I wouldn't sweeten the deal, make it an unborn puppy. Though, I would take the picture of her immodestly dressed down.
Matthew S | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 10:38 pm | #

So the reason why gays can't marry is that conservatives are spiteful and want to use the issue as a bargaining chip?
jfpbookworm | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 10:44 pm | #

To be less confrontational: either extending benefits to gay couples is the right thing to do or it's not. It's not situationally dependent on one's position on other issues, and it's not fair to the couples involved for politicians to decide "oh, we'll give up these people's rights because we'll get a concession for these other people's rights."
jfpbookworm | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 10:49 pm | #

Appreciate your giving a second thought and being less confrontational, jfp.

Matthew, we play your requests. Jessica's photo -- the one she uses as her NARAL profile pic -- is down.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 10:54 pm | #

Actually, since it's legal to spay a pregnant cat or dog, and illegal to kill a post-born baby, I'd have to say the laws pertaining to man and beast are aligned.
L. | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 1:02 am | #

The comments above were posted before I took the original post down at 7:39 this a.m.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 9:38 am | #

Thank you for taking the original post down, althought I would have called it hateful, not hasty.
EmilyG | 11.27.07 - 9:54 am | #

Dawn,
Delete this, of course, if you think it's confrontational - but I am genuinely interested.

What were you thinking when you made the comment about Jessica's "next pregnancy"?

Did it come from sorrowful anger? And was intended to provoke Jessica into taking notice? (Because, maybe, you're exasperated with the way pro-choicers seem impervious to other points of view).

Or did it just come out wrong - and isn't really what you think at all?
Jody Tresidder | 11.27.07 - 10:04 am | #

Jody, I was being intentionally provocative -- which is not a good motivation for making a point, to say the least. Beyond that, I'd rather not get into commenting on what I wrote, for fear of attempting to justify myself. I wrote with intention to provoke and offend -- therefore, no justification is adequate. The only thing to say now is that I'm sorry.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 10:09 am | #

Thank you for taking your post down. The internet is already too full of spite that only functions to draw attention rather than facilitating actual discussion.
L | 11.27.07 - 10:09 am | #

Methinks MatthewS should avoid the internet if he thought Jessica was immodestly dressed in that picture.

And yes, Dawn, why something so nasty and undainty? Do you have some kind of insight into the state of Jessica's uterus?
Bowleserised | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 10:10 am | #

Bowleserised, I answered your question as you were posting.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 10:11 am | #

Why are you apologising? Jessica Valenti is an idiot and a hateful one at that - look what she's written about you on her blog.

Sure you'll have to put up with her sycophantic child army for a while but stand up for what you believe, don't bow to the media celebrity.
Jane | 11.27.07 - 10:24 am | #

Thank you, Dawn.
Jody Tresidder | 11.27.07 - 10:28 am | #

Jane, I don't know who you are, but if you wish to continue commenting on this blog, please don't write personal insults against Jessica or anyone else -- see the "Comments Rules," linked on the the left-hand side of my blog.

I appreciate your urging me to stand up for what I believe. I have done that and intend to continue doing so, but am trying to learn how to do it in a way that does not intentionally set out to provoke or offend someone. A good writer can avoid provocation or offense without losing her edge.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 10:29 am | #

Well if it is any consolation, I have made such mistakes before, too.
Radical Catholic Mom | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 10:53 am | #

Thank you!
Bowleserised | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 10:57 am | #

Good on you, Dawn. We've all popped off in anger and haste and then realized later we should have slept on a post or comment. It's easy to do on the Internet.
Susan B. | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 10:59 am | #

Thank you for taking the post down. Not only was it insulting, it was ill-informed. EC prevents pregnancy, it doesn't terminate it.
Emily | 11.27.07 - 11:54 am | #

Appreciate the thanks, Emily. Your point re EC is the subject of some debate and hinges upon the relatively recent definition of pregnancy as beginning with implantation. Here is a reasonably balanced article on the subject by an advocate of legal abortion:

http://www.slate.com/id/2139107/

And here is an article from a pro-life site that discusses disparities in medical dictionaries' definitions of pregnancy:

http://www.noroomforcontraceptio...- conception.htm

Pregnancy was first redefined as taking place after implantation by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 1965, after the introduction of oral contraceptives -- see the second article on this pro-life page for some background:

http://www.prolife.com/ MorningAf...gAfterPill.html
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 12:21 pm | #

You're right, Dawn...you intended not only to provoke, but to do so in a very offensive manner.

You know...I believe it when someone says something in haste - words often leave our mouths quickly...but I dont buy it on the internet, especially in a blog post. You see the words on your screen before you hit the enter button. To say you wrote without thinking, or in haste, is either disingenuous, or you completely lack self-control.

Perhaps you thought you'd increase traffic to your blog. You knew full well when you wrote that post that you had no insight into Jessica's reproductive history, and that your comment was inaccurate, offensive and spiteful. And yet...you hit enter anyway.
Broce | 11.27.07 - 12:21 pm | #

You know...I believe it when someone says something in haste - words often leave our mouths quickly...but I dont buy it on the internet, especially in a blog post. You see the words on your screen before you hit the enter button. To say you wrote without thinking, or in haste, is either disingenuous, or you completely lack self-control.

Written like one who has never had a blog!

"Completely" is a bit strong, Broce* -- you don't know what I might have written had I no self-control.

*Corrected the misspelled name -- sorry.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 12:23 pm | #

I missed the offensive comment, but quite frankly, Broce is very much in error if he thinks it's not possible to offend in haste in electronic form. I've done it, and regretted it later, making that error both in the form of a public posting and in email.

Also, fwiw, I give a lot of credit to those who make an obviously sincere public apology. It takes guts. It's not the norm, as most people will not apologize for their actions. Many people will never do it. Once it is sincerely done, it puts the burden on the other party to forgive. If they don't do it, then they're the impolite, wrongful, party. There's no point in harassing a person after they've apologized, if it is sincere, as they've done all they can do.
Yeoman | 11.27.07 - 12:37 pm | #

First off, its Broce not Bruce, and I'm very much female.

Secondly, yes, Dawn, I've had a blog. Perhaps I just have more self control.

Thirdly, yes, Dawn from reading other posts of yours, I have a sneaking suspicion that I know what you'd write with no self control.
Broce | 11.27.07 - 12:56 pm | #

It's not that "Jessica saw it and was offended." It's that you wrote something offensive. Also--"next time she's pregnant"? Jessica's medical history is none of your business unless she chooses to make it public. Do you forced-pregnancy wackos really believe that pro-choice women get pregnant all the time and just go ahead and have abortions because it's no big deal? That's so far from the truth it's laughable, and I find it hard to believe that any of you would really think it's true. And finally, EC is EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION. It's contraception. It's to keep you from getting pregnant. You don't take it when you're already pregnant. It's right there in the name: contraception. It's not an abortion. Got it now? Contraception.
Pencils | 11.27.07 - 1:03 pm | #

Dawn,
I've been enjoying your blog regularly for the past few months, and spreading the gospel of "Chaste" one book loan at a time. I was terribly curious over the controversy your errant comment sparked, so I clicked over to "feministing" to see how the other half lives. Wow. Thank you for having the humility to offer a sincere apology and the grace to act like a lady. However misguided you may have felt your comments to be, we all make mistakes in the heat of passion, and blogging is nothing if not passionate! Thanks for being classy.

Jenny
Jenny S | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 1:08 pm | #

Sorry for the misspelling, Broce. Am wearing my glasses today and haven't upped the print size on my monitor.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 1:16 pm | #

Do you forced-pregnancy wackos really believe that pro-choice women get pregnant all the time and just go ahead and have abortions because it's no big deal?

For some people I have known over the years, the statement above is true. However, I believe such women are very much in the minority. (That is, unless one counts use of contraception, emergency or otherwise, as "abortion," in which the statement is true for the majority of pro-choice women I know.)
L. | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 1:38 pm | #

This little dust up reminds me of Mark Shea's article, Jesus Names Us, Not Sin about Mel Gibson's bad weekend:

As a good child of a contemporary culture, I was raised to believe that what people say when they are plastered, or insanely angry, or deeply afraid, or otherwise stripped of their normal rational faculties is Who They Really Are. We talk that way all the time. "I thought he was a good man until the mask came off and I saw the ugly Truth". That sort of talk is natural as breathing for us.

That's because, as Cardinal George has observed, in America everybody is a Calvinist, including the Catholics. We believe that the fall is identical with nature, and therefore believe that when you see a man in sin, you see him as he "really" is. Goodness is the mask, corruption is his true nature.

And he goes on to explain why such a world view isn't worth anyone's time. In short, let's move on and avoid the temptation to use this as stick.
Scott W. | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 2:56 pm | #

I just visited Feministing and read the post. I have never in my life seen so much hate spewing from commenters. They sound so...defensive. And angry! Why? I really don't believe that Dawn intended to imply anything unsavory about Jessica's sexual past. She just used the wrong choice of words - and she apologized. But these people commenting are being really nasty about people who have different viewpoints than they do. It makes me really sad. And I think that whole saying about knowing them by their fruits really applies here.
Catherine | 11.27.07 - 3:09 pm | #

Okay, I've read it.

One of the things about written communications is that they're easily misconstrued, as the context does not necessarily convey well.

I don't think an offense was actually offered, and I wouldn't apologize here at all. Granted, I'm in the courtroom a lot, where I get to hear genuine insults. This one doesn't really merit as that, but perhaps it was easy to read it in a misconstrued fashion. While I know Dawn is a good writer, and I suppose Ms. Valenti may be also (I didn't read the rest of the blog), I'm sorry to say that in the realm of argumentative or accusatory verbiage, this doesn't even merit a 1 on a scale of 10.

I'm not sure the commment was misconstrued, but it could easily have been, and on a topich where few people want an error made. Ms. Valent, therefore, retaliated with some fairly vulgar language. Even there, however, her obvious anger didn't really amount to much more than a 2 out of 10 on the upset retaliatory language scale. Ms. Eden, however, realizing that she might have offered offense, retracted it. Ms. Valenti begrudgingly accepted the retraction, which probably scales out about 3 out of 10 on the begrudging acceptance irritation scale.

The actual lesson learned is that what we typed can be read in more than one way, in some instances. Really good debaters, fwiw, can turn this in to an art form where it's useful, which is when you want to distract an audience from some point you'd rather they not think about.

That's all the more story there is here. There's not even much point in discussing it really. That it is being discussed is because it's a lot easier to preserve an argument about nothing, than about something.
Yeoman | 11.27.07 - 3:12 pm | #

"Like a lady." What a joke. Lying and claiming that contraception is an abortion. Making false claims about the personal life of a stranger and posting it on the internet. Yes, that is pure class.
Laurie | 11.27.07 - 3:22 pm | #

Catherine notes the replies, which I didn't read.

Things like this have a certain feeding frenzy quality. There's no real story here, I don't think that Dawn actually meant to imply anything about Ms. Valenti's past, but I think that Ms. Valenti was correct to complain about language that could be misconstrued. Her language was fairly crude, which was an error on her part, as it sort of distracts from her argument.

Beyond that, if folks are jumping up and down, it is really directed at something else. When you can debate you do. When you instead riot, its says that your debating skills are likely lacking, or that you don't really have a point to debate. In a debate, when your opponent gets to that point, they've lost and they know it.

The sad thing, however, is that when people get to the shouting stage, in any argument, they not only usually know they're in real trouble, but the frenzy aspect of it operates to close their minds. Here, they'd be better off accepting both sides of the mutual apologies, and perhaps think about the deeper issues that are out there, rather than an argument over perceptions that both parties have apologized for, and have presumably moved on from.
Yeoman | 11.27.07 - 3:24 pm | #

Kudos to you for doing the sensible thing, Dawn. Back when I had a blog, I would often (not always, sad to say) follow the general principle of "pray before posting" ... it kept me out of harm's way more often than anything else.

---

On the original topic:
How is one supposed to feel about the state of the education system when a college gives medical benefits to employee's pets but not to same sex partners?

Personally, I feel that either choice is foolish and wasteful. Family benefits are for families, not for pets, roommates, or sex partners. Then again, academia loves to waste money on such foolishness, so I suppose it would be par for the course....
Naaman | 11.27.07 - 4:14 pm | #

All those who are under the impression that chemical contraception "doesn't cause abortion" have drunk the "progressivist" Flavor-Aid (the Jonestown folks drank poisoned Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid). Yes, the hormones do work by preventing ovulation, but they also cause other "fail-safes" by preventing embryos that do come into being from implanting. EC also works this way.

But since they don't recognize the personhood of the embryo either, I doubt it doesn't bother the consciences either.
Matthew | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 4:24 pm | #

Matthew raises an important point. It's also my understanding that EC has the effect of artificially preventing fertilized eggs from implanting, which all artificial birth control pharmaceuticals do. For that reason, they're a type of abortion.

Stating that tends to really upset people who are comfortable with birth control pharmaceuticals, but who otherwise recognize abortion as immoral. But it is accurate. It's rarely noted as it tends to be enormously upsetting to those comfortable with birth control pills, who don't really want to believe this. By extension, there's usually a kill the messenger response to noting this.
Yeoman | 11.27.07 - 4:37 pm | #

Yeoman,
You write - with lovely loyalty: "I don't think that Dawn actually meant to imply anything about Ms. Valenti's past, but I think that Ms. Valenti was correct to complain about language that could be misconstrued."

Dawn has already explained, however: "...I wrote with intention to provoke and offend -- therefore, no justification is adequate. The only thing to say now is that I'm sorry."

The reason I think that is extraordinary is because very, very few high profile bloggers have the integrity or gallantry to admit their low(ish)intentions as Dawn did.

Almost anyone can squeeze themselves behind the excuse that their harsh words were "misconstrued" (often delivered with a wink).

And it's worth cheering when they don't.
Jody Tresidder | 11.27.07 - 4:40 pm | #

Jody, good point. And acknowledging this is to Dawn's credit.

You give me more credit, however, than I deserve as I simply failed to note Dawn's acknowledgment, and I actually have a hard time seeing an offense offered here, on a serious level, as I'm so used to strident debate that I can hardly recognize an offense before its extremely apparent. I'm not sure if that's good, or bad, as it means that you get capable of offering an offense and truly not realizing it. That both parties here have recognized an offense, and apologized, is laudable.
Yeoman | 11.27.07 - 5:22 pm | #

Said Naaman:

"Family benefits are for families, not for pets, roommates, or sex partners."

This is a statement I hear time and time again from people who have had little to no first-hand experience with same-sex families. (And I'm certainly not accusing Naaman of such, just pointing out that it's a statement characteristic of a subset.)

Define a family. Mother, father, child? What about single parents? Couples without children? Grandparents raising grandchildren? Elder siblings raising younger ones?

I really believe that the best way to show people that same-sex couples are a family is to have them spend time with a few. See the look of joy on their faces when they adopt (or one partner conceives) a child. It's easier to tell people they're not a family when they're not staring you in the face.
abbey | 11.27.07 - 5:23 pm | #

Abbey, it may be easier to tell people that they're not a family when they're not staring you in the face, that's quite true. But that's true of nearly any point, right or wrong. For example, it's harder to tell a person he's going to die from something if he's looking you in the eye.

Your point was, in essence, define a family. But you didn't define one either. What is your definition, and how did you arrive upon it?

And what is the purpose one is being defined? That point seems to be missed on some of these debates. Family can be as broad as "family of man", or much more limited, say "natural born or adopted children and parents". It depends on the purpose of the definition. When we speak of "family benefits", why are we extending benefits, and what is the purpose of it.

Benefits aren't rights. That's often forgotten. And extending benefits tends to mean taking something away, if only money, from somebody else. That is not an argument to extend or retract them, but the logical extension of that argument is to determine why something is being extended first, and then determine whom should receive it, assuming that there are not; 1) universally recognized needs; and 2) inexhaustible resources.

Cold hearted view I suppose, but one that seem to rarely be considered.
Yeoman | 11.27.07 - 5:59 pm | #

To me feminism is anything that promotes and protects women and their rights and opportunities. To me, Dawn's work does exactly that. It seems to me that there should be plenty of room for common ground. I know this sounds naive given the heated nature of the issues involved. I appreciate any attempt to find unity and to work for common goals (the respect and dignity of women), so I think the apology was a classy thing to do. I think Dawn's work is very pro-woman, and I love the chance to collaborate with others on those goals (no matter how different the approaches may be).
Anne | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 8:37 pm | #

It's also my understanding that EC has the effect of artificially preventing fertilized eggs from implanting, which all artificial birth control pharmaceuticals do.

Emergency Contraception *can* work that way. It also can prevent fertilization. The operative word here being *can*. Having followed this issue for a *long* time, my considered opinion is, blamed if I know how often it works either way! It's really an open question for the scientists to study, and we'll probably know in several years. But it's not a weird out-there impossibility that it routinely stops implantation, which is what you'd think from folks like the Feministing.
Eileen R | 11.28.07 - 12:23 am | #

Dawn,

Thanks for the response to the request. I understand the feelings of wanting to provoke to get someone's attention, to that I remind you and me (more me than you, I think I might have been cheering while reading the post initially) of John Henry Cardinal Newman's motto: cor ad cor loquitor.

As to the commenter about the immodesty of the picture, I do limit where I go on the internet and I understand the want to put a picture up to keep the site here visually interesting but I do think bare shoulders and an outfit that would be designed to exude sexuality that is unecessary to the content might be a bit outside the realms of appropriate (especially for the author of thrill of the chaste). It is a matter of promoting the ideal and passing on the less than ideal.

God bless you for all you do Dawn.

Under the Mercy,
Matthew S
Matthew S | Homepage | 11.28.07 - 1:09 am | #

Yeoman – I don't see how you can read Dawn's original comment and not see the very nasty barb and implication in it.

And Jody: Amen.

MatthewS: Would you prefer that all females on this site were depicted in burkas? Does it take a mere bare shoulder to render you incapable of debate?
Bowleserised | Homepage | 11.28.07 - 3:27 am | #

That was over-snarky, but honestly, I'm intrigued. I understood that Dawn touted "new" chastity as empowering, but here I see a guy trying to dictate what women should wear in his cyber-presence, and hyper-sexualising their bodies at the same time. That sounds more like old-school chastity – ie oppressive, and making out that womens' bodies are offensive.
Bowleserised | Homepage | 11.28.07 - 6:38 am | #

Thanks to the poster who called Feministing's readers a "sycophantic child army." I'm 47 and read Jessica's blog regularly, and I'm amused to think that this somehow makes me a child.

Regardless, it's nice to see an apology for an unwarranted and insulting post.
Ellid | 11.28.07 - 7:22 am | #

"Thanks to the poster who called Feministing's readers a 'sycophantic child army.'"

I think even a cursory glance at the comments section of Feministing vs. this blog show the maturity differences between the two.
Andy | 11.28.07 - 8:07 am | #

"Yeoman – I don't see how you can read Dawn's original comment and not see the very nasty barb and implication in it."

Probably because, if you're in an atmosphere of constant debate, you get pretty numb to a lot of it.

This blog is very well behaved, and the writing is intelligent and polite, so it doesn't yield to the temptation to denigrate. That's part of the reason a lot of us stop in here, as it's so intelligent and well reasoned. This is also the reason that Dawn likely recognized having made an error, and apologized. This is an exception to the rule.

But in certain arenas, even ones dominated by professionals, that isn't true at all. I try not to do that myself, but I've routinely heard comments of a vicious nature about various individuals in a litigation scenario all the time, and this wouldn't have even hit the meter. And, fwiw, the area I'm in is legendary for being polite in this regards, as that conduct is much, much, worse elsewhere.

Says something unfortunate about our society, I suppose. I know that in the law, it's a frequent complaint from family members that court room lawyers are so used to vicious debate, that they'll accidentally do it at home without realizing it. I try not to do that also, although I sadly note that my kids were capable of setting out pretty well reasoned debates by the time they entered Kindergarten, which I'm not happy about.
Yeoman | 11.28.07 - 9:31 am | #

"MatthewS: Would you prefer that all females on this site were depicted in burkas? Does it take a mere bare shoulder to render you incapable of debate?"

The reference to a photo here is confusing, particularly if you've never heard of Jessica Valenti prior to thread. I take it this photo is down?
Yeoman | 11.28.07 - 9:37 am | #

By the way, the reference to language here is actually a bit heartening. Having grown so used to all sorts of really low level language being used in a professional setting all the time, I'm actually a bit encouraged that people will take offense at some of it, and that they will recognize that some of it is offensive.

I dare say, however, this isn't the norm. In terms of acceptable conduct, there's pretty much no longer any standard about what language may be commonly used.
Yeoman | 11.28.07 - 9:39 am | #

This is the photo

http://www.bushvchoice.com/image...ges/ jessica.jpg
Bowleserised | Homepage | 11.28.07 - 10:11 am | #

No, a shoulder doesn't render me incapable of debate but Dawn has a particular style/message here and a spaghetti strap styled top isn't inside that realm. I know of several men that it would make incapable of function and would cause them to act out sexually (they are addicts to lust). As far as dress goes, most women down't think about what they are trying to do when they dress, if they dress nicely or a little sexy it draws attention to themselves which is the goal. I guess I would ask for people who believe as Dawn does, "what is the purpose in drawing attention to yourself in dressing sexily?" Drawing attention to yourself by accentuating the sexual aka turning men on if the viewer is a man. My rule of thumb, tight enought so that I know your a women but loose enough that I still know you are a lady.

Dress nice but I don't need to see more of you than is reasonable. This society slowly is falling downhill, back one day it was sleeves tot he wrist and they slowly get shorter until now we don't have sleeves and we display lots of clevage. I am not saying we need to go back to the victorian age (I don't normal consider a woman in a shortsleeve shirt or what ms. Valenti was wearing in her fiasco picture) as being immodest but I do think that strapless or basically uncovered shoulders or anything that shows lots of clevage is out of line.

Under the Mercy,
Matthew S.
Matthew S | Homepage | 11.28.07 - 10:41 am | #

Sorry about my misunderstanding Dawn. I didn't realize that my blog extended beyond a few of my friends, but I've added a note referring readers to your comment.
Kate | Homepage | 11.28.07 - 11:20 am | #

Bowleserised, thank you for the photo link. I was confused as the photo at the top of her blog was not inappropriate, in my view, and I wondered if that was the one we were talking about.

Without picking on Ms. Valenti in particular, one thing this conversation has sort of brought up (although not through its main points) is how unaware we are of the declined content of our speech, and of our dress.

I'm not suggesting women ought to wear burkahs or something, but by the same token, our dress and language has an impact. Whether they realize it or not, a person dressed appropriately for their task, and a person using appropriate articulate speech, will have an impact where one with the exact same message, and using vulgar speech, or dressing in a somewhat revealing way, will not.

The impact of dress is particularly lost on most Americans now. People simply will not acknowledge it. They refuse to believe it, and they tend to feel they're being repressed if you mention it. In the case of women, particularly those who have a feminist viewpoint, referencing dress tends to suggest to them that you want them to dress like a character in a 1950s television show. Not so. However, it would serve them well to realize that a message is conveyed by dress whether we want it to be or not, and just complaining that you didn't mean it, doesn't matter. What matters is the message received, and if we're defeating the message through our dress (or language) we can't complain much about that. And as it would seem that the receipt of those messages is due to visual hard wiring in males, there's no amount of complaining that will alter that beyond merely altering the degree to which it is received. This was sort of brought out in the conversation on the "my short skirt" poem that was up here a while back. Yes, no invitation is being extended by that dress, by the dresser, and yes, none is extended by leaving the front door of your house open either, but that might not be how others perceive it, in spite of themselves.

Also, straying away from this, dressing like a teen, when we're not, doesn't work real well either.

FWIW, the impact of dress applies to males as well, although not quite in the same way. Dressing inappropriately sends a message that they're not to be taken seriously, but doesn't suggest that they're available. Poor dress in males, however, is particularly likely to result in loss of job opportunities. I've known numerous instances of college graduate males being refused job offers for that reason alone, rightly or wrongly.

Again, I'm not suggesting that women should put on the veil. And different dress is appropriate for different situations. But we shouldn't pretend it doesn't have an impact either. Not having any real idea (and not being sufficiently interested to investigate it either) what Ms. Valenti was doing at the time that photo was taken, I'm not making a comment on her in particular.
Yeoman | 11.28.07 - 11:45 am | #

Matthew S:
"As far as dress goes, most women down't think about what they are trying to do when they dress, if they dress nicely or a little sexy it draws attention to themselves which is the goal."

What does this mean?
Are you saying that women are trying to draw attention to themselves? Are you trying to say that women don't think about the effects their clothing has on men even though they conciously trying to seek attention?
I don't get it.
Also, regarding the comment about Jessica Valenti's alleged multiple pregnancies, I think this is a perfect example of why I am personally pro-choice. The pro-life crowd seems hell-bent on scruntizing, judging, limiting and chastising the behavior and sexuality of just about every woman of reproductive age. No womb left unturned or speculated about.
How does that help women?
less13lee | 11.28.07 - 12:10 pm | #

"The pro-life crowd seems hell-bent on scruntizing, judging, limiting and chastising the behavior and sexuality of just about every woman of reproductive age."

It really isn't. Pro-life is about being pro life.

Oddly, the same comment is often the sense that the pro life folks have about "pro choice". It seems that pro choicers, if you are on the outside, are sort of obsessed with scrutinizing, judging, etc., the sexual behavior of everyone, and in condemning anyone who doesn't have a fairly libertine view. The usually reply is that this isn't true, but the rhetoric in the "pro choice" camp really is "do it", or there's something wrong with you. At best, suggest that perhaps people ought to be more chaste, and you'll get snickers or claims that this is simply impossible. Ironically, many in the same crowd are obviously bitterly unhappy with sex in some fashion at the same time.

Anyhow, choices about life and death should be made on the basis of life and death. This blog is about more than life and death, but where that's the topic, peoples views should be based on life and death. Given as most people hold a wide range of views on various things, it's easy enough to erroneously assume that all a persons views are related, and there's only one big topic, but that isn't the case. Generally the pro life position is pretty clear. The pro choice one, such as a statement in reactions (such as yours here) is often much less so, or appears to be highly rationalized. In the case of rationalized positions, or ones in reaction (I'm this, because of some unrelated position on that), it'd be best to rethink the position, to see if you have one clearly thought out.
Yeoman | 11.28.07 - 12:56 pm | #

Strewth. Yes, this confirms my opinion that the whole chastity thing is all about controlling and patronising women while justifying the worst stereotypes of male sexual behaviour.
Bowleserised | Homepage | 11.28.07 - 1:05 pm | #

"Strewth. Yes, this confirms my opinion that the whole chastity thing is all about controlling and patronising women while justifying the worst stereotypes of male sexual behaviour."

I'm not sure which reply this is to but chastity is virtue that applies to male and females, of course. And your statement lacks logic or even the hint of a logical backing. It isn't gender specific as a virtue. Some bad sexual vices are more specific to males than females, but they're not chaste. The worst stereotypes of male sexual behavior are unchaste. While it wouldn't argue for it, if this pertains to the manner of dress in general, chastity would still require correct behavior in any circumstances.

Ironically, if a person wants to boost the worst male sexual stereotypes, then they ought to argue against chastity. The worst stereotypes are that males pretty much want sex from women, and nothing else. That's pretty much the argument that some would adopt for women in the name of their freedom. That wouldn't work out well for men or women, but it is the adolescent male's immature dream, and has worked out to pretty much be the adult female's nightmare. The ultimate "control" anyone can have over anything, is over themselves, which presupposes they can and will say "no", and require something in exchange for saying "yes". Within the nature of our species, the implications for failing to do so are fairly obvious, and the results pretty apparent. That still, however, doesn't seem to stop a large segment of society from dreaming of a state in which there's no implication for anything, and you can (and have to) say "yes" with no implications every resulting.

I often think that when people argue against chastity, it's most an emotional argument, lacking in anything to support it. Indeed, as we've been running a 40 year old experiment on being unchaste in our society, it's pretty clear that Utopia isn't going to be gained through unchaste behavior, and the experiment would be regarded as a failure if objectively viewed. Part of the problem, however, is that I don't really think people know what "chastity" actually means. Some people thing it means permanent abstinence, or modesty, or suppression of anything sexual. They're wrong. Indeed, a person could be perfectly immodest, and pretty interested in sex, and be chaste.

Well, time to get some work done.
Yeoman | 11.28.07 - 1:25 pm | #

I think you need to read up on social history (not just that of the 20th century and the west). It's more that some people in some parts of the globe have made an experiment with chastity. Not that everyone met your definition of chastity for thousands of years.
Bowleserised | Homepage | 11.28.07 - 1:30 pm | #

Indeed, as we've been running a 40 year old experiment on being unchaste in our society, it's pretty clear that Utopia isn't going to be gained through unchaste behavior, and the experiment would be regarded as a failure if objectively viewed. >>>

And your Utopia would be controlling desires, Yeoman? Because the 50s and before were such a paradise for everyone! If someone wants to be chaste, good for them. I didn't exactly sleep around before being married, but if someone wants to do that, it's not my concern.
Neil C | 11.28.07 - 1:45 pm | #

In terms of acceptable conduct, there's pretty much no longer any standard about what language may be commonly used.

Was there ever?

And should there be? And if so, who should set such standards?

Matthew S., may you never meet my daughter and me in our summer attire, lest you draw unfortunate conclusions about our morals.
L. | Homepage | 11.28.07 - 1:47 pm | #

In terms of acceptable conduct, there's pretty much no longer any standard about what language may be commonly used.>>

Because here such words get you banned. What some feel is civilized, others find oppressive. I consider myself an intelligent person, but I do swear quite a bit, and boy, at my job do a bunch of professional people talk off color!
Neil C | 11.28.07 - 1:51 pm | #

Oh, don't concern yourself with me, Yeoman, I am a woman of reproductive age and I work with and share my social life with other women of reproductive age and we are a diverse group. Some of us are quite chaste and some of us are quite sexual, but in the interest of helping and not hurting other women, we are compassionate, we empathize with each other and we are, therefore, pro-choice.
So yeah, I've thought about my position and I'm in favor of women living to their fullest capacity whether they chose to be a married mother of ten, a world traveller with tons of lovers and no kids or anything in between.
less13lee | 11.28.07 - 2:38 pm | #

"I think you need to read up on social history (not just that of the 20th century and the west). It's more that some people in some parts of the globe have made an experiment with chastity. Not that everyone met your definition of chastity for thousands of years."

The point being? I didn't declare that every met the definition at any time, rather, I implied that it was the goal, in this area that should be sought. Not everyone, in every culture, has held what we'd regard as standard views of widely accepted morality either, which doesn't mean they should be rejected. It was acceptable in various culture at various times to kill any stranger, for example. Does that mean, therefore, that this view is as equally valid as any other?

And, I didn't given a definition for chastity, although I don't think it needs one in this context as I suppose we all know what we're talking about. My point was, that I don't think a lot of folks know what it means.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but your argument, and that of another below, is almost wholly lacking in anything other than argument. To say you need to "read up on" something suggest you are now going to state what reading up on it would reveal in support of your argument. It tends to be a classic dodge in a debate, usually actually meaning that the person who makes it doesn't have anything to cite to, or they would have. Given as I'm probably considerably more read up than you suppose, I'll now put you to your proof. What should I read, what would it reveal, and why do you regard it as having merit?

"but in the interest of helping and not hurting other women, we are compassionate, we empathize with each other and we are, therefore, pro-choice."

Okay, how does your empathy and desire not to hurt one another make you pro choice? Are you not capable of being empathetic and include the unborn, or are you simply rejecting the argument? Or does empathy with your fellows mean that you must reject empathy with another group? Does empathy equate, in your view, with a necessary suspension of any standards?

Again, I don't mean to be harsh, but your statement is a conclusion, not an argument (which I think is what you meant it to be). And you could state the same thing, in that fashion, about anything. But we can, and should, empathize with people in all circumstances, which doesn't mean that we have to adopt their views. I regard your empathy as worthy, but that doesn't logically lead to a pro choice view at all. It suggest there's no view, and this is the easy view to have. Lots of folks, maybe most folks, in fact do choose their views on everything that way.
Yeoman | 11.28.07 - 3:22 pm | #

As sort of a sheer random observation (before I really get back to work), one of the things that strikes me about the debates this thread has turned to is that it has the odd feature of one group knowing almost everything about the what the other espouses first hand, but the opposite is not true.

In this day and age, almost any American would be pretty familiar with a lack of chastity. But long time readers here know that most of the participants in the comments have been victims (my word) of that lifestyle to one degree or another. Some knew better and fell in to it, others did not know another way. In the end, those who are espousing chastity here, came either in to it, or back in to it.

So they know first hand what both roads are like, and where they both lead.

I suspect, however, it's not nearly so common (although surely somebody will now declare that this applies to them) for a person to live a chaste life and then find fulfillment falling out of it. Indeed, I strongly suspect that the opponents of chastity speak in terms of what is a hypothetical to varying degrees (and there's a lot of variation we can speak of here). The proponents, on the other hand, have unfortunately often made themselves the test set, to their lasting regret.

I should note, however, I'm not referring to anyone person here. And I'm not referencing any of those who replied above, none of whom I know anything about. In terms of empathy, mentioned above, I empathize with us all, truly. And I certainly don't mean to reference Ms. Valenti with this, whom I know utterly nothing about, and couldn't comment on if I wanted to. So, please, don't take it that I'm pointing fingers, as I'm not.
Yeoman | 11.28.07 - 3:45 pm | #

Yeoman, a lot of words to say you don't know what you're talking about! :)
Neil C | 11.28.07 - 4:07 pm | #

Neil, how true ;)
Yeoman | 11.28.07 - 4:30 pm | #

Dawn,

A very classy apology. Often, the less defensible the conduct, the more difficult the apology.

On and off the internet, one should try to read comments in their best possible (rational) light. "Next pregnancy" could be a snarky implication of past abortions, or a misstatement whose original meaning was "the first pregnancy immediately following the present time," without any reference to the past.

Anyway - kudos, Dawn. Fallibility is part of being human. The good people aren't necessarily the ones who make fewer mistakes, but the ones who acknowledge them. I, for one, can learn from your example.
theobromophile | Homepage | 11.28.07 - 10:45 pm | #

Yeoman,

Next time you begin an opinion with: "I'm not suggesting women ought to wear burkahs or something, but by the same token..."

Imagine how you would react if I wrote: "I'm not suggesting men should be castrated or something, but by the same token.."

I'm not inviting a defensive argument about how clothes are totally different from castration.

I'm asking whether you'd even bother to read my next sentence on the basis of my first!
Jody Tresidder | 11.29.07 - 10:43 am | #

What I was trying to say is that women try to get attention and even though its not conscious, sexy dress, may be one of the effects of that desire.

As for the whole question of next pregnancy implying prior pregnancies that is the assumption of the reader...next is talking about something in the future , while it is not common to refer to first it easily can refer to first...it is like alot of the misreading of the phrase until to be exclusive of time after the event.

Under the Mercy,
Matthew S.
Quielty going back to my blog and work.
Matthew S | Homepage | 11.29.07 - 10:49 am | #

Being compassionate and empathizing with people means expanding their options, choices and resources and access. Limiting people's rights or liberty and denying them access to medical care is not compassionate. Empathizing with someone means actually listening to them without judgment. Pro-life folks are all about that good old judgment, which they seem to reserve especially for young women. Young men, apparently, are blameless.
less13lee | 11.29.07 - 11:12 am | #

I think it would help to remember that modesty is often relative to the culture. I remember C.S. Lewis once pointing out that while a woman in Victorian England would be wearing a lot more clothes than a woman in the Pacific Islands, they may be equally modest in their cultures. He also pointed out that both women may be equally chaste or unchaste, their dress notwithstanding.

Fancy ball gowns are often off the shoulder, and here in the South in the heat of the summer, it is not uncommon for perfectly nice, modest women to wear tank tops or spaghetti straps. While I am a great believer in modesty, I am starting to get impatient with men who judge women as "slutty" every time a woman wears something the perceive as immodest. I'm sorry, but some of you men need to take responsibility for your own thoughts and responses and quit blaming women. I find that a little too Muslim-esque.

There, I'm glad I got that off my chest (if you will not consider me immodest for using that expression)...carry on.
Susan B. | Homepage | 11.29.07 - 11:20 am | #

What I was trying to say is that women try to get attention and even though its not conscious, sexy dress, may be one of the effects of that desire.>>>

Well, Matthew, you just have to learn to rein in your 'lustful desires' so they can feel free to dress how they see fit! :)
Neil C | 11.29.07 - 11:40 am | #

Being compassionate and empathizing with people means expanding their options, choices and resources and access. Limiting people's rights or liberty and denying them access to medical care is not compassionate. Empathizing with someone means actually listening to them without judgment. Pro-life folks are all about that good old judgment, which they seem to reserve especially for young women. Young men, apparently, are blameless.

Oh, get over yourself.

When you kill an unborn child, you are not compassionate towards it; you are denying it medical care; and you are limiting its rights and liberties in the most blatant and final manner possible.

Um, hello, we have compassion - just because I will never again be a foetus does not mean that I think it's okay to trample on their rights.

Oh, by the way - EVERY pro-lifer I know has very, very high standards for men. Keeping it in their pants is first and foremost.

Then again, you're attacking the issue by attacking people, which is, IMHO, a bad idea. I could (very, very easily, and quite truthfully) pooint out that the demographic that is the most pro-choice are young, single men. They want sex without child support or other consequences, and abortion gives it to them. They put all of the medical strain on the woman, often the cost of the abortion, and certainly the psychological after-effects. Then they dump her (about 90% of couples break up after an abortion), walk away, and find someone else with whom to have sex.

Is that an argument that abortion is bad? Do we judge the merits of a position based upon its followers? At least mine is grounded in empirical evidence and fact, while yours is a conglomeration of stereotypes.
theobromophile | Homepage | 11.29.07 - 1:14 pm | #

Oh, get over yourself.

Theobromophile, please reread the comments rules, linked at left. Thank you.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 11.29.07 - 1:22 pm | #

"At least mine is grounded in empirical evidence and fact, while yours is a conglomeration of stereotypes."

Yet, a few paragraphs above this, you make an assertion based on "...EVERY pro-lifer I know."

I know quite a few anti-abortion men who get women pregnant, don't marry them, and end up being baby-daddy to a bunch of kids with different moms.

And there is by defintion no way to give fetuses an absolute right to life under all curcumstances without first negating every other right held by the women in which they are growing.
L. | Homepage | 11.29.07 - 1:55 pm | #

"I'm not inviting a defensive argument about how clothes are totally different from castration."

Jody, I fully agree. But I wasn't replying to your comment (there's so many up here now, I'm not sure which it is) but to another comment by another poster. Anyhow, regarding your point, I agree.
Yeoman | 11.29.07 - 7:58 pm | #

That is, I don't know where the castration/clothing item came in, but I'm sure not equating any sort of physical mutilation of any kind with anything else. As noted, I'm not sure which comment Jody's was, but I wasn't replying to it in the first instance.
Yeoman | 11.29.07 - 7:59 pm | #

"Being compassionate and empathizing with people means expanding their options, choices and resources and access. Limiting people's rights or liberty and denying them access to medical care is not compassionate. Empathizing with someone means actually listening to them without judgment. Pro-life folks are all about that good old judgment, which they seem to reserve especially for young women. Young men, apparently, are blameless."

I don't think there's any suggestion anywhere, in a pro-life position, that men get a fee pass.

Otherwise, I think most pro-lifers fully agree with what you've stated, except that they're judgmental. Far from it, they do wish to engage in "expanding their options, choices and resources and access" and protect everyone's "rights or liberty". The difference is that, in contrast, those for "choice" are judgmental in that they are stating that, with certainty, it's either okay to kill an unborn child, or that it isn't a child, and therefore no compassion need be extended before birth. That's a harsh, unempathetic, view indeed.

If you want to protect everyone's rights, freedoms, and choices, you have to at a bare minimum err on the side of caution as to who is everyone. At one time, in this culture, people didn't think blacks were more than "2/3ds of other persons". That is regarded as an abomination, now, thankfully. Here, those of us in favor of life, no matter how we approach it, argue that we are not qualified to judge who is human, so we have to include us all of us. That's non-judgmental. Arguing that you can judge a fetus not to be a human worth protecting is a judgment, and a severe one.

So, I agree, lets protect everyones rights, access to life, liberty, and health care, and do so with compassion. To act with true compassion, and concern, means we can't exclude those who are unborn. Indeed, doing so pretends, at a bare minimum, that we know when a human is really a human, and that's a frightening thought.
Yeoman | 11.29.07 - 8:11 pm | #

Dawn,

I'm sorry.

L,

And there is by defintion no way to give fetuses an absolute right to life under all curcumstances without first negating every other right held by the women in which they are growing.

My right to vote would be negated by giving a fetus the right to life?

So third-trimester women lack civil and human rights, as they don't have the right to abort (in most states; Roe does permit this)?

Obvious flaws in your rhetoric aside (which has emotional appeal):

More importantly, the abortion debate is really about a balancing of rights: those of the fetus to its life, and those of the mother to not be pregnant when she does not want to be.

I assume that we are talking about the abortions that a) compromise most of the debate and b) are not truly fought over - i.e. the 94% (or so) that are not the result of rape, incest, or those that pose a threat to maternal health or life.

If you are arguing on another assumption, that's fine, but I will not debate that, nor should any pro-lifer really do so; it would be an absurd parody of our beliefs.

By definition, granting the right to the mother to not be pregnant when shes does not want to, AND allowing her to enforce that right in any manner she chooses (i.e. abortion, as opposed to abstinence or birth control) results in taking away every single right the fetus has or will ever have.

Contrariwise, the right to not be pregnant is not tantamount to death. First of all, no matter how bad it is - even assuming the worst up to threat to health - it is over in nine months. The aborted baby will not spring back to life in that time, ready to make gurgling noises at its parents. Ergo, the right asserted by the mother is inferiour to the right asserted by the child.

For me, being a free-market libertarian type, I see much of this as putting the harm (i.e. pregnancy, or lack of life, depending on your circumstances) upon the person most easily able to prevent it. The fetus, by defintion, could not have done anything to prevent its reliance upon its mother. Excepting rape, the mother had an opportunity to prevent being the unwilling host of another human's life. Such allows people to order their lives the way they want to, without imposing upon others for that which is better prevented through their own actions.

That is a common analytical tool; it doesn't mean that I'm judgmental, don't care about women, or any other ad hominem arguments. It's gender neutral and action-neutral; a person may take whatever non-aggressive means available to avoid the undesirable situation.

...and it certainly does not mean that the person gives up all rights for all time.

---
I can talk about the people I know without stereotyping - by definition, that is NOT stereotyping, because it's based on a sample size (i.e. data). So you are complaining that I pointed out that someone did X, and then I did "the opposite of X," and you're upset because that's inconsistent.

Considering that the commenter above presumed to know about ALL pro-lifers, I need not put forth a scientific study about the average thoughts, distributions, and bell curves of pro-life psyches; I only need to find a single pro-lifer who is not what she states them all to be, and her theory is disproven.

That is exactly what I did.

My (huge) issue with the commenter is that the "I know your deep thoughts" attitude kills discussion. It is hubristic, in that it presumes that she knows the inner thoughts of people she's never met; it is also nearly impossible to disprove, except with anecdotal evidence of those one personally knows.
theobromophile | Homepage | 11.30.07 - 1:37 am | #

At one time, in this culture, people didn't think blacks were more than "2/3ds of other persons". That is regarded as an abomination, now, thankfully.

Yeoman,

Two comments, one nitpicky, one historical.

The ratio is 3/5.

The rationale was made by the abolitionists! No, it wasn't the slaveowners who said that blacks were 3/5th of a person; it was those fighting slavery as one of the most evil things upon Earth.

Confused? Understandable.

Congressional representation is apportioned amongst the several states according to population. We count everyone, not just those able to vote. (Consider that women, infants, and the non-property owning were counted and are still counted for this purpose.) Generally, the woman, infants, and non-property owning would be pretty balanced between each state, so it wouldn't matter much.

The South, though, would have gained a tremendous amount of power in the Electoral College by having slaves voted amongst their number, although they were denied the most basic of rights. The abolitionists (correctly, IMO) pointed out that there should be some correlation between the voting capital and the rights of the persons from whom such capital derives; therefore, they did not want slaves counted at all for the purposes of Congressional distribution. On the other hand, the slaveowners wanted slaves counted as full humans in order to maximise their political strength.

The positions are the reverse of what you would consider them to be, intuitively: those who opposed slavery did not want the slaveowning states to gain power by virtue of their slaves. The 3/5th compromise was, obviously, the compromise to resolve this.
theobromophile | Homepage | 11.30.07 - 1:54 am | #

Theobromophile, I understand that, but what is interesting about the compromise is that it was intellectually acceptable, as it was accepted. We similar rationalization, I'd submit, in the rationalization that we need to be "compassionate" with everyone. . . as long as we're careful who the everyone is.
Yeoman | 11.30.07 - 10:14 am | #

Ergo, the right asserted by the mother is inferiour to the right asserted by the child.

The unborn child asserts no rights. Pro-life people assert rights on the unborn child's behalf.

And my statement was not as far-fetched as you seem to believe. What if, for example, the act of voting interfered with the child's right to life? What if the mother had been ordered to stay on bed rest by her doctors, and she was unable to get an absentee ballot, and she ignored medical advice, went to the polls and miscarried? In a world in which fetuses are given equal legal rights and protection, the woman would surely be charged with negligence.

Sure, that's an extreme example, but we've already seen women charged for drinking small quantities of alcohol while pregnant (as I did myself). This is why I oppose giving any legal rights to fetuses.
L. | Homepage | 11.30.07 - 2:37 pm | #

The abuse of good laws is no argument against their enactment. Furthermore, tangental problems are not an argument against enactment of a necessary law.

I'm not trying to be mean when I say this, but you are being totally irrational. No matter what wacky hypothetical you put forth, pregnant women will, one day not long from that time, not be pregnant. The aborted fetus is still dead. I mean, you could just as easily say, "When we give pregnant women rights, they can kill their babies, so I oppose giving any rights to pregannt women."

That would be wrong and irrational, so we don't do it. We give both rights and know that, while far from perfect, we will all be better off.
theobromophile | Homepage | 11.30.07 - 4:40 pm | #

Describing people and their views as "wacky" and "irrational" will never win you any debating points, but to be sure, I have been called a lot worse!

You give this example of a position that you claim makes no sense:

When we give pregnant women rights, they can kill their babies, so I oppose giving any rights to pregnant women.

And yet....you clearly oppose giving some rights to pregnant women, if exercising such rights would interfere with the unborn's child well-being.

No matter what wacky hypothetical you put forth, pregnant women will, one day not long from that time, not be pregnant.

It is not a "wacky hypothetical" that childbirth is fraught with medical risks, and unwilling women should be able to decide to avoid these risks if they so choose --- I believe that this trumps the unborn child's right to life. Clearly, you and many others believe otherwise.

We give both rights and know that, while far from perfect, we will all be better off.

I actually agree with this sentiment. I just don't agree on what these rights are, and how they apply.
L. | Homepage | 11.30.07 - 7:26 pm | #

I'm not trying to be mean when I say this, but you are being totally irrational. No matter what wacky hypothetical you put forth,

Wow, theobromophile. Your statement brings rude to new levels I'm not used to seeing on this site.
Terezia | 11.30.07 - 8:05 pm | #

theobromophile, I know you're frustrated, and in the exact same places I am by these arguments, I'll warrant, but I really like the atmosphere here, which is built on a foundation of respect for the other posters.

In the past, when I've been rude, Dawn has charitably taken me to task.

I was thinking that a lot of people say they don't understand the sort of mass viciousness on blogs like Pandagon and Feministing, but I totally do. Been there, done that, just on the opposite side. There's something comforting about venting, often making frustrated and nasty comments about the "others". It makes people feel better to vent like that, rather than be frustrated alone. In the long run, that sort of hothouse atmosphere can be so bad for you, but I've seen in on Catholic blogs, minus the swears.

And it makes you look utterly insane to an outsider, just like the Feministing commmenters look kinda nuts to us. But I don't think they are nuts, or more vicious than most people around.

You may now resume your regular scheduled abortion debate. ;-)
Eileen R | 11.30.07 - 9:00 pm | #

Oh, sorry. When I said "makes you look utterly insane", I wasn't addressing any commmenter here, but using the colloquial "first person you" ie. myself.
Eileen R | 11.30.07 - 9:00 pm | #

Terezia,

My comment about a "wacky hypothetical" was NOT in response to the general problems with childbirth; it was in response to the problem of a woman who is confined to bed rest, cannot get an absentee ballot, and misses an election. That is 1) hypothetical and 2) very, very uncommon.

Perhaps my terminology could be improved, but L. put forth an imaginary situation that is far, far outside the norm - which is, quite accurately, a wacky hypothetical. I do not mean "wacky" in a cruel sense -i.e. mental illness or the like - I mean it in one laden with humour. I apologise if that did not come through.

I do not respond in a vacuum; I respond directly to what is written. I can only ask that you read my comments in light of what was written before - as that will provide direction to them, instead of making it seem like a gratitutious insult. THAT might be a little more polite, rather than just saying, "My, my, how rude that was!" Politeness does not require us to pretend the irrational to be rational, nor the outlandish to be normal.

L.,

I'm glad you think that my claim doesn't make sense. It is a perfect mirror of your own, just with the parties reversed. It is not meant as an expression of my personal beliefs; it is an expression of your logical process. When the parties are reversed, people lose their emotional attachment to the result of their reasoning and are better able to analyse its flaws.

Your reasoning, as I read it, is as follows:
As giving any rights to Party X results in a partial and temporary loss of rights to Party Y, Party X should not have any rights.

If such is your theory, it should stand regardless of whom you put in for Parties X and Y. I merely flipped them, pointing out that the theory could be used to result in a total loss of rights for pregnant women.

(If you would like my position, it is as follows: I think that women have a right to not be pregnant, but I do not think that a right may be enforced by any means possible - i.e. she may not aggress against another in enforcing those rights. I cannot, for example, assert my right to own property by stealing it from another; even if I have no other means to assert that right, I am not allowed to aggress. Likewise, the lack of other means of asserting the right of the pregnant woman to not be pregnant does not give her sanction to aggress against her child. She may assert that right by abstinence, birth control, or an artificial womb; if all options are not available, she is still not permitted to resort to aggression. The analogy that every feminist hates, which reveals the problems with the other line of thinking, is rape. Men, as do women, do have a very fundamental, important right to their sexuality and sexual satisfaction. If they cannot be gratified by normal means, however, they are not entitled to rape women to satisfy themselves.)

Secondly, I'm a stickler for logic. If you say "all," I presume that you mean "all," not "some," "a majority," "a reasonable percentage," or "most," each of which imply that there are some things excluded from the group. I presume that you mean for 100%, mathematical entirety, inclusion. If that is not what you mean, fine - but that is what your words say.

I argued against the "all" and "any" in your argument. That is fundamentally different from "some," much in the way that theism is different from atheism.

Eileen,

I understood your point - no need to apologise.
theobromophile | Homepage | 11.30.07 - 10:47 pm | #