I was disappointed with Kathryn Lopez’ response to the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. Clicking through NRO, I fully expected to come across some spirited wailing and tears. We should have had rending of garments and raining of digital sod upon illuminated heads. I was really hoping for a tale of some Danish martyr murmuring something in Latin while dancing The Ephemera on the slobber-gobbed Lopez’ ceiling (“. . est homicidium K-Lo . . “). OH Saint Geert of Erøskøboing! Come baaack!
Are you, dear reader, sick of abortion? Sick of the poverty of the discourse? Sick of the hands of politics on the issue? Sick that it has put evil, tempting thoughts into your head? Sick of where it has left you? This moment is for you.
Promises. But sigh. Here was the highlight of the pro-life throw down:
People are looking for something more. People are looking for an invitation to something better. Women aren’t looking for judgment. Many of them also are not happy with the expectations we have for them to manage their fertility away and pretend to be men with more wardrobe options in the workplace and on the social scene . .
Preaching to her friends. Not very edgy. She couldn’t come up with any reason to get out of her comfort zone on the big day, after all. ‘It’s their bodies and our selves, people.’ Wouldn’t that fit nicely on a bumper sticker? Yes but Kathryn Jean wouldn’t want to brook their complaining. They’re all very insensitive you see (you).
Anyway, I’d bet my bottom dollar women are thrilled to have the same options as men, sexually speaking. Not getting pregnant last weekend. Not getting pregnant next weekend. I’ll say God bless The Pill and you can take that as insultingly as you like, Catholics. The same goes for abortion too. I would not want to live in a world without that last-ditch option.
Whenever Kathryn writes something as clay-footed and Victorian as this I am immediately reminded she’s in her mid-30s and a virgin. If she’d had any experience with actual hot and heavy romance, I might take these tracts a little more seriously.
To that end, it hit me that she might never have even dated. I wondered if she’d ever been spotted with, I don’t know, a Newsmax editor at Elaine’s or something. I thought I might look at her Wikipedia entry:
So there. The life of a token Vatican hire is lonely. We can look forward to the same post from the same person 10 years from now, at the 50 year be-laboring. That’s 3,645 pills from now, unless you’re the type to huck the placebos.
Kingly Joe Walsh holds court at the local diner. He is one furious tea bag. Sandra Fluke came on the television the other day. And she “confronted” him. How dare you, slut.
“Think about this, a 31-32 year old law student who has been a student for life, who gets up there in front of a national audience and tells the American people [*clap clap clap*] ‘I want America to pay for my contraceptives.’ You’re kidding me. Go get a JOB. Go get a job Sandra Fluke.”
Sandra never asked America to do that but it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because Joe is a low-life who’s about to lose his job.
“We’ve got parents in this country who are struggling to buy sneakers that their kids can wear to school that just started.”
Now Joe cares. This is what unproductive low-lifes do when they’re about to lose their angry asshole paychecks. They suddenly worry about the poor tired worker people. Damn it! Why doesn’t Sandra care about you? The way I do? Get off their backs whore!
“We’ve got parents up and down my district who are barely keeping their house. And, and, and, and, and we have to be confronted by a woman, the Democratic Party, this is what they stand for. Their going to put a woman in front of us who is complaining that the country — you, me and you — won’t pay the 9 dollars per month to pay for her contraceptives.”
You too Democrats! Stop attacking these good people! Trollop tramps.
“We are raising these Sandra Flukes of the world. We’re raising Americans who don’t know how to take care of themselves, who feel entitled. This is a woman who feels entitled that we all should pay for her contraceptives. This is what we’re teaching Americans? That was embarrassing. That was embarrassing.”
Sandra never asked America for anything. But it doesn’t matter.
Arizona aims real high, for the Asshole Cup. Yes, baking albino racists to wrinkled cardboard earns cancer’s golf-like applause, but the ‘Home of Metastasis’ figures it could do better.
There’s a plan for that. The recent border-to-border fits of intellect and civility indicate Arizona pols gravitate to gender politics. The slobbering, salmon-skinned galumphs will now try to undercut anything a woman takes for granted, like contraception. Internet access. Highway privileges. Plumbed water.
Arizona lawmaker wants to go further on abortion laws
by Alia Beard Rau | azcentralblogs.com
. . An opponent of HB 2036 e-mailed her lawmakers to voice her opinion. The Tucson reader shared the response from Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson. The reader called the e-mail “most inappropriate for someone who makes policy decisions for women in this state.”
The e-mail, which has not been edited, said:
“Personally I’d like to make a law that mandates a woman watch an abortion being performed prior to having a “surgical procedure.” If it’s not a life it shouldn’t matter, if it doesn’t harm a woman then she shouldn’t care, and don’t we want more transparency and education in the medical profession anyway? We demand it everywhere else.”
Absolutely, all the way with transparency. It’s time to pull the surgical-industrial complex’s anesthesia scam out into the open. Where there are cases of bone cancer, or necrotizing fasciitis, when arms or legs have to be amputated, it’s time for a few aspirin and plenty of bright lights. What an opportunity for otherwise unfortunate children to witness democracy. While the circular-saw wielding surgeons dice your daughter’s hip girdle, sickly bones now sing like the chimes of freedom. Err, in the sun.
“Until the dead child can tell me that she/he does not feel any pain – I have no intentions of clearing the conscience of the living – I will be voting YES.”
That’s Terri Proud, a friend to children. She makes the effort to listen to dead ones.
In an e-mail to Insider, Proud defended her statement, saying women should be aware of any surgical procedure “especially when a foreign object is extracting from a delicate organ.”
Just how many spelunking suits did I pull from my Wurlitzer? It’s not clear. The women in my life know nothing more about this, and you can blame me.
Seems like recent times. Not so long ago. We thought Sandra Fluke being called ‘slut’ or ‘prostitute’ had something to do with conservatives’ views on contraception. Apparently, we didn’t understand what was really going on at the time:
By Jonah Goldberg | National Review
. . “Let’s admit what this debate is really and what Republicans really want to take away from American women. It is contraception,” Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) outrageously claimed while opposing the Blunt amendment. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) said the GOP was yearning to return to “the Dark Ages . . . when women were property that you could easily control, even trade if you wanted to.”
That’s what I thought. No?
The Obama campaign insists that “if Mitt Romney and a few Republican senators get their way, employers could be making women’s health care decisions for them” and require that women seek a permission slip to obtain birth control.
It’s all so breathtakingly mendacious.
Nope. We’ve been lying shamelessly, and Goldberg’s been gasping for air. Fortunately, we went on our merry way to build a Sanger monument, and Jonah opened a window.
He had tried to tell us the truth. That this was only about the evils of abortion, nothing more. So many tried to tell us. Over and over: Contraception is a personal thing, abortion is homicide. If you want to go on the Pill, we don’t care. That’s a personal, not a criminal, matter, and conservatives are loath to mess with those.
Really, if anything, our conniption over contraception was something of a conspiracy. By shifting from their cultural indictment to a popular perception, from the evils of abortion to the benign reality of contraception, we filled the atmosphere with smoke. All the ethicists and scholars have been bumping into each other ever since, trying to find where the infanticide went:
Liberals, media try to shift debate from abortion to contraception
by Jill Stanek | jillstanek.com
I wrote last week about a theory put forth by Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff that abortion proponents were shifting strategies to focus on contraceptives rather than abortion, the reason being their own polls show abortion is no longer a winning issue with young people and women, but contraception is.
. . so pro-life Jill details how Sean Hannity, Dick Morris and others got hip to the conspiracy. Look how Rush figured it out:
“Do you remember – ’cause this is a setup for what’s coming – do you remember, we were all perplexed here. George Stephanopoulos kept hounding Romney on contraception. It had not come up, nobody had said anything about it, and we were all confused, as was Romney, what the deal was…
That’s what Morris’ theory is about what happened last week, trying to get abortion off the table because it’s a loser for the Democrats. And now instead of Republicans want to ban abortion, they want to ban contraception…
So that’s the paradigm shift here, at least so goes the theory, and it does explain why Stephanopoulos was talking about something that was not even an issue.”
Contraception was never an issue. Gee, aren’t we sneaky?
By comparison, we’re amateurs. We make the occasional penny fall out of your ear, you guys palm manhole covers. Arizona State’s news reports on new Republican legislation:
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections.
Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.
What does this legislation mean? It means Republicans are giving Arizona businessmen the ‘OK’ to prevent women from getting the Pill through their insurance. That’s what it means.
If you’re a Catholic man who owns a factory with 500 female employees, you can deny them contraception. While it’s not against your beliefs if a worker uses the Pill to treat polycystitis, it is against your beliefs if she uses it to prevent pregnancy. So you get to deny her that coverage. And just to be sure, if you figure out an employee is using the Pill, you can demand she produce a medical reason for the prescription.
One man’s religious conviction trumps perhaps thousands of employees’ needs. If you buy Arizona politicians’ arguments, “Freedom of Religion” is no longer about the choices you make for yourself. It’s about the choices you make for others.
But, wait, it gets potentially worse. While I can’t affirm Erin’s contention, it doesn’t seem impossible. It seems entirely plausible:
Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills
Erin Gloria Ryan | Jezebel
A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they’re using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona’s an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees’ sex lives could fire them as a result.
So, to recap: Based upon his private religious beliefs, your employer could deny you and hundreds of others normal access to contraception. He could do this, even though it saves you, your insurance company and your employer money. He’d be allowed, even though everyone knows it produces healthier babies and more stable families. If you did qualify for the Pill by other means, he’d have the right to vet your medical condition. And if his intuition told him you were just another ‘Sandra Fluke,’ he could fire you. And this is only a fight over abortion.
While the serious people in the serious America party continue to favor religious authority over hot sex (the former being a reason to live, the latter being a farcical mirage), Bill Buckley’s magazine continues to have itself a field day. Rarely have so many serious people given the word “serious” a back-alley rogering. In the style of “Roger” Mahony, the L.A. Archbishop who built a career out of hoarding child molesters and erecting monuments to himself. Seriously.
A couple minutes into reading yesterday’s National Review, the logic-hoarding and the victim self-regarding did blaze their way across the pages, internetted as they were. And flammable, as they were, only in the sense of ‘flim-’. So get ready. Put on your mortician’s apron, sniper’s glasses and go-to-meeting most miserable ‘cuz the arguments are about to get real, well, you know.
A Genius for Subject Changing
By Mona Charen | National Review
The Obama administration issues an edict regarding birth control that is a) blatantly unconstitutional, b) economically absurd, and c) completely unmatched to any national need, and what are we talking about? The “Republican war on women.”
Boy howdy, there’s some whirlwind logic. Let me start by saying: a) don’t be silly, b) it saves money, and c) it’s completely necessary. Now, just yesterday morning, I posted a piece about Selwyn Duke’s article at Renew America, the Christian politics site. While Sandra Fluke never once said a word about her sex life — not a syllable — this was Selwyn’s reaction:
Really, though, if such a woman doesn’t deserve slut status, who does? Is the word now obsolete? Have we become like a Barbary-pirate nation where the term “thief” may be out of style because its use may offend the majority?
He makes his case clear, Mona: If a woman should testify before Congress about the need for contraception coverage in insurance plans, one’s proper and Christian response is to confer “slut status” upon her. If we haven’t descended to barbarism, that is. And if that isn’t a call to shun women who dare speak about their lives, what is? I’d call that a war.
Anyway, it’s your article, Mona. You make your case. Tell me about a) and b) and c).
Democrats are geniuses at muddying the waters and twisting the debate in a direction they find congenial. They’ve been at this a very long time. Recall that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we found ourselves ensnared in a discussion of so-called “censorship.” The National Endowment for the Arts, (a luxury no deeply indebted nation should indulge), had provided grants to two particularly obnoxious exhibits. One was a photograph by Andres Serrano called “Piss Christ” that depicted a crucifix submerged in a jar of the artist’s urine. The other was a series of homoerotic photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe, featuring, to cite just one example, a man’s anus being penetrated by a bullwhip.
Fair enough. You’d say our contraception argument is a crucifix in a jar of pee crammed up someone’s ass, back in 1989. You’re not by any chance changing the subject on me, now, are you? Because that’s the sort of yucky metaphor I’d prefer to avoid, our differences notwithstanding.
The liberals were ready with a jaw-dropping claim: To deny a federal subsidy to “Piss Christ” was censorship. Or, as Obama might put it, “It’s not who we are.”
Pretty muddy of you, Mona. Or, as Obama might put it: “Mona Charen, you’re not a particularly honest woman.” You can expect to hear that whenever you pretend the President can conduct conversations backwards through time.
Are you perhaps trying to say you don’t like it when the government pays for things you don’t like? The Pill, IUDs, smelly whips? Is there another point anywhere in here, amongst the art galleries and posters on the ceilings?
That even Catholic institutions, who object to this command on religious grounds, are to be bullied by the federal government into violating their consciences, ought to have provoked an outcry from liberals, allegedly firm guardians of the First Amendment.
Except they’re not, Mona. The premium-payers won’t cover the cost of contraception under Obamacare, the insurance companies will. The President made the policy change back on February 10th, saying: ” . . we’ve been mindful that there’s another principle at stake here — and that’s the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right that is enshrined in our Constitution,” Obama said. “As a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right.”
When does the adult, sensible and substantive part of a National Review article begin? Can I skip to that?
Contraceptives are not a matter of life and death. But even if they were, as for example, cancer drugs are, is that an argument for forcing insurance companies to provide them free of charge? Why not force free distribution of all medicines?
If all medicines save money in the long run, why not knock yourself out? Because that’s what contraception does. Here’s a sensible non-NR argument:
“If you look at the overall cost of providing health care to a woman the cost goes up, not down, if you take contraceptives out,” [Jacob] Lew said Sunday on ABC’s This Week. “This is not going to cost the insurance companies money because, on an overall health care cost basis, it won’t cost more.”
The argument that contraception services save money over time is an old one in family planning circles. Adam Sonfield of the Guttmacher Institute says it simply costs the health care system less money when couples plan their pregnancies.
“And that means healthier pregnancies and healthier infants,” he says. “It means fewer preterm births and low birth-weight baby births. It means starting prenatal care earlier. All those things also can lead to cost savings.”
Poor Mona. She couldn’t get a single thing in her post right. Speaking of serious human beings: Jonah Goldberg. Just look at all the miserable hard work they put him through yesterday. First, he had to compare Sandra Fluke to another serious person:
Sandra Fluke v. Joe the Plumber
By Jonah Goldberg | National Review
. . I think the comparison is interesting in numerous ways. When average citizens are thrust into the political debate, they are heroes — if they confirm prevailing liberal arguments. When they run against the grain of the preferred narrative, they are ground down, caricatured, and treated to corrosive media skepticism . .
Yeah, they’re pretty similar in story, the women’s reproductive rights activist at Georgetown law and the ‘plumber.’ One caused and courted controversy to jump-start a career as a know-nothing political gadfly, and the other was called a slut by the leader of the GOP. Joe the Plumber got the short end of that deal, surely.
Then Jonah had to append serious commentary to these:
Here’s a relevant one:
And though you’d imagine he’d be exhausted by now, he wasn’t. Jonah then scribbled down some thoughts on Super Tuesday:
News reaches us from the Cotton-Mather-C.H.U.D.s. Can you believe it? They’re still digging.
To wit: At the top of Renew America’s charts this morning, the Christian go-to site for politics, its the righteous refrain of Selwyn Duke and his Pasted Chastes. Fire up the old Firestone Air Chief, gals, and huddle ’round. Let the sound of sex panic wash over you like the pneuma of a plague.
A woman close to me once characterized the sea change in our society well. “Years ago you knew who the bad girls were,” said she. “Now you know who the good girls are.”
So it begins. The giant god-fearing blog decides, today, to attack Sandra Fluke.
Now, I’ll leave it to you to determine her implication, but I’ll say that if a female law student is engaging in so much sexual congress that she’s spending a mint on birth-control, I wouldn’t reflexively assume she’s a slut.
. . 2 . . 1 . .
Because I’d wonder how she was working her way through law school.
You thought we blew past this days ago. You were wrong. These topics, women’s reproductive health and contraception, are freighted with moral complexities you, so far, have refused to understand. That’s why the fire drill for crotch politics stretches into, what, week 3? Where are you going? Get back here. Square people want to tell you about the coitus. Square people really need to, apparently.
Really, though, if such a woman doesn’t deserve slut status, who does? Is the word now obsolete? Have we become like a Barbary-pirate nation where the term “thief” may be out of style because its use may offend the majority?
So get out your textbooks on civil rights, social justice, healthcare’s role in modern society, human behavior, and whatever you’ve got on privacy issues. After so many days of one side simply calling Fluke “a slut,” the tenor of discussion is about to ratchet, ehh, somewhere. I sense something’s about to get plenty deep (never mind the discussion).
Remember that copulation among unmarried people that requires birth control used to be called fornication; now they call it recreational sex. But it’s called “recreational” for a reason.
It’s done for recreation.
Ba-doom-pah. Yes, the First Annual Colloquy for Serious Chatter About Your Sex Life opens today. You’re invited. And look who’s offering the plenary lecture of the debut assembly? Duke! Selwyn Duke, everybody.
So the question is, why should taxpayers be forced to fund someone’s salacious conception of recreation? Hey, pay for my golf, too, okay? That can be expensive also.
This is much better. The petty fears and hang-ups pushed aside. Our two sides finally generating an adult discussion about sex.
Meanwhile, oh-so chivalrous Barack Obama placed a phone call to feminist Fluke to offer his support — and increase his among the fairer sex. I guess he’s that certain type of man who uses loose women for personal gain.
I anticipate some sort of porque detente soon. Maybe later today.
“Ms. Fluke, Americans do not care how many out-of-wedlock sexual encounters you may have. But, when you go before congress in an attempt to demonize us for not funding your activities, you are forcing your vagina down our throats.”
Just look at this. The Washington Post went after Rush Limbaugh. My, the analgesia. Warm linguini lashing hide.
Mr. Limbaugh is angry at President Obama’s efforts to require the provision of contraception under employer-paid health insurance and the White House’s attempts to make some political hay out of the policy. His way of showing this anger was to smear Ms. Fluke, who approached Congress to support the plan, as a “slut” seeking a government subsidy for her promiscuity.
We entreat Viscount Limbaugh tolerate her promiscuity. We’re not off our fancy rails, are we, in suggesting Fuck-all Fluke’s knee-high undulating and grasping be rounded without comment? The sluts have their place. Just between us, wink-wink.
Like other “shock jocks,” Mr. Limbaugh has committed verbal excesses in the past. But in its wanton vulgarity and cruelty, this episode stands out. Mr. Limbaugh’s audience, and those in politics who seek his favor as a means of reaching that audience, need to take special note.
Tonight, on “Universal Truth,” the vicious media expose’ written and produced by John Stossel, Ann Curry and Mark Burnett. Three seconds before midnight, a Special Note: “That Rush Darn Limbaugh.” Do people that people listen to, sometimes, sometimes go too far? (cue “The Entertainer,” by Sometimes Joplin).
In response to listener complaints and, apparently, the promptings of its own corporate conscience, Sleep Train Mattress Centers has quit advertising on Mr. Limbaugh’s show.
*door opens* You guys like sushi? It’s forklift Ed’s birthday, and H.R. reserved the Jubilee Room at Tuna Time. *carpet trample*
“Condoms cause sodomy, divorce, single parents, chronic depression and suicide. Children cause missionary position, weddings, mom and dad, joy and a sense of serenity. Ninety percent of married couples use contraception, which is weird because they’re all going to die.”
HEAR YE. Justified and ancient apothecarist, caregiver and high chemist among the National Review set, Charles C. W. Cooke, whips up a word-poultice for the country’s headache. Yes, you’ve spent far too long, America, occupied with the lady’s folds and her orbits of reproduction. One’s obsession with the mechanical feline mysteries can destabilize the humours, producing a vaporous lock. Ouch, my Noggine.
For all the sickening madness, I, Charles, return your sanity. Verily, no problemo.
Spy ye: The Contraception approaches nothing so much as the hocus pocus the Stynking and Barren would have you believe. ‘Tis neither a matter of molec-cules nor spirit voodoo. ‘Tis all of a skin-sheath that fits stoutly upon the male mons tentaculus. And, I, upon some cosmopolitan examination, have found one. Some few.
My Contraceptive Haul
By Charles C. W. Cooke | National Review | February 29, 2012
Were one to have listened uncritically to the more hysterical elements in America’s news media over the past month, one would have concluded that contraception is intractably hard to come by in the United States; but a cursory glance at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s well-appointed website gives quite the opposite impression.
Because there are condoms.
. . visitors are informed that anyone in need of contraception is somewhat spoiled for choice. If the website’s extensive online search facility does not meet with their approval, habitués can instead call 311 and ask for advice directly. And the more tech savvy — or, perhaps, desperately mobile — can download the free “NYC Condom” app to their Windows, iPhone, BlackBerry, or Android smartphones and have its GPS service direct them to the nearest provider of free contraception with devastating accuracy.
Never has a society been so precisely and easily led to safe sex. (One might well ask whether someone who can afford a smartphone and its attendant bills is genuinely in need of an app that locates “free” — i.e., paid for by taxpayers — condoms, but then this is 21st-century America, and New York’s mayor is Michael Bloomberg, so such petite questions are unavoidably consumed by bigger ones.)
I should mention condoms. Plus more. Condoms plus personal lubricant. Forsooth all the contraceptives to be found, take what you need, by God’s hooks. Condoms.
To listen to the president and the various women’s groups who have so enjoyed throwing around the absurd “anti-women” hyperbole over the last month, one would think that Americans were still required to ape the cloak-and-dagger subterfuge of a drug deal in order to get their hands on contraception, and that they were paying a hefty premium into the bargain. This could not be further from the truth.
There are always condoms.
Next time someone tells you that, if the federal government does not force all health insurers to cover contraception without raising premiums, the sky is going to fall, why not take him for a walk in a major urban area?
That tawdry wrestling infomercial on an endless loop, the conservative, wasted everyone’s time this week scolding America about contraception, abortion, sex in and out of marriage, and the reason why he threatened to deport his immigrant boy-toy after ramming a horny-butt deejay into some poor lady outside a disco tickle dangle, but, no, it wasn’t me.
That reminds me of a joke. It goes like this: neckbeard.
The ‘Safe, Legal, Rare’ Illusion
By ROSS DOUTHAT | Op-Ed Columnist
AMID the sound and fury of the latest culture-war battles . .
These people. Will. Not. Shut. Up.
Even the most pro-choice politicians, for instance . .
No sane human being wants to hear Ross Douthat weigh in on anything like sex, abortion or contraception. He’ll do it anyways, of course, because he’s the New York Times conservative. A.K.A., the kid with enormous keyboards of clay.
Instead, abortion rates are frequently higher in more liberal states, where access is often largely unrestricted, than in more conservative states, which are more likely to have parental consent laws, waiting periods, and so on.
It’s late in the column, and the kid is really bringing the heat. The liberals want to make it okay for people to have abortions. But you know what happens next? MORE ABORTIONS. Bet you didn’t realize that, buddy. This is why the Times hired Ross. He can tie his shoes — can you? Your shoes, I mean?
“Safe, legal and rare” is a nice slogan, but liberal policies don’t always seem to deliver the “rare” part.
Because Oregon has more abortions than Oklahoma, liberals have failed in the ‘choice’ wars. We are hypocrites, unable to deliver on our abortion mission statement. In an ideal world, we’d stop women, like young terrified conservatives — whose fathers will kill them — from having abortions. In an ideal world, Ross would know the word ‘ideal.’ We’re done here, everybody back to the abortion factory.
But wait — do you know where ‘choice’ is truly ‘Safe, legal and rare’? Kansas. And how many abortion clinics do they have? Two. Maybe one. This is the reality Ross uses as a baseline to shame us into admitting failure. We allow more abortions than Cro-Magnon Kansas. We shoot fewer doctors, too, and these facts may be related.
For the rest of the editorial, the Gray Lady’s ace is nowhere near being interested in the history of abortion in America, our evolving attitudes towards sex, the current attacks on sex education, the propping up of abstinence-only efforts in the face of permanent failure, or in the record low rates of teen pregnancy and abortion. Or in women. Final paragraph, now we’re really almost done:
At the very least, American conservatives are hardly crazy to reject a model for sex, marriage and family that seems to depend heavily on higher-than-average abortion rates.
Shoot. So there’s only the one alternative: make abortion illegal. Okay. Thanks, Ross, well argued. Could you append a little comment about the happiness of American women in the 18th and 19th centuries?
When they’ve got a Pennsylvania C.H.U.D. crawling out of the D.C. sewers, eating the eyes of villagers, why should we intervene? We shouldn’t. Gah. What’s wrong with me?
Darned compassion! Cursed rational ways!
[I] have voted for contraception, although I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that, y’know, sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young . . Birth control enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.
First: let’s dispense with dumb. Contraception works like gangbusters. Thank you, everybody who worked on the pill.
Second: If I’m madly in love with my wife (girlfriend?) and I want to have sex with her, how do I avoid being “harmful to women?” See, Rick, the problem: I love her. And I listen to her. She does not want to become pregnant. She’s very terrified of the idea.
So what’s an American guy supposed to do? What are a couple supposed to do?