Quoting claymisher: At this point we have to figure Bob is deliberately antagonizing the loyal viewer.

Plus, the editor of BeliefNet. This could only be improved if they had Ross Douthat call in, for "perspective." Ugh. Looks like I'm skipping another diavlog. Meanwhile, here's some analysis of Saletan's "thinking" on abortion.

Huh? You guys hate Saletan, now too? Do you ever actually read him? He's basically a standard liberal; he's pro choice but wants to reduce the amount of abortions - the same position as Obama, I might add. He also wrote an excellent book on the subject so you might want to remove the glib quotation marks from thinking ，Brendan. And back when he was still writing about politics in Slate (before that job was handed over to the conventional wisdom spewing John Dickerson) he wrote the best series of indictments of GWB that I ever came across. Sigh...Im not typically one to bemoan "liberal intolerance," but between the weird bashing of Chris Matthews and Saletan －　I am starting to feel sad.

Yeah; these conversations are really taking us into a place of high weirdness. But this one and the Church Lady one have brought me to wonder: what would people make of a study showing you can induce miscarriages with prayer?

Havent listened to it all yet but very happy to see W Saletan here. The tinker toy critique linked above manages to mix in profanity and name-calling but misses his point entirely, which was a challenge to the anti-abortion crowd. To describe those who object to taking a seven-month old fetus and crushing its brain as a 'forty-year terror campaign' is brainless demonization and shows no understanding whatever. Thanks Bob, there are 'loyal viewers' here who aren't leftist idealogues.

By the way, instead of doing the equivilant of Perez Hilton drawing fangs on Saletan's photo, for those willing to see, I paste (without permission) some blurbs on his Bearing Right. "A fascinating tale of choices made and perhaps ultimately regretted."—Amy Sullivan, Washington Post Book World

"Saletan skillfully dissects the politics of abortion to offer fascinating insights into the larger question of our public debates and life . . . . We are in Saletan's debt for providing an understanding of this divisive, complex and corrosive issue."—Stanley I. Kutler, Los Angeles Times Book Review

"A revealing work of contrarian history."—Wall Street Journal

"Saletan's argument is so carefully documented, and so insightful, that nobody on either side of the abortion debate will be able to dismiss it lightly. His book will likely stand as the most important study of abortion politics since the sociologist Kristin Luker's 1984 classic, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood."—The Nation

"Bearing Right explicates the complexities of this struggle in consistently insightful detail."—New York Times
I guess the only thing left is to recommend Lake Of Fire.

Quoting harkin: By the way, instead of doing the equivilant of Perez Hilton drawing fangs on Saletan's photo, for those willing to see, I paste (without permission) some blurbs on his Bearing Right.

"A fascinating tale of choices made and perhaps ultimately regretted."—Amy Sullivan, Washington Post Book World

"Saletan skillfully dissects the politics of abortion to offer fascinating insights into the larger question of our public debates and life . . . . We are in Saletan's debt for providing an understanding of this divisive, complex and corrosive issue."—Stanley I. Kutler, Los Angeles Times Book Review

"A revealing work of contrarian history."—Wall Street Journal

"Saletan's argument is so carefully documented, and so insightful, that nobody on either side of the abortion debate will be able to dismiss it lightly. His book will likely stand as the most important study of abortion politics since the sociologist Kristin Luker's 1984 classic, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood."—The Nation

"Bearing Right explicates the complexities of this struggle in consistently insightful detail."—New York Times

I guess the only thing left is to recommend Lake Of Fire.

"Saletan, one of the must supple minds working in journalism today, provides a thoughtful history of abortion politics. Highly recommended."—nikkibong

Quoting bjkeefe: Plus, the editor of BeliefNet. This could only be improved if they had Ross Douthat call in, for "perspective."

Heh, that actually sounds appealing to me. I kind of like Saletan, he strikes me as one of those centrist-ish gadflies who alternate between writing interesting, insightful things and really boneheaded things. He's sort of like Mickey Kaus if you replace fetuses with Mexicans and abortion clinics with labor unions.

Quoting nikkibong: Sigh...Im not typically one to bemoan "liberal intolerance," but between the weird bashing of Chris Matthews and Saletan －　I am starting to feel sad.

I agree with pampl's brilliant assessment. I'll confess. I used to like Saletan a lot. Thinking back that must have been around 1999 and 2000. IIRC he hosted a big Planned Parenthood fundraiser in my town around 2003. But the guy writes the same damn column over and over again: prochoicers and prolifers need to compromise in the middle, and since the middle is whatever I say it is, everybody is wrong except me. I'd kinda forgotten about him, but then he came out with the dumbest fucking argument ever, the ne plus ultra of klassic kontrarianism: people who aren't racist are as dumb as creationists. Really. He wrote that. And he cited as evidence the work of a bunch of white supremacists. Eventually Saletan figured out that a quick glance at Wikipedia would have set him straight, but he still didn't really face up to his idiocy.

Sex only means anything if the person your with means something to you. The act itself has no meaning, to suggest otherwise seems awfully juvenile to me. Note: When I go skydiving, I make sure I am doing it safely, sex is no different. There is no reason why being careful about an act imbues that act with any sort of intrinsic meaning.

Quoting nikkibong: Huh? You guys hate Saletan, now too? Do you ever actually read him?

First, I'll just be speaking for myself. Second, "hate" is too strong a word. It's more accurate to say that I do not any longer see him as worth my time. I'm probably a couple of notches past where pampl is: "alternate[s] between writing interesting, insightful things and really boneheaded things." I'd say the frequency is lower than "alternates" and that it's been a long while since I read anything by him that I thought truly insightful. His contrarian shtick occasionally makes for some amusement. Granted, I've stopped reading him regularly, over the past year or two, so maybe he's recently put out some good stuff that I've missed. All I can say is that I haven't followed a link to anything lately that would incline me back to regular reading, and I no longer visit Slate regularly either, so I'm unlikely to have my eye caught by a headline. Too much else out there that appeals to me more, in a variety of ways. On the topic of abortion, though: no, he's never said anything that makes me want to give him any more time.

He's basically a standard liberal; he's pro

Not to derail the kinda-hate parade, but this diavlog touches on something I've been thinking about lately - I'm not going to defend Saletan, but I've long agreed, certainly before I ever heard it from him, that the "abortion is murder" position doesn't seem like a sincere one a great deal of the time. But I don't think the people who make that claim are actively lying, so what's under the surface? And I wonder if it's as simple (and primal) as so many adults' intense, visceral discomfort with talking to their kids about sex. That certainly seems to explain the anti-logic of being simultaneously opposed to abortion as well as to providing teenagers the information that would lower the odds of their being in a position of considering abortion. For me it also helps make sense of the "I don't support gay marriage but I'm not a homophobe" ground. That is, legitimized same-sex marriage would certainly find sex rearing its head at dinner tables around the country, if only acknowledging its existence and that some are differently oriented than others. I think back to my experience with "the talk" in the late 80s - when

Quoting harkin: I paste (without permission) some blurbs on his Bearing Right.

You're making an argument from blurbs??? Children don't even... How embarrassing! But...what an exquisite caricature of the conservative mind. Thanks!

Soibois -You really made me laugh with that story. I had the same experience in the early 70's. I had EXTREMELY liberal parents. In fact, at 17 my mother signed the permisson note for me to get on birth control pills because I was considering sex with my boyfriend. But their first attempt at the "sex talk" was my Mom coming into my room with a set of four books about the human body and saying something about any questions I might feel uncomfortable asking her and then rushing out and closing the door behind her. Even at 12 I felt something like sympathy for her.

Quoting soibois: Not to derail the kinda-hate parade, but this diavlog touches on something I've been thinking about lately - I'm not going to defend Saletan, but I've long agreed, certainly before I ever heard it from him, that the "abortion is murder" position doesn't seem like a sincere one a great deal of the time. But I don't think the people who make that claim are actively lying, so what's under the surface? And I wonder if it's as simple (and primal) as so many adults' intense, visceral discomfort with talking to their kids about sex. That certainly seems to explain the anti-logic of being simultaneously opposed to abortion as well as to providing teenagers the information that would lower the odds of their being in a position of considering abortion.

I've given this idea a lot of thought as well in recent years, and in particular have asked many of my pro-life friends about this particular question, and here's the best I can come up with: Consider the following two statements:
1. Abortion, as the taking of an innocent human life, is murder.
2. The pregnant woman and the abortion provider, engaging in a legal act of medical

Does anyone really care what these two men have to say about abortion? I can't imagine why. I'd be interested in what abortion service providers have to say. And what women who have had abortions have to say. And what women who have been prevented from having abortions have to say. And what women who have undergone back alley abortions have to say. And what doctors who treat the latter have to say. And what people who deal with unwanted, abandoned, abused, or neglected children have to say. And what women with 6 children and a 5th grade education and a patriarchal &%$@! of a husband have to say. And what men whose wives/girlfriends have had abortions have to say. But these two? Why?

Quoting Me&theboys: Does anyone really care what these two men have to say about abortion? I can't imagine why. I'd be interested in what abortion service providers have to say. And what women who have had abortions have to say. And what women who have been prevented from having abortions have to say. And what women who have undergone back alley abortions have to say. And what doctors who treat the latter have to say. And what people who deal with unwanted, abandoned, abused, or neglected children have to say. And what women with 6 children and a 5th grade education and a patriarchal &%$@! of a husband have to say. And what men whose wives/girlfriends have had abortions have to say. But these two? Why?

Presumably because they've written books and articles which have involved them talking at length to many people like those you describe. And ebcause having written on this topic, they are the destination for letters and emails from many people who have experiences like those you describe and who wish to share them with somebody. That would be my assumption. If they have nothing interesting to say, then their ideas

Quoting mmacklem: Presumably because they've written books and articles which have involved them talking at length to many people like those you describe. And ebcause having written on this topic, they are the destination for letters and emails from many people who have experiences like those you describe and who wish to share them with somebody. That would be my assumption.

If they have nothing interesting to say, then their ideas are certainly worth writing off. But writing them off entirely at the outset is not an interesting thought or rebuttal.

Well, first, as should be evident from my post, I'm open to someone making a good argument (rather than a hypothetical one) for why what those two have to say is more relevant than (or as relevant as) the views of the kinds of people I listed. Second, I've read enough of Saletan to feel he's too committed to personal view expression over pure reporting when it comes to this topic. Would prefer to hear it from the horse's mouth than filtered through Satelan's third party thrice removed brain.

Quoting Me&theboys: Well, first, as should be evident from my post, I'm open to someone making a good argument (rather than a hypothetical one) for why what those two have to say is more relevant than (or as relevant as) the views of the kinds of people I listed. Second, I've read enough of Saletan to feel he's too committed to personal view expression over pure reporting when it comes to this topic. Would prefer to hear it from the horse's mouth than filtered through Satelan's third party thrice removed brain.

My mistake then. I had mistaken your post for one of those "Here's two male columnists who have no right to say anything on this topic" criticisms, which I find so frustrating. Personally, I also find Saletan frustrating at times, but at other times his writing seems to be closest to where I find myself in this debate, so I do find him interesting more often than not. But I can definitely see other's frustrations with him.

Quoting harkin:
Thanks Bob, there are 'loyal viewers' here who aren't leftist idealogues.

Putting that in scare quotes didn't have the effect you probably wanted it to.

Quoting mmacklem: My mistake then. I had mistaken your post for one of those "Here's two male columnists who have no right to say anything on this topic" criticisms, which I find so frustrating.

Well, I have been known to make that criticism, too. But I've spent some time examining why I've felt inclined to do so, and I've realized that it is because such people are rarely live parties to the dilemma themselves and the airing of their perspectives often comes across as diminishing to those who are live parties to the dilemma (because it implies their participation in the discussion is unnecessary). There is something seriously wrong when such third parties become the primary shapers of the public discussion. My goal is to remind people of that.

Quoting soibois: Not to derail the kinda-hate parade, but this diavlog touches on something I've been thinking about lately - I'm not going to defend Saletan, but I've long agreed, certainly before I ever heard it from him, that the "abortion is murder" position doesn't seem like a sincere one a great deal of the time. But I don't think the people who make that claim are actively lying, so what's under the surface?

I think you are right, but it's that most people are just kind of muddled on the question. IMO, it's that people see the fetus as special, of value, worth protecting, they see wanted pregnancies talked about all the time as "babies," they may hear religious ideas along those lines. Thus, when they casually (and even sometimes not so casually) think about it, they figure that why they see the fetus as special is that it's a person (because it clearly is a human and there's no real clear cut place to draw lines). So it makes sense to them to describe their opposition as "it's a person" and "abortion is murder." That this is the most common way to talk about the position

Quoting DoctorMoney: Putting that in scare quotes didn't have the effect you probably wanted it to.

Actually, they had exactly the effect Harkin wanted.

Quoting rcocean: Actually, they had exactly the effect Harkin wanted.

You think he wanted to convey a sense of irony; i.e., to suggest that he and his fellow "non-leftist ideologues" are in fact anything but loyal listeners?

mmacklem: > (And yes, this is all complicated by the fact that most of my conversations > have never really considered the culpability of the pregnant woman,
> mostly due to considering them a victim of the entire process.) Respectfully, I think a bigger problem with this line of reasoning is the analogy. While I'm firmly on the side of choice, the moral universes of hamburgers and abortions are simply too distant for me to do much with this. It's sort of like making the case that having lunch with your high school sweetheart and having sex with your high school sweetheart are similar somehow, presuming you remain fundamentally committed to your current partner and are simply "enjoying some time together" with this person from your past. True, some minority of couples presumably can work this out, but for most it's just very very different. > Was that the same diavlog where Bob was talking about abortion and gay > marriage being somewhat different issues in saliency because the primary
> fear underlying much of the 'moral values' voting was fear of their
> daughter getting pregnant? That's the one. It was with Kaus, right?

stephanie: > Or maybe another way of putting this is that there's a distinction
> between one's philosophical or intellectual notion of what a person is
> (from conception, no line drawing) and what one really emotionally
> understands as a person (once it reaches a certain point of development
> or even birth with some slippage on the other end too as one approaches
> death). Absolutely. But I'm not sure a lot of people ever seriously consider the personhood question at all. I was putting the "kids and sex talk" idea out there as a deep, primal thing, the sort of motivation that engenders philosophically complicated convictions without the philosophy. I was having a vaguely heated discussion with a pro-life Catholic friend and he seemed kind of dumbstruck when I finally said "It's not a rock! It's not a tumor!" A moral spectrum that only has two poles with nothing in the middle doesn't demand a lot of hard thinking. I suppose I'm just trying to connect the dots here - that personhood is a bit of a red herring seem to explain that while evangelicals put abortion near the top of their

Quoting soibois: I don't remember who said the "Life begins at conception and ends at birth" quip ...

Barney Frank, I'm pretty sure. (One fairly credible source. And another, via Wikiquote.)

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Sex only means anything if the person your with means something to you. The act itself has no meaning, to suggest otherwise seems awfully juvenile to me.

Two disagreements: first, simply from a neurological point of view the act of sex is a pretty big deal. It has an effect on the mind comparable to regulated drugs. By its nature it's different from making small talk or playing ping pong or whatever. Second, simply as a practical matter that strikes me as a not-useful perspective. Maybe it's just the circles I travel in, but whenever a friend has tried to claim a sexual encounter was meaningless they soon get proven wrong with a thermonuclear drama explosion.

I've never been a big Saletan fan either. Not to say that I loathe him or anything. But the stuff that I have read of his over the years didn't impress me enough to put him on my must-read list, not by any stretch.

I didn't listen to this shit, but "Paying pregnant women to not have an abortion" ? That this was a discussion point here is disgusting.

Quoting brucds: I didn't listen to this shit, but "Paying pregnant women to not have an abortion" ?

That this was a discussion point here is disgusting.

The bhtv editors did an appalling job of labeling that section. The issue discussed was whether women who carry children to term and put them up for adoption should recieve some form of financial support; after all, pregnancy can be hugely expensive. (Health care, missed work/job loss etc.) It was not about giving a financial 'bonus' to women who don't have an abortion. The spirit of the converation was really lost by that shabby bit of labeling. Give the diavlog a listen, it's not as bad as you seem to think.

Quoting bjkeefe: His contrarian shtick ...

These are not about Saletan, but I think he's a pea from the same pod as Tierney. Read the comments left by El Cid and especially Hob if you're interested in what I connote by contrarian shtick. (h/t: DougJ)

Abortions are cheaper. So is sterilization. We can't afford more babies.

Quoting nikkibong: The bhtv editors did an appalling job of labeling that section. The issue discussed was whether women who carry children to term and put them up for adoption should recieve some form of financial support; after all, pregnancy can be hugely expensive. (Health care, missed work/job loss etc.) It was not about giving a financial 'bonus' to women who don't have an abortion. The spirit of the converation was really lost by that shabby bit of labeling.

Give the diavlog a listen, it's not as bad as you seem to think.

Although it is a kind of obvious point, I also thought the part of the discussion about getting pro-lifers to sign on to universal health care was an interesting discussion. That's something that I've always found troubling about the debate, is that the abortion issue is too often isolated from many of the rest of the political debate, a critique that comes up in the "pro-lifers care about the child until just after they come out of the womb" cheap-shots, but too often doesn't make it into the actual policy debates themselves. I am hoping that the "common ground" measures will move more in changing that.

Quoting mmacklem: ... the "pro-lifers care about the child until just after they come out of the womb" cheap-shots ...

As with all sweeping generalizations, this one has its exceptions, too. However, when you think about the significant correlation between the forced pregnancy crowd and support for things like war, the death penalty, and the end of restrictions on machine guns, not to mention opposition to things like Head Start and adoption by same-sex couples, it is inaccurate for you to say that this is a "cheap shot." Barney Frank's great line is funny because it's true.

bjkeefe: > However, when you think about the significant correlation between the
> forced pregnancy crowd and support for things like war, the death penalty,
> and the end of restrictions on machine guns, not to mention opposition to
> things like Head Start and adoption by same-sex couples, it is inaccurate for > you to say that this is a "cheap shot." Barney Frank's great line is funny
> because it's true. Well said. Some young economist looking to make a Freakonomics-style splash could pick far worse topics to attempt unraveling.

Your discussion is leaving out something called the soul. When a child is born is has a soul, she got it from mom. In the first three months of pregnancy there is no child, is cannot live independently, and thus does not need a soul. After that it gets messy and I wish not to address this.
Morning after pill, termination in the first three months, are all a decision of mom, if dad can convince her to carry the baby, fine, but it is mom's call. (Not the law, not the church, God's stays out of it, not the grandma, not society, mom only).
So, if the child gets born, yes it can be adopted, it may be better for the child and for mom, so do it. Nevertheless, mom gave the child her soul.
You are two men with men's opinions (I am one man), so stay out of this discussion, do not make yourself ridiculous. If you want to have it on talking heads, ask two women to discuss it.

Sexual relations takes two, but when pregnancy results, only the woman is asked to sacrifice. In today's world, that fact is not acceptable! Until men are required to sacrifice for an equal nine month term, no woman should be required to carry any unwanted child to term. Pregnancy permanently changes a woman in many ways that are not publicly acknowledged. First, and most obvious, it changes her physically. Her external body will NEVER return to the previous state. Abdominal muscles become stretched beyond normal range, resulting in a split rectus abdominis, which can only be repaired via plastic surgery. (That can be validated by speaking with any plastic surgeon.) Skin becomes stretch beyond capacity, leaving unslightly stretch mark scars. The enlarged breasts of pregnancy become droopy afterwards. Thus, in a society that greatly judges people by how they look, the woman looses her edge. Health wise, the internal changes take a huge toll. The woman is exhausted, nauseous, and for a time, experiences a noticeable "foggy mind". The enlarged uterus push internal organs into new placement, which causes the dropped bladder that eventually cause incontinence. Many women experience immune disorders, resulting in various secondary issues, often life threatening. Many women do not have health

Quoting rcocean: Actually, they had exactly the effect Harkin wanted.

That the right-winger viewers are not really loyal viewers? They're operatives of some sort, I'm sure.

Quoting Me&theboys: Does anyone really care what these two men have to say about abortion? I can't imagine why. I'd be interested in what abortion service providers have to say. And what women who have had abortions have to say. And what women who have been prevented from having abortions have to say. And what women who have undergone back alley abortions have to say. And what doctors who treat the latter have to say. And what people who deal with unwanted, abandoned, abused, or neglected children have to say. And what women with 6 children and a 5th grade education and a patriarchal &%$@! of a husband have to say. And what men whose wives/girlfriends have had abortions have to say. But these two? Why?

I don't have any objections to men expressing their opinion about abortion. At the same time I agree with you that hearing from all the other, more direct players would be a far more interesting and illuminating experience. The consequences of back alley abortion are horrifying. I wonder what anti-legalized abortion people think about that.

Quoting joannie: Sexual relations takes two, but when pregnancy results, only the woman is asked to sacrifice. In today's world, that fact is not acceptable! Until men are required to sacrifice for an equal nine month term, no woman should be required to carry any unwanted child to term.

Good points. But nine months? I'm going on 10 years here and there's no end in sight on the sacrifice front. For the vast majority of women who become mothers, their lives are hugely impacted, on a day in and day out level, for years, and to a much greater extent than are the lives of the fathers. The weight of cultural expectations falls on mothers far more than on fathers, even when the mothers work outside the home. I love being a mother to my children - they give my life more meaning than any man-made religion ever will or could - but I could write volumes about the options that I have had to forego and the roads not taken because of motherhood, something my husband has never had to worry about. My life was essentially put on hold for a good 8 years, and a small and

Quoting jackvandijk: Your discussion is leaving out something called the soul. When a child is born is has a soul, she got it from mom. In the first three months of pregnancy there is no child, is cannot live independently, and thus does not need a soul.

I was curious about how that worked, since the viability of a fetus outside the womb used to be a lot longer. I guess the timeliness of soul-insertion is continually adjusted as medical technology advances.

Quoting Me&theboys: We need to stop romanticizing motherhood - its bad for women and its bad for children.

And it's great for guilt!

Quoting metacodger: I was curious about how that worked, since the viability of a fetus outside the womb used to be a lot longer. I guess the timeliness of soul-insertion is continually adjusted as medical technology advances.

No. The soul erupts when you cut the umbilical cord and the lungs expand.

Quoting Ocean: No. The soul erupts when you cut the umbilical cord and the lungs expand.

Thank you for that descriptive explanation. Scientifically speaking, this behavior suggests that the soul behaves in a similar way to an air bubble at 1 atmosphere rising through water, though not perhaps at the same 4:1 ratio per atmosphere, as in Boyles law. The challenge now is to design a double blind with a control group in order to learn more...

Quoting metacodger: The challenge now is to design a double blind with a control group in order to learn more...

Would you like to expand on what the intervention would be?

Quoting Ocean: Would you like to expand on what the intervention would be?

Well, we could start off with birthing in a hyperbaric chamber so we could measure the soul displacement at different pressures and at varying rates of changing pressure. Ultimately this could branch off in to related experiments on original sin, or with baptized and unbaptized babies.

Quoting Ocean: Would you like to expand on what the intervention would be?

Alternative response: I tried but I had an embolism.

Quoting metacodger: Well, we could start off with birthing in a hyperbaric chamber so we could measure the soul displacement at different pressures and at varying rates of changing pressure. Ultimately this could branch off in to related experiments on original sin, or with baptized and unbaptized babies.

Deal! As soon as we come up with a reliable instrument to measure soul, we can apply for funding.

Quoting Ocean: Deal! As soon as we come up with a reliable instrument to measure soul, we can apply for funding.

OK, I'm on it. My first 30 seconds of Internet research should suffice if a highly selective reading of the following is accepted in the application: http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/04/sc...-the-soul.html

From the NYT's article: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/04/sc...-the-soul.html

Soul measurements could also settle arguments about abortion, Daedalus suggests. By applying a soul detector to pregnant women, he writes, investigators could check theologians who argue that the soul enters the embryo a week or so after conception.

"It is clearly worthwhile," Dr. Jones writes, "to establish this moment accurately. If the soul turns out to enter the fetus quite late in pregnancy, the religious arguments against contraception and early abortion will be neatly disproved."

Nothing is new under the sun. Not even our well intentioned project...

I just can't believe this debate is between two men. What rubbish! Roe v. Wade was decided in terms of privacy rights because it all comes down to the rights of a woman over her body. Period. By the way, feminists in this country reject the term "pro-life." These organizations are "anti-abortion" and in many, if not most, cases, anti-contraception and anti-premarital sex. Financial incentives for carrying babies to term and putting them up for adoption is so preposterous. One can imagine a truly bizarre future in which poor women intentionally conceive for monetary gain.

More nonsensical babble from our resident cartoon character and superhero "Dr. Money"

Quoting Jennifer888: I just can't believe this debate is between two men. What rubbish!

I think it is even worse that the abortion debate is now between those who are opposed to abortion and those who don't like abortion but think women should be allowed to have them under restricted conditions. I am not pro-choice. I am pro-abortion. It is a valid medical procedure. It a woman wants to have an abortion it is her decision - hers alone. I think the anti-abortion groups are correct in equating abortion and contraception. I see little difference in preventing an egg from being fertilized and aborting a fertilized egg. They should both be legal and not interfered with by anti-sex busybodies. This is ultimately all about sex and the desire for men to control sex and women - using religion as a handy tool. Sex is basic to homo sapiens. Religious wingnuts think sex is vile and nasty - so you should only have sex with the one person you truly love. For most of history (and still maybe for a majority of the people on earth), marriage was/is a property contract between a father and the

Quoting Jennifer888: I just can't believe this debate is between two men. What rubbish!

Roe v. Wade was decided in terms of privacy rights because it all comes down to the rights of a woman over her body. Period. By the way, feminists in this country reject the term "pro-life." These organizations are "anti-abortion" and in many, if not most, cases, anti-contraception and anti-premarital sex.

Financial incentives for carrying babies to term and putting them up for adoption is so preposterous. One can imagine a truly bizarre future in which poor women intentionally conceive for monetary gain.

Ever since I tried to adopt a baby myself, I realized that there was a problem with the system. When couples try to get a baby, they run into a severe shortage in the United States. Many of them pay $20,000 to $50,000 (and more) to get them from other countries. Meanwhile, in this country, adopters can pay only for certain medical and living expenses, and that varies from state to state. In effect, the law is saying that the babies are worthless, which is the definition of trash. Is it any wonder that we're throwing them away? If you're scared of women having babies for profit, can you

Quoting thprop: This is ultimately all about sex and the desire for men to control sex and women - using religion as a handy tool.

That's pretty silly. First, as a matter of demographic fact it's wrong (more women self-identify as pro-life than as pro-choice, and collectively they compose about half that first group), and second, because it's a ridiculously implausible conspiracy scenario. Even if it was in the interests of men collectively for the US to look like the Middle East in terms of women's rights (which is pretty unlikely to begin with..), there's a huge tragedy-of-the-commons problem: it's in the interests of every individual man for women to be as promiscuous as possible. That's the reason guys made up all those BS lines about the awesome power of female sexuality etc. in the first place.

For most of history (and still maybe for a majority of the people on earth), marriage was/is a property contract between a father and the prospective groom. The property in question being the daughter/prospective bride. I think this is the reason for the opposition to same sex marriage. It is a threat to traditional marriage

At the risk of continuing a trend toward pointing out the obvious in my posts, a significant portion of the folks who feel that politicans should control this are of the "you want to play, you have to pay" school of thought, considering sex to be a behavior for which a price must be paid. There is a related feeling that any consequence of back alley abortions from sterility to death is simply the due for any woman undergoing one. Rhetoric for political purposes aside, the atitude is one of satisfaction that such redress has been attained, representing justice served and a lesson and warning to others. Regrets for injecting a note of sadness and cynicism into a thread that has read as centered somewhere between satire and sarcasm.

1) Anybody think it's ironic that less than 20 years ago conservatives were widely promoting the idea of paying low-income women to use Norplant and Depo-Provera, despite the serious side effects many women experienced on these forms of contraception? Despite the 180 degree flip this proposal represents, the idea of using the governments' economic power to control disadvantaged women's childbearing decisions is similarly insidious. Conservatives consistently push policies discouraging low-income women from raising their children (despite the fact that an increasing proportion of these women are earning their low-incomes as child and elder care workers), suggesting that only people with money have the right to have families. 2) Many women have abortions because they pregnancy is the result of a abusive, incestuous or unstable relationship. Many more have abortions as the result of prenatal diagnoses and maternal health risks. Money wouldn't change these decisions. For those women whose decisions are financially influenced, we should be supporting their ability to raise their own children rather than turning them into "natural surrogates" for wealthier parents, a fundamentally classist idea. There's something deeply pernicious about upper-class elites tossing around the idea of

Quoting cragger: At the risk of continuing a trend toward pointing out the obvious in my posts, a significant portion of the folks who feel that politicans should control this are of the "you want to play, you have to pay" school of thought, considering sex to be a behavior for which a price must be paid. There is a related feeling that any consequence of back alley abortions from sterility to death is simply the due for any woman undergoing one. Rhetoric for political purposes aside, the atitude is one of satisfaction that such redress has been attained, representing justice served and a lesson and warning to others.

Not at all. First, I'm not at all sure how "obvious" your point is, because a huge amount of people seem not to be aware of it, or seem unaware that they (unconsciously or not) express what you describe. Second, that attitude in any case is so horrifying that it bears speaking out against repeatedly.

Regrets for injecting a note of sadness and cynicism into a thread that has read as centered somewhere between satire and sarcasm.

I hope you've read farther down. I thought

Quoting bjkeefe: As with all sweeping generalizations, this one has its exceptions, too. However, when you think about the significant correlation between the forced pregnancy crowd and support for things like war, the death penalty, and the end of restrictions on machine guns, not to mention opposition to things like Head Start and adoption by same-sex couples, it is inaccurate for you to say that this is a "cheap shot." Barney Frank's great line is funny because it's true.

I call it acheap-shot not because it is inaccurate, but because it isn't helpful. It's the type of statement that is easy to say, easy to understand, and easy to dismiss. It may be effective at rallying people to agreement who already agree, but I don't that it convinces anyone, that it brings anyone over to the pro-choice side. It doesn't facilitate discussion or debate, it ends it. The only response to that statement by the other side is defensiveness, and anyone who is in the middle but even remotely sympathetic to the pro-life side can understand that response. That's why I say it's a cheap-shot.

Quoting mmacklem: I call it acheap-shot not because it is inaccurate, but because it isn't helpful. It's the type of statement that is easy to say, easy to understand, and easy to dismiss. It may be effective at rallying people to agreement who already agree, but I don't that it convinces anyone, that it brings anyone over to the pro-choice side. It doesn't facilitate discussion or debate, it ends it. The only response to that statement by the other side is defensiveness, and anyone who is in the middle but even remotely sympathetic to the pro-life side can understand that response. That's why I say it's a cheap-shot.

I don't completely disagree when you put it like that. Certainly, repeatedly chanting this line and/or using it as an opening statement or playing it as a trump card is not likely to be helpful if you've got a group together that is sincerely looking for ways to find common ground. However, I don't agree with you regarding this line as heard by "anyone in the middle." One important thing to keep in mind is that many who are anti-abortion, and most who are prominent in that camp, have

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't completely disagree when you put it like that. Certainly, repeatedly chanting this line and/or using it as an opening statement or playing it as a trump card is not likely to be helpful if you've got a group together that is sincerely looking for ways to find common ground.

However, I don't agree with you regarding this line as heard by "anyone in the middle." One important thing to keep in mind is that many who are anti-abortion, and most who are prominent in that camp, have an absolutist view -- they would like abortion banned in all or almost all circumstances. Also, they are not interested in seeking a compromise position -- e.g., they view a blastocyst as a full human being -- and even worse, they tend to oppose policies that would decrease the need for abortions in the first place, like contraception and proper sex education. On the flip side, almost all pro-choice people are quick to acknowledge that of course abortion isn't an unqualified good thing, that it has to be recognized that it can be an excruciatingly painful decision for some women, and that

Quoting mmacklem: I would respond with the following thought: if the anti-abortion side holds such an extreme view, why are they considered a reasonable part of the debate? I would claim that the reason for this is because they are able to frame their arguments around the idea of claiming a monopoly on the viewpoint of abortion being a tragic outcome, one which is certainly shared at least peripherally by people who have not themselves had to deal directly with this issue but who think that they care enough about it to vote based on the candidates' view on it.

Taking "partial-birth abortion" as a sample case, it is easy to describe the procedure to make it sound horrific and inhumane, it is more difficult to discuss the medical circumstances in which this procedure arises and to describe why it might be medically necessary (one of the reasons I've found Andrew Sullivan's recent blog posts on this issue illuminating and heartbreaking). Given this dynamic, on rhetorical grounds alone, it is a small step to paint the side that argues for the need to keep this procedure

Quoting cragger: At the risk of continuing a trend toward pointing out the obvious in my posts, a significant portion of the folks who feel that politicans should control this are of the "you want to play, you have to pay" school of thought, considering sex to be a behavior for which a price must be paid. There is a related feeling that any consequence of back alley abortions from sterility to death is simply the due for any woman undergoing one. Rhetoric for political purposes aside, the atitude is one of satisfaction that such redress has been attained, representing justice served and a lesson and warning to others.

Regrets for injecting a note of sadness and cynicism into a thread that has read as centered somewhere between satire and sarcasm.

Thank you for your response. I think it would be interesting to have more public discussions about what, at least for us, seems to be obvious inconsistencies in the way values regarding abortion play out: the contrast between the desire to protect the incipient, unborn life side by side the disregard for the mother's health and well

Maybe we've beaten the abortion debate into the ground (again | for the moment), so ... Segue time! ... and speaking of great lines from Barney Frank, this has been whizzing around the leftosphere for a few days now (apologies if you've already seen it):

These arguments will come from the very people who denied that the economic recovery plan created any jobs. We have a very odd economic philosophy in Washington: It’s called weaponized Keynesianism. It is the view that the government does not create jobs when it funds the building of bridges or important research or retrains workers, but when it builds airplanes that are never going to be used in combat, that is of course economic salvation.

This is from a teleconference he had last week, an audio clip of which I've swiped and posted here, with this blurb: "He's answering a question about the F-22 Raptor [strike]boondoggle[/strike] fighter plane, but it applies much more generally. This is about the most straightforward three minutes and forty seconds on the ownership of our political process by the military-industrial complex you'll ever hear, let alone from a member of Congress."

Quoting pampl: it's in the interests of every individual man for women to be as promiscuous as possible.

Silliness. Actually, it's in the interests of individual men for women other than their wives to be as promiscuous as possible. If their own wives are promiscuous, men are stuck spending their resources raising other men's kids. So the game is to punish one's own women for promiscuity while engaging in sex with as many women as possible. Thus the hijab and burka and foot binding and cloistering and infibulation and punishment for adultery that are visited upon so many women. And the counterparts visited upon men are.......what?

Quoting pampl: That's not really an accurate understanding of marriage laws. First it ignores dowry, where the bride's family has to pay to get rid of her. That's not really a property transaction but more of a service fee for her care and handling. Second, it doesn't explain much of the practice of bride-price: in Islamic law, the bride-price becomes the property of the bride not her father. In East Asian traditions most of the bride-price is given back to the new couple on their

Quoting Me&theboys: Silliness. Actually, it's in the interests of individual men for women other than their wives to be as promiscuous as possible. If their own wives are promiscuous, men are stuck spending their resources raising other men's kids. So the game is to punish one's own women for promiscuity while engaging in sex with as many women as possible. Thus the hijab and burka and foot binding and cloistering and infibulation and punishment for adultery that are visited upon so many women. And the counterparts visited upon men are.......what?

That's an, um, interesting intrepretation of the data. I take it from the above that you have not read Michelle Goldberg's The Means of Reproduction or Valerie Hudson's Bare Branches or Robert Engelman's More. I think you should.

It isn't in the interest of individual men to take on wives at all. Marriage is a demand on time and resources that could be spent on sleeping with more different women. There's a reason bridal magazines and shows are a billion dollar industry and groom magazines aren't. There's a reason why so many more fathers skip town than mothers. I'm not really

Quoting pampl: That's pretty silly. First, as a matter of demographic fact it's wrong (more women self-identify as pro-life than as pro-choice, and collectively they compose about half that first group)

mmm Stockholm Syndrome ???

Quoting pampl: second, because it's a ridiculously implausible conspiracy scenario.

I don't think of what was said as a conspiracy, but just the machinations that occur when you have people inculcated into a particular religious framework.

Quoting pampl: ... there's a huge tragedy-of-the-commons problem: it's in the interests of every individual man for women to be as promiscuous as possible. That's the reason guys made up all those BS lines about the awesome power of female sexuality etc. in the first place.

This has already been replied to but ...

Quoting pampl: ... A much better description, though a less convenient weapon for the female supremacist, is that it's a display of resources like a peacock's plumage. I'm assuming here that you don't think peacocks use their plumage to bludgeon peahens or something.

Female Supremacy got ya down ?? In a world with 200 million "missing" women, where rape is considered just another weapon of war, where, in this country, women STILL make less for the same work, where they are underrepresented in both the

Quoting thouartgob: Female Supremacy got ya down ?? In a world with 200 million "missing" women, where rape is considered just another weapon of war, where, in this country, women STILL make less for the same work, where they are underrepresented in both the public and private spheres... Gob Bless You if you can still feel threatened by the concept of Female Supremacy because I honestly would like to see a little more of it.

Ignoring your first three nonsensical replies: no, female supremacy doesn't have me down. I didn't think it even existed until I started reading BH.tv and seeing it openly preached. There's no other term for the constant spewing of in-group glorification and demonization of the Other. There's even the ritual recitation of historical grievances that haven't been experienced by or even remedially understood by the speaker. Maybe I was just sympathetic as a fellow Clinton supporter but even the Clinton die-hards didn't seem that bigoted to me. I just thought it was the whole "man-hating feminazi" caricature coloring people's perceptions. Once again I've learned that for every ludicrous caricature there's at least one even more ludicrous actual person.

Quoting pampl: It isn't in the interest of individual men to take on wives at all. Marriage is a demand on time and resources that could be spent on sleeping with more different women. There's a reason bridal magazines and shows are a billion dollar industry and groom magazines aren't. There's a reason why so many more fathers skip town than mothers.

Actually, it's in the interests of dominant men to monopolize women (e.g. harems), but it's in the interests of all other men men to divide women up equitably, so that every man has a chance of reproducing. In case you haven't noticed, a LOT of men don't hold much appeal for women. Without the institution of marriage, such men would be in the genetic dustbin because two women who could share one very good male provider would be much better off than each having their own loser. Do the math. Bob Wright went into the explanation at great length in The Moral Animal. You should read it. The social calamities that result from lots and lots of males without access to females (because they are being monopolized

Quoting Me&theboys: Actually, it's in the interests of dominant men to monopolize women (e.g. harems), but it's in the interests of all other men men to divide women up equitably, so that every man has a chance of reproducing. In case you haven't noticed, a LOT of men don't hold much appeal for women. Without the institution of marriage, such men would be in the genetic dustbin because two women who could share one very good male provider would be much better off than each having their own loser. Do the math. Bob Wright went into the explanation at great length in The Moral Animal. You should read it. The social calamities that result from lots and lots of males without access to females (because they are being monopolized by a few good men) is well documented in both The Moral Animal and in Bare Branches, and this is likely to be what laid the ground work for the institution of marriage, bride magazines notwithstanding.

Also, your theory still doesn't explain all that mate guarding behavior among men. Nor the extreme male sexual jealousy. How do you account for those?

You've changed your

Quoting pampl: You've changed your analysis from "individual men" to "dominant men" so I guess you've realized one of your mistakes.

Read it again. Initially, I was refering to individual (married) men in the context of encouraging promiscuity among women other than their wives. More recently, I was referring to dominant men in the context of monopolizing women. The two are neither contradictory nor inconsistent with one another.

Quoting pampl: It's in the interest of all these men, even dominant men, to increase the size of this pool.

Why exactly would it be in the interests of dominant men to faciitate the enhanced reproductive opportunities of other men?

Quoting pampl: Mate guarding and sexual jealousy are obviously the product of monogamy.

If so, then how do you explain the fact that mate guarding is more frequent in polygynous societies and among non-monogamous primates? And how to explain those harems guarded by eunuchs? Ever since humans began to be born with large brains and extended post-birth helplessness, women have needed men to contribute resources to ensure offspring survival. If every man pursued a love 'em and leave 'em strategy and spent all his resources trying to make babies rather than

Quoting Me&theboys: Read it again. Initially, I was refering to individual (married) men in the context of encouraging promiscuity among women other than their wives. More recently, I was referring to dominant men in the context of monopolizing women. The two are neither contradictory nor inconsistent with one another.

You were referring to men generally then referring to a tiny subset of men. It's like you wrote that Mexicans are all criminals then wrote that you meant illegal immigrants from Mexico are criminals.

Why exactly would it be in the interests of dominant men to faciitate the enhanced reproductive opportunities of other men?

The same reason the rich have an interest in an increased GDP. More stuff in total means more stuff they can get.

If so, then how do you explain the fact that mate guarding is more frequent in polygynous societies and among non-monogamous primates? And how to explain those harems guarded by eunuchs?

Ever since humans began to be born with large brains and extended post-birth helplessness, women have needed men to contribute resources to ensure offspring survival. If every man pursued a love 'em and leave 'em

Hmmm.....that doesn't sound like a theory that coheres and explains the facts. I guess I'll leave it here and take solace in the fact that reproduction does not appear to be one of your goals. Best of luck to your genes.

Quoting rcocean: More nonsensical babble from our resident cartoon character and superhero "Dr. Money"

No, you!

my wife brought two healthy children to term while maintaining a full-load in college and getting a 4.0 gpa. after delivering two children she was more beautiful and sexy than ever. i guess people have a lot of different experiences.

Quoting Jennifer888: I just can't believe this debate is between two men. What rubbish!

yeah! because women reproduce through parthenogenesis so men should have no interest in anything related to reproduction! sexist idiot.

Quoting Me&theboys: Also, your theory still doesn't explain all that mate guarding behavior among men. Nor the extreme male sexual jealousy. How do you account for those?

i think that is the crux of the matter right there. men can never be certain of paternity, and women can never be uncertain of maternity. women are at risk from rape, and from abandonment, while men are at risk of wasting their time and resources raising other men's children and possibly missing out on reproduction entirely. i think most oppression of women can be traced to that difference. which does, of course, not excuse it.

Quoting Me&theboys: Hmmm.....that doesn't sound like a theory that coheres and explains the facts. I guess I'll leave it here and take solace in the fact that reproduction does not appear to be one of your goals. Best of luck to your genes.

Well, yes, it doesn't explain all the facts when one of your "facts" is that half the population is pure good and the other is darkest evil. The problem is that the books you cite also don't support your insane Manichean view of the sexes, but I suspect you're too deluded to ever realize that.

Quoting soibois: Absolutely. But I'm not sure a lot of people ever seriously consider the personhood question at all.

It depends on whether you mean "think through what they mean by that" (the claim that its a person from conception on) or whether you mean consider it at all. I think people are muddled in what they mean by it, what the implications are, if it fairly represents the concern they feel and why they have such deep feelings that it's wrong (which they do), but not that they don't think about the personhood question as such. I don't actually see so much of a kids and sex talk connection here as I do on contraception and gay marriage/rights, as it's easy enough to talk about without bringing all that in.

Quoting soibois: I was having a vaguely heated discussion with a pro-life Catholic friend and he seemed kind of dumbstruck when I finally said "It's not a rock! It's not a tumor!" A moral spectrum that only has two poles with nothing in the middle doesn't demand a lot of hard thinking.

Interesting, but I'm not sure I'm following. I'm understanding his puzzlement to be

Quoting pampl: Ignoring your first three nonsensical replies: no, female supremacy doesn't have me down. I didn't think it even existed until I started reading BH.tv and seeing it openly preached. There's no other term for the constant spewing of in-group glorification and demonization of the Other. There's even the ritual recitation of historical grievances that haven't been experienced by or even remedially understood by the speaker.

Maybe I was just sympathetic as a fellow Clinton supporter but even the Clinton die-hards didn't seem that bigoted to me. I just thought it was the whole "man-hating feminazi" caricature coloring people's perceptions. Once again I've learned that for every ludicrous caricature there's at least one even more ludicrous actual person.

The first 2 replies were nonsensical the third reply is more of a place holder but you can complain about the 4th I guess. Sorry I just coughed up a "clever" quip instead of taking the time to give an answer. This:

Quoting thouartgob: mmm Stockholm Syndrome ???

I don't think of what was said as a conspiracy, but just the machinations that occur when you have people inculcated into a particular religious framework.

was in reference to the idea

Quoting pampl: I
I'm not really interested in a list of books. You didn't offer any refutation so I can only assume that those books fail to refute anything I wrote in the same way as you do here.

This one is gonna be a macro in my text editor. CTRL+ALT+F+U :-) Can I borrow this for a sig when I am bored in an online debate ???

Quoting Me&theboys: In case you haven't noticed, a LOT of men don't hold much appeal for women.

Wow. Back atcha, sister.

Quoting DoctorMoney: Wow. Back atcha, sister.

I don't disagree. But that wasn't relevant to the conversation I was having.

Quoting Me&theboys: I don't disagree. But that wasn't relevant to the conversation I was having.

Just don't consign me to the genetic dustbin is all I'm saying.

Just out of curiosity, for the people who are arguing about genetic propagation, how do you explain the effort that singles and couples go through to adopt? I've seen little desire in men to propagate their genes, but a lot of desire to have sex whenever and wherever possible. On the other hand, when speaking to adopting couples, the women were generally the ones who were hurt the most when they found out that they couldn't bear the children themselves.

Mr. Riley is being irresistibly drawn ever inward. He begins:

I TRIED, really. I watched as much as I could of this bloggingheads [note: abridged New York Times version; I couldn't bring myself to link the whole thing] "debate" between a guy who thinks all abortions are murder, and one who thinks only some are, while the rest are just icky. Will they be able to reach a compromise? Only 62 minutes and 45 seconds will tell, apparently.

Later on:

The damned thing is actually titled "Two Men, No Uteruses", and while we'll leave alone the use of the less-preferred plural form, the idea that this sort of mock-flippancy absolves all concerned from any responsibility for participating in White Guys Talk About Reproductive Rights, Episode 824 Million, is on display here in its full radiance. We're not sure you can actually be more arrogant that to imagine your "new ideas" (translation: new chunks of dead hossmeat, freshly whipped) hold some sort of sway over Constitutional processes just because your President has hosted a seminar. But if it's possible, advertising your White Maleness as though doing so defangs the criticism that you're the last constituency with standing is what manages it. I simply refuse to understand how this sort of thing comes about. No one in his right mind could

Quoting popcorn_karate: i think that is the crux of the matter right there. men can never be certain of paternity, and women can never be uncertain of maternity. women are at risk from rape, and from abandonment, while men are at risk of wasting their time and resources raising other men's children and possibly missing out on reproduction entirely.

Just out of curiosity, for the people who are arguing about genetic propagation, how do you explain the effort that singles and couples go through to adopt? I've seen little desire in men to propagate their genes, but a lot of desire to have sex whenever and wherever possible. On the other hand, when speaking to adopting couples, the women were generally the ones who were hurt the most when they found out that they couldn't bear the children themselves.

Oh, and on the last line quoted in that last post, I will note that the blurbs for the two lead op-eds in today's NYT are:

PAUL KRUGMAN
Betraying the Planet

Climate change poses a clear and present danger to our way of life. How can anyone justify failing to act?

ROSS DOUTHAT
The Way We Love Now

Have modern American couples let anxieties about children, mortgages and success destroy their passion and romance?

Just sayin'.

Quoting ProfElwood:
I've seen little A) desire in men to propagate their genes, but a lot of B) desire to have sex whenever and wherever possible.

A = B despite what you ... see

Quoting thouartgob: A = B despite what you ... see

So why do men prefer sex with contraception (with a possible exception for condoms)?

Quoting ProfElwood: So why do men prefer sex with contraception (with a possible exception for condoms)?

They want sex, they enjoy the benefits modern technology in the form of contraception but the drive for sex is primary. The sex drive in all of it's manifestations is ultimately a genetic "program" for replication. I could be wrong here but an bizarre analog would be rabies. From what I recall the rabies virus can move from host to host ( propagate) by inducing the behavior of biting to spread. Now obviously we are talking about 2 different things, one is an invading organism and one is an invading orgasm but I the effect of genetics on behavior is clear. We have the same sex drive as reptiles, birds, other mammals do, we just add more complex superstructure on top of it.

Quoting thouartgob: one is an invading organism and one is an invading orgasm

Love it.

Quoting thouartgob: We have the same sex drive as reptiles, birds, other mammals do, we just add more complex superstructure on top of it.

That's really the point that I was trying to make. Men don't really have a primal drive to reproduce, only to have sex. Since the introduction of contraceptives, people have been having more sex and fewer babies. It's a proven trend in every industrialized nation around the world.
The "on top of it" part is wholly defined by one's upbringing, education, research, and intellect.

Quoting ProfElwood: That's really the point that I was trying to make. Men don't really have a primal drive to reproduce, only to have sex.

And people wonder, "What could be so bad about teaching creationism in biology class?"

Quoting DoctorMoney: Just don't consign me to the genetic dustbin is all I'm saying.

Perhaps the "Doctor Money" moniker will help keep your genes in the gene pool. ;-)

Quoting DoctorMoney: Just don't consign me to the genetic dustbin is all I'm saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection you sir do not have Asperger Syndrome. Congrats :-)

Quoting thouartgob: Tthe idea that some women, living under a doctrine, for years, that doesn't recognize their right to choose what happens to their bodies, might find themselves identifying with the dominant memes that go along with that. That is not to say they don't care about zygotes and fetuses etc. but it does raise the question, What do they REALLY want ?

I think that in general a "pro-life" woman want to stop abortion but also would REALLY want the ultimate choice in the matter. They KNOW what their choice is gonna be ( stay pregnant ) but as a fellow citizen I feel that they want that agency in their lives.

do you feel patriarchal when you decide that you know what women REALLY want, even when they say they want something else?

Quoting popcorn_karate: do you feel patriarchal when you decide that you know what women REALLY want, even when they say they want something else?

Poor choice of words, thanks for noticing. I should stipulate that what she says is her beezwax and as a practical matter she means what she says. But this brings up a point. I didn't use the word patriarchy but the implication is there, would abortion be an issue in a matriarchy ?

well, i don't think there is a patriarchy and don't think there was or ever will be a matriarchy, but considering the polling data and my own personal experiences with both believing christian women and hard-core feminist pagan women, i'd have to say "yes!" honestly the most rabid people on both sides of the issue that i've had personal dealing with were all women. I've never known a man that didn't think abortion had a moral dimension - but i have known women that saw it (or claimed to see it) as no different than any other medical procedure. And i won't even go into the details of the horrifyingly judgmental anti-abortion (and anti-fun, anti-humor, anti-creativity) christian women i was exposed to as a teenager in a small town. i think if women ever got a matriarchy - they would have mostly the same sets of problems they do know, at least on the cultural/moral front. you'd probably have a lot better maternity leave, though!

Quoting popcorn_karate: well, i don't think there is a patriarchy and don't think there was or ever will be a matriarchy, but considering the polling data and my own personal experiences with both believing christian women and hard-core feminist pagan women, i'd have to say "yes!"

Funny that. Never has been or will a matriarchy, but there have been, are, and will be patriarchies in this world. Tough to come up with a scenario where a matriarchy could possibly exist since there cannot&neverwillbe a matriarchy.

Quoting popcorn_karate: honestly the most rabid people on both sides of the issue that i've had personal dealing with were all women. I've never known a man that didn't think abortion had a moral dimension - but i have known women that saw it (or claimed to see it) as no different than any other medical procedure. And i won't even go into the details of the horrifyingly judgmental anti-abortion (and anti-fun, anti-humor, anti-creativity) christian women i was exposed to as a teenager in a small town.

That is interesting. I have experienced both men and women accepting and rejecting the moral dimension of abortion.

Quoting popcorn_karate: i think if women ever

Quoting thouartgob: Funny that. Never has been or will a matriarchy, but there have been, are, and will be patriarchies in this world. Tough to come up with a scenario where a matriarchy could possibly exist since there cannot&neverwillbe a matriarchy.

well. i mean good luck with it and all, i just don't see it happening. not trying to rain on anybodies parade or say women couldn't run the world. patriarchy - i guess it depends on the definition. i had an interesting women's studies class in college. the professor was very into the public/private split in power between men and women. she had a very interesting anecdote about two researchers in a triabl community that was considered very patriarchal. one male researcher hung-out with the men and another female researcher hung-out with the women. it happened that the chief died and they had to select a new chief. there was endless discussion and politicking going on. the male researcher ended up the day before the new chief was selected with no idea who was going to be the new chief out of the 5 or 6 top contenders. the female researcher accurately

Quoting popcorn_karate: well. i mean good luck with it and all, i just don't see it happening. not trying to rain on anybodies parade or say women couldn't run the world.

patriarchy - i guess it depends on the definition.

i had an interesting women's studies class in college. the professor was very into the public/private split in power between men and women. she had a very interesting anecdote about two researchers in a triabl community that was considered very patriarchal. one male researcher hung-out with the men and another female researcher hung-out with the women.

it happened that the chief died and they had to select a new chief. there was endless discussion and politicking going on. the male researcher ended up the day before the new chief was selected with no idea who was going to be the new chief out of the 5 or 6 top contenders. the female researcher accurately reported the identity of the new chief about one month before the actual selection (which was done by men).

the women had no official power to select a chief, but the one they chose a

Quoting thouartgob: Certainly a great deal of our history was spent in smaller groups and that the informal power that women possess is something that is forgotten at our ( humanities ) peril. I don't know that the anecdote that you described couldn't be explained in another way.

In the book "blink" by Malcolm Gladwell there was a section devoted to a researcher, who after sufficient "training", was able to predict whether the couples he saw on video tape, based on their body language, choice of words, vocal patterns whathaveyou, would have marriages that lasted or didn't last. Maybe the women of the group or maybe more importantly the female researcher was using this "intuition" to make the prediction.

as i recall, the female researcher was reporting what the women were saying, rather than what she personally thought about it. However, that is an interesting point - it could be that the women knew what the men would do before they did - rather than my interpretation that the women were influencing the decision that the men came to.

Quoting thouartgob: I agree that we humans are being sexist by undervaluing the abilities of women and to

Quoting popcorn_karate:
absolutely! and I would not suggest that the mere fact that women have always had various avenues of power is "good enough" - legal rights and the availability of public positions of power for women are essential.

my point was fairly narrow in addressing the idea of "the patriarchy". I find it to be a simplistic idea that actually denigrates the intelligence and resourcefulness of women, and the complexity of interpersonal relationships.

Yeah I was speaking more generally of course. If you are a fan of more/better maternity infrastructure then there is likely no daylight between us on the question women's legal rights :-)

Quoting popcorn_karate:
that may be, but that was not at all my point. "private power" is not a euphemism for sex. when you look at how decisions are made in a family (I'm assuming a hetero couple here) often the woman is doing a majority of the decision-making about how time and resources are allocated. this does not square with a lot the "patriarchy" narratives that i've encountered from feminists at various times.

I chose a shortcut used by, men and sometimes women, about that kind of equation. The points you make