 seconds of Truthiness downthread of the link). But I digress. Back to the war on women.

“We have women once more, the feminist, wanting to be warriors and victims at the same time. [...] But while all of this is going on, just a few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented on a new Pentagon report on sexual abuse in the military. I think they have actually discovered there is a difference between men and women. And the sexual abuse report says that there has been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults. Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact.”

Well, to be fair, it's not just a reauthorization, they are changing the rules somewhat. The conservative alternative, however...

called for a huge reduction in authorized financing, and elimination of the Justice Department office devoted to administering the law and coordinating the nation’s response to domestic violence and sexual assaults.

So tough on crime, unless it's crime against women, apparently.

DanB wrote:

Did someone say war against women?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/op...

Can you cut and paste the article?

Dezlen wrote:
DanB wrote:

Did someone say war against women?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/op...

Can you cut and paste the article?

I think that would be a big no-no.

But try this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/op...

NathanialG wrote:

When you say voluntary sex is irresponsible, I am assuming that you mean anytime a woman has sex, unless she is being raped, she had better be prepared to procreate?

Considering no method of birth control is foolproof - yes, both partners should be prepared for that risk.

Malor wrote:

So tough on crime, unless it's crime against women, apparently.

Rape is the most heinous crime imaginable; how fortunate, then, that it never actually seems to happen by their standards.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

When you say voluntary sex is irresponsible, I am assuming that you mean anytime a woman has sex, unless she is being raped, she had better be prepared to procreate?

Considering no method of birth control is foolproof - yes, both partners should be prepared for that risk.

mudbunny wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

I am assuming that you mean anytime a woman has sex, unless she is being raped, she had better be prepared to procreate?

Any time that a man and a woman have vaginal sex, they had better be prepared for the possibility that the woman ends up pregnant and then has to make the decision whether to carry the child to term or have the pregnancy aborted. The first time my wife got pregnant, it was despite a condom *and* the pill. We were at a point in our lives where we had been discussing the possibility of having kids, so it was not an unwelcome situation.

You guys are both right, what I was trying to get at was the idea that responsible sex can only be had with aim of procreation. Or just what his idea of responsible sex would be.

I wonder, though, if there actually is some ethically valid anti-abortion argument that can be made. I am skeptical that there is, but I will attempt to do so; if, even when given a generous set of premises, the argument is of little value, we can perhaps conclude that the whole anti-abortion movement really is pure sexism.

A lot of arguments claim that 'life begins at conception', which is of course wonderfully vague and probably not accurate if you define your terms scientifically. Sperm are living organisms, maybe eggs are too, and both of those things die all the time (sperm die by the millions literally 24/7!). The sentiment of the phrase, if we look at it in the best possible light and not as the silly propaganda that it actually is, seems to be that once the egg is fertilized the life of a human being begins in earnest. Even if it doesn't have a body or a nervous system or a brain, you could argue that a sort of contract has been made to produce those things and so even if terminating it would cause it no physical pain or bring an end to any sort of consciousness, you're still in some sense depriving a person of the life they may eventually gain. In an effort to give this argument as much credence as possible, let's accept the premise that egg fertilization is the point at which termination becomes evil in some degree. (Before this, termination is benign; as the fetus gains nerves and consciousness and such, it becomes increasingly evil.)

Here are some other balls in play. We will assume for simplicity's sake that there is some method of contraception that is 100% effective in preventing the fertilization of an egg (I don't think this is true, but it is maybe close to true). Let's say that you either 'use contraception' (follow all procedures necessary to prevent fertilization) or 'use no contraception'. Let's also say that deciding whether to contraception is the equal responsibility of both parties, so if it is not used then both the man and woman are equally responsible for not using it.

Another ball in play is the question of whether pregnancy is intended. It possible for neither party to want pregnancy yet not use contraception, and for one party to want pregnancy while the other doesn't (and for either party to lie about whether they want pregnancy).

The last ball we will consider is the question of consent. Let's pretend we live in a egalitarian society and say that either party could end up having non-enthusiastically-consensual sex, and we will assume that when this happens they lose responsibility for the contraception choice.

The problem quickly becomes quite complicated. If one person wants pregnancy and other doesn't, how does that affect the former person's responsibility contraception-wise? Even if they want the outcome to be pregnancy, failing to use contraception treats the other person as a means to an end, so unless BOTH parties want pregnancy then contraception must be maintained by all. What if one person doesn't want pregnancy but says that they do to appease the other person? Going and getting contraception secretly (birth control, vasectomy, plan B, etc...) is unethical because again you're treating your partner as a means to an end.

The most problematic cases, however, are the ones everyone traditionally likes to discuss. If neither party wants pregnancy yet fails to use contraception, each is equally responsible if fertilization occurs; our premises state that terminating beyond this point is an evil act, so in our scenario preventing an abortion may be justified. If either party is raped, we've assumed that their responsibility for contraception is nullified; thus we must balance between the harm done to the child and the harm that will be done to victim (male or female, because again we're pretending this is egalitarian) through the process of raising the child. I'd call it a tossup and say that there are ethically-backed arguments to be made either way (but only assuming our premise about the fertilized egg; if we attach very little harm to terminating it, then clearly the victim should have the right to decide because the harm to her will certainly be greater).

If both parties do not want a child and have enthusiastically-consensual sex using proper contraception, no harm has been done. If both parties do want a child and have enthusiastically-consensual sex without contraception, no harm has been done. These are the only cases that are 100% ethical (assuming fertilization as the point of conception), and as such an ethical society should structure itself to encourage each case in equal measure. Beyond this everything becomes hopelessly complex.

Did someone say war against women?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/op...

e2a: ooops, just noticed that tanglebones beat me too it.

Malor wrote:

So tough on crime, unless it's crime against women, apparently.

Except the article explicitly states the opposition is related to new gay and immigrant provisions of the law.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Malor wrote:

So tough on crime, unless it's crime against women, apparently.

Except the article explicitly states the opposition is related to new gay and immigrant provisions of the law.

Senator Charles Grassley, the committee’s ranking Republican, offered a substitute bill that not only cut out those improvements but called for a huge reduction in authorized financing, and elimination of the Justice Department office devoted to administering the law and coordinating the nation’s response to domestic violence and sexual assaults.

And then the dems counter with the funding levels back in and the new stuff stripped out and the bill is re-authorized as is.

Politics!

NormanTheIntern wrote:

And then the dems counter with the funding levels back in and the new stuff stripped out and the bill is re-authorized as is.

Politics!

Gotcha - so it should actually be classified as part of the conservative war on gays, transgenders and immigrants, not on women.

Well, that article would better support your statement than Malor's, sure.

Another thing this whole Catholic kerfuffle highlights is the silliness of the concept of getting your health insurance through your employer. It's completely entrenched in our society, enshrined in law in many states, but has no rational basis any more.

But, I admit this is a derail.

I'll make a "Liberal war on religious freedom" thread where we can discuss that, sound good?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'll make a "Liberal war on religious freedom" thread where we can discuss that, sound good? :)

I assure you, many of us would love to understand exactly what kind of war we're waging on religious freedom.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'll make a "Liberal war on religious freedom" thread where we can discuss that, sound good? :)

Go for it, provide evidence, and I'd be happy to participate.