My words will be in italics. My gracious opponent's will be in bold. The status that prompted this will be underlined. There may be other HTML antics in here as well.
Yesterday a Facebook friend posted this status:
Michelle is apalled by the prevention first act. they'll do anything to get more money for planned parenthood, leader in abortions. dont let contraception fool you.
I posted this in reply:
Seriously, why do you think people think abortion itself is so awesome? I haven't seen an argument for it yet. Why on earth do you have a problem with trying to prevent abortions? The wide availability of contraception will actually reduce the necessity of abortions, and yet you oppose it, and then wonder why people think that pro-lifers are anti-women rather than anti-abortion. This makes it look like you just want women to be "punished" with something that should never, ever be a punishment.
Joey posted this:
Hey, you know what would REALLY reduce the number of abortions? Abstinence! That's not having sex, in case you didn't know. You see, if people actually made a little bit of effort to exercise some self-control rather than submitting to immdediate carnal desires like animals, they wouldn't have to face the consequences of the sexual act. Of course, the problem with liberal-minded people is that they believe in a consequence-free world that defies history, logic, science, and reason. Holding firm to this belief, they want to do whatever they want to do whenever they do it without fearing any undesirable effect. People like this are, at best, childish in their worldview: "I want that toy, mommy!" "Do your chores and save money, then you can buy it." "No! I want it NOW! I'll just take it!" "If you do, you'll be grounded, and possibly charged with shoplifting." "You can't DENY me my HAPPINESS, or you're being HATEFUL!" Same thing with modern proponents of "sexual freedom." Grow up.
I replied:
What about couples who are married and cannot afford any, or more, children? Do you think they should abstain, too? After all, it's commanded in the Bible to become as one flesh. Are they supposed to deny themselves that expression of intimacy and love (since, of course, it's only an expression of that within marriage; it cannot POSSIBLY be with couples who are not married) because they cannot afford children?
And, for that matter, can you kindly explain to me why your religion should have rule over our government? After all, you advise abstinence based on your religious values, and do not seem to understand that not everyone lives by your religious beliefs. Why should people abstain whenever there is a medical solution to unplanned pregnancies (contraception)? Because your religion says so? Flimsy logic, friend.
Reply:
No, I advise abstinence based common sense and an understanding of natural science. You don't even know who I am, what my religious beliefs are (if I have any), or what my political loyalties are. All you know is my name and the fact that I'm anti-contraception/abortio
In regards to the "married people who can't afford kids" comment: Yes, I do expect them to abstain (at times). It all goes back to the issue of self-control that I talked about earlier. Even in marriage, we are expected to act in a way that is not dominated by carnal desires. Ever hear of Natural Family Planning? It's a method wherein a married couple can have sex at certain times during the woman's cycle when she is less fertile and, thus, less likely to conceive. The success rate for couples which properly use this system is about 99%, much higher than any artificial birth control. But, of course, not all women have a consistent cycle, so it's not going to be that high for everyone. Nonetheless, NFP is a MUCH cheaper alternative then spending loads of cash on condoms, contraception, and abortions, which should be most favorable to these "poor" people who can't afford kids.
How come people who can't afford kids can somehow afford all that birth control? The government spends (wastes) billions of taxpayer dollars on health care and welfare for low-income families every year, and yet they still can't afford to take care of all these poor children (that liberals always seem so concerned about in the first place).
And, of course, there's always adoption, which costs the couple absolutely NO money whatsoever. They can birth the kid, and there is almost certainly an eager couple ready, willing, and wanting to raise it as their own. There is a LONG waiting list of couples like these who want to raise a child from birth, and who are unable to have their own kids. Why deny these poor people a chance at parenthood? For a few months of comfort? For your own convenience? How selfish is that? Aren't liberals all about charity and selflessness and helping those who are denied certain privileges?
And I suggested this. I was going to do it on my blog, but I think it will be easier to do it here, because, if he wishes, we can do it on notes rather than just through comments; however, comments are welcome as well.
In the meantime, now, I break down the reply and debate it point-by-point. Why? Because that's just how I roll.
No, I advise abstinence based common sense and an understanding of natural science. You don't even know who I am, what my religious beliefs are (if I have any), or what my political loyalties are.
The fact that you use the term "liberal-minded people" as a derogatory term in your first rant is a dead giveaway. And the fact that you use it later three times in reference to clear ideological opponents simply confirmed that.
Also combine that with the fact that I have never met a liberal who was against contraception. Not one. I DO know plenty of conservatives who are pro-contraception, however. Consider, also, that you accused me of being a liberal (even though I consider it more of a compliment than an accusation) without having any knowledge whatsoever of my political affiliation. For all you knew I was a pro-choice, or even simply pro-contraception Christian conservative who happened to not think that the Bible says anything about that topic. You had less grounds to base your assumptions about me on than I did about you, and yet you did so, and accurately. Please let's not shoot down straw men anymore, okay? You're a conservative Catholic (I consider that Christian, but some don't) who is against contraception. I am a liberal pagan who is for contraception. We both know where the other stands. Deal?
Did I ever once say "abstain, because my religion tells you to."
No; however, that is why you would say it, and please kindly don't deny that. Whenever there are medical means to prevent most of the less pleasant, or unanticipated, consequences of sex, there are no logical reasons not to engage in it with those precautions in place other than religious or personal moral reasons, and those are just that - personal; hence, there is no reason to tell others to abstain other than forcing one's morality down another's throat. Otherwise it would be logical to tell them that, if they feel the need to engage normal, human desires, to protect themselves.
No, because you can arrive at the same conclusion without any religious contribution whatsoever. The ONLY 100% guaranteed way not to get pregnant is to not have sex.
No one is disputing the accuracy of your statement that abstinence is the only one hundred percent method. However, contraceptives, when used perfectly (since you cited perfect usage for natural family planning later, which I will address), range from, for prescriptions, 99.9% effective (I have the Mirena and would know) to, for prophylactics, 98% effective. One out of every one thousand will get pregnant if they use birth control and use a method that is not going to be vulnerable to daily human error the way that the Pill (92% effective with typical use rather than perfect use) is. Even the ones that are subject to human error are highly effective.
Are you willing to do things that have a 99.9% chance of going right? Because I have news for you - most people are - yet you act as if those methods are a raging failure when compared to what you consider to be ideologically and religiously appropriate. If you didn't consider sex to be a sin, you wouldn't be so very concerned with people taking precautions that mean that they have a 0.01% chance of a mishap.
This is another problem with liberals: they jump to conclusions without thinking their argument through. They feel much more comfortable labeling opponents as "religious fanatics" and dismissing their arguments. And yet, they love to accuse conservatives of being intolerant. Blatant hypocrisy, friend.
You wonder why I knew you were a conservative? Read the first sentence in this. Also, consider that the assumption that your opponent is stupid and has not thought, and that they only disagree with you because they lack logic, is ridiculous on its face. I don't assume that you disagree with me because you have not thought your arguments through - I wait for you to prove that.
Anyhow, I did not label you as a religious fanatic. Cite me the part where I called you a fanatic. No; I said that it's conservative Christians (and, to a lesser degree, other monotheists) who are so very concerned with where people are putting what. I said that the only reason you are so upset about the idea of the government funding family planning is because you believe that sex is wrong (if you are unmarried or poor), and the only reason you believe sex is wrong is religious. You are worried that somewhere, someone is having sex without being punished for it. If you took the time to think through it with an ounce of common sense, you would realize that people will continue having sex, whether or not you like it (and whether you call the reasons scientific or religious - you should be familiar enough with human biology to understand the sex drive, since you are so fond of "science"), and that it will be better for our economy if we actually do what we can to make sure that people are not having children they do not want and cannot support. The small amount that would go out in contraceptives would be far less than would would be spent on assistance for children born because of the lack of prevention. I also think that you're turning sex into a class-based thing, that you should only have if you make a large enough paycheck, which is, incidentally, another conservative thing, but I will address that later.
Also note that I am not intolerant of your religious views, or your personal views. I am intolerant of your desire to cause others to suffer through the imposition of said views. I am intolerant of people voting for our economy to go down in flames, and partially because they think that people (especially women) should not be allowed to have control over their own bodies (and contraception gives that).
In regards to the "married people who can't afford kids" comment: Yes, I do expect them to abstain (at times). It all goes back to the issue of self-control that I talked about earlier. Even in marriage, we are expected to act in a way that is not dominated by carnal desires. Ever hear of Natural Family Planning? It's a method wherein a married couple can have sex at certain times during the woman's cycle when she is less fertile and, thus, less likely to conceive. The success rate for couples which properly use this system is about 99%, much higher than any artificial birth control.
This pretty much disproves everything that you just said, along with the fact, posted earlier, that artificial birth control is, when used perfectly, at a minimum, 98% effective, and, at most, 99.9% effective - much higher than natural family planning.
Items of interest, for those who do not feel like going through the whole page:
Data indicates that women who use no birth control and who are sexually active for one year have an 85% chance of becoming pregnant in that year.
Of every 100 women who use a type of fertility awareness based method, 12-22 will become pregnant in first year with typical use.
(I would also like to point out that I am not using any one of many sources I normally would, because I will be accused of liberal bias. Unless, of course, someone is going to accuse About.com of a liberal bias - and reality is frequently accused of having said bias, so I wouldn't be surprised.)
I also would like to know why you think that you have the right to tell married people (or anyone else) what to do with their bodies. I dare you not to bring up religion. Again, consider that people are going to have sex, whether you like it or not, whether you think it is scientific or not, and that sex, and attraction,are not simply based on carnal desires - they are based on the desire for love and intimacy, but then, as I posted on my blog, this seems to elude most of the conservative Christians that I know. Your assertion that the only people who should be allowed to have sex whenever they choose, whenever they feel like being close on that level, are rich married people. You are turning this into a class-based issue - if you're paid enough, you get to do it whenever you like (whether it's because you can afford contraception on your own or because you can afford any children who might come unexpectedly). And I am not surprised to see sex added to the list of things that some conservatives think should only be available to the rich (such as raising their children however they choose, having access to decent medical care, living in tolerable conditions, or working fewer than eighty hours a week).
But, of course, not all women have a consistent cycle, so it's not going to be that high for everyone.
Yes; pity poor people like me, who have not had a consistent cycle in their life. I guess we just don't deserve to have sex ever unless we bank enough. After all, God did give you the right to tell me what to do with my body, and that artificial contraception should not be an option to me, right?
Nonetheless, NFP is a MUCH cheaper alternative then spending loads of cash on condoms, contraception, and abortions, which should be most favorable to these "poor" people who can't afford kids.
How come people who can't afford kids can somehow afford all that birth control?
NFP is also a far inferior alternative - as I just covered - and, having been homeless before, having known people who actually have experienced poverty, I find it deeply insulting and also extremely revealing that you put the word "poor" in quotes. I think you should, perhaps, stick to discussing things you know about, rather than putting quotes about words you have absolutely no personal knowledge of (like John McCain and his quotes around the words "women's health"). If you think we're laughing it up, driving our Hummers and having our big-screen TVs, spend a while in the local homeless shelter and volunteer. Take some time and actually get stories from people who have experienced poverty. Until then, your opinion of anyone who makes less than you means absolutely nothing to me - and that includes the fact that you seem to think that these people would be able to afford another child, as opposed to the much smaller cost of contraception (real contraception, as opposed to the unscientific tripe you posted earlier). The Pill, while expensive, to some, costs far less than another mouth to feed, and, with natural family planning, you're pretty much guaranteeing that you will end up with one, even if it's later than sooner.
The government spends (wastes) billions of taxpayer dollars on health care and welfare for low-income families every year, and yet they still can't afford to take care of all these poor children (that liberals always seem so concerned about in the first place).
I singled this out because it's particularly offensive.
You think that, because someone makes less than you, they do not deserve health care. You don't believe that basic human dignity should be afforded to people who may work twice as hard as you but get half the income.
And you claim to be a Christian.
Cognitive dissonance anyone? Hmm?
By the by, you're also calling the funds that helped me find a job and that still provide healthcare for my daughter a waste. If you can't understand why that's egregiously offensive then there really is no help for you. I've actually been poor, and I clawed myself out of it, and I needed help that I got. I'm still probably far worse off than you on my own. You need to pull your head out of your ass and process the fact that you are not the center of the universe, and that there are people who run into circumstances that you will not necessarily understand. But, then, if you actually took the time to do that - process all of the information around you rather than just that which supported your worldviews - you would probably end up a liberal, you know, like I did (recovering libertarian here). If you're offended by my using the word "ass," I'm probably far more offended that you said my daughter doesn't deserve healthcare because I don't have a college education and so lack income potential. You're the one rating the value of human life here; I have the common courtesy to afford all human beings the same inherent value, even if they are unfortunate enough to be born to parents who don't make a lot.
And, of course, there's always adoption, which costs the couple absolutely NO money whatsoever. They can birth the kid, and there is almost certainly an eager couple ready, willing, and wanting to raise it as their own.
They can't just birth the kid without medical care, but, then, I'm not surprised that you don't know that; I have my doubts that you have ever been near anything approaching either poverty or parenthood. Medical care is very far from free.
Also, if you think that adoption is so very easy, think again. For one, the adoption process discriminates against religious minorities (or the non-religious, and the couple described in this is precisely the makeup of my marriage-to-be), and, in some states, gays, which limits the pool of people who can adopt. Consider also that adoption, while sometimes costing nothing, costs more than you're saying on most occasions. You're not accounting for the many different factors involved. Here's another link on adoption costs, which includes international adoptions as well.
So, in short, you haven't researched this. At all. I'm not particularly surprised.
There is a LONG waiting list of couples like these who want to raise a child from birth, and who are unable to have their own kids.
You mean, like gays?
Why deny these poor people a chance at parenthood?
I don't know; you answer me that with something from somewhere other than Family Research Council.
For a few months of comfort? For your own convenience?
Until you've been pregnant you can seriously shut your mouth. I detailed up there, in a link, the average cost of prenatal care. If you can't afford medical insurance and don't qualify for Medicaid (and you don't if you have a job - I certainly couldn't afford to be pregnant right now), then you simply cannot afford to be pregnant. Which is why you utilize contraception - it's cheaper than the cost of pregnancy and it's cheaper than abortion. What on earth gives you the idea that you can tell people what they can and cannot afford to do with their bodies? Or that you can call them selfish for being unwilling to go through an arduous medical condition (and it may produce children, and I love both of mine, but it's a medical condition) that you will never experience? Are you on crack? Or are you just that invested in patriarchy, that you think you know better than women what they can do with their bodies?
Pregnancy has a lot of related risks - especially if you have a slew of health problems like, oh, I don't know, me. So you're telling me that you have the right to tell women to risk this without ever even coming close to risking it yourself? Presumptuous little man.
How selfish is that?
I don't know; you tell me how selfish it is to say that someone else can suffer through something you will never undergo.
Aren't liberals all about charity and selflessness and helping those who are denied certain privileges?
We're also about allowing people autonomy when it comes to their own bodies - even if they are consider a lower class of human being, like the poor or women.
Or, again, depending on where you are, gay. Why aren't you coming up to the bat for those who are denied certain privileges, like gays who want to adopt children in Arkansas, since you're suddenly championing the rights of the underdog? Or are you only willing to defend adoption if it's to affluent, Christian couples?
Well?
"I thank thee, Andraste, and call upon thee as woman speaking to woman [...] those over whom I rule are Britons, men that know not how to till the soil or ply a trade, but are thoroughly versed in the art of war and hold all things in common, even children and wives, so that the latter possess the same valour as the men. As the queen, then, of such men and of such women, I supplicate and pray thee for victory, preservation of life, and liberty against men insolent, unjust, insatiable, impious" -- Boadicea
ReplyDelete