Only Rich College Kids Should Have Sex
Yes, that is actually what some on the right are arguing, in the context of a federal law change which is drastically increasing the cost of contraceptive pills on college campuses and in community health centers.
Do you think I'm ripping things out of context and forcing strained conclusions based on sincere moral positions? i can't blame you - it sounds absurd, doesn't it? But here's the headline and the first couple paragraphs:
If You Can't Afford The Pill, You Can't Afford A BabyHappy Thanksgiving, friends. Personally, I'm grateful I don't see the world through right-wing eyes.
And if you can't afford a baby, you should not be sexually active.
But young sluts on college campus are instead angry that their promiscuity is no longer being subsidized.
posted by Dan at 11/22/2007 01:15:00 PM
76 Comments:
This kind of crap from the right drives me nuts.
Want to end abortion? Stop putting women in the position where abortion is the only option they have left.
The other reason it gets me so upset, is because preventing pregnancy isn't the only thing the pill is good for. My sister takes the pill because a medical condition makes her menstrual cramps debilitating. The pill relieves it enough that she can at least make it out of bed and go to work.
I think of her everytime some right-winger starts raving about making it hard to get birth control or allowing pharmacists to outright refuse her treatment for her medical condition.
OMG this is terrible. I can't believe people would want to do anything that would interfere with our right to fuck our socks off without worry. Who are these people anyway? They owe it to us. All we want to do is have fun. We demand that you pay for it with your tax dollars. What...you say you have other expenses for your own family? How cheap and immoral can you get! We're the gimme generation, remember? We're the ones you taught that we don't have to be responsible for anything. Now you're threatening to take our sexual freedoms and silver spoons away? How can you be so cruel? Work? You say work to pay for our own birth control pills? I'll tell ya what. When we move back home after college, we might, and that's a big maybe, clean our own rooms and do our own laundry, but please, working is for grunts ya know...grunts like you and the rest of the right wing conspiracy. We need to demonstrate and you know, do important stuff.
Hey, have you seen my weed?
Anonymous -
You're soooo right. Kids didn't have sex before this generation, did they?
No one is talking about refusing anyone anything here.
Indeed, if you look at the title of my post and the opening sentence, you will see the logical point I am trying to make.
If You Can't Afford The Pill, You Can't Afford A Baby
And if you can't afford a baby, you should not be sexually active.
Now how is that for a novel concept -- to borrow a line from the theme to Baretta, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
Now I am in no way arguing that sex is a form of criminal activity, but I am arguing that engaging in activities for which you are not prepared to shoulder the burden is irresponsible.
Indeed, these girls are complaining not about the unavailability of the Pill, but about having to pay what non-students ordinarily have to pay for it. And that is just terribly inconvenient in the eyes of one girl who wants to have it all
“I do less because of this — less shopping, less going out to eat,”
Heavens! I hope she finds a rich guy to marry on graduation day, otherwise she is going to be in for a rude awakening when she finds out what adulthood is like -- you have to budget and do without to pay for necessities and things you think are important. And since her extra expense with this price increase is a whopping $1.35 a day, I'm sure that she will survive the privation brought on by the price increase.
I'd sure like to know why they haven't come up with an effective male birth control pill yet. They have one to make sure they can do it, why not shoot blanks?
Some = 1
And the blogger that commented is a right-winged blogger. Therefore, the religious conservatives must have a hand in this.
Dan thinks that everything is a right-winged conspiracy.
Read the whole story from the NY times and you will see that this is not some partisan effort to reduce sexual activity on the college campus, but the inadvertant removal of a rebate that allowed the drug companies pass some savings on to the students.
When true partisan politics don't really exist, Dan will use his imagination to create it.
SFBB-stl
SFBB-stl
Quite seriously, Rhymes with Right is a pretty accurate indicator of rightwing thought. I've been reading him for years, and even wrote an appreciation of him recently. You're right, though, that I did not do a through search of other rightwing bloggers to make certain that they were following him on this one. If he's an outlier on this issue, so be it.
You understate the situation, though - there are rightwingers who are taking advantage of this "inadvertant" change in the law (during the dark days of republican dominance) and think it is a good thing.
Dan,
Rhymes with Right is only a pretty accurate indicator of the thoughts of Rhymes with Right. That is, unless Rhymes with Right is a parrot. Some does not equal one. "Some" indicates an unidentified quantity.
This story would not have created much excitement if you indicated that these were the thoughts of one right-winged blogger.
If you expand your cynical view of the far right, you must consider the fact that most college students live off of the money that their parents provide. That in mind, it is the parents that are paying the increased cost for the student’s birth control. Nobody wins in this situation. No student should need to consider the cost of "required" pharmaceuticals, even aspirin. If the government isn't going to subsidize the student's medical needs, it should be covered in the tuition by insurance policy. (At least until the age of 25. Professional students need to get a job.)
Although many will agree that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy, it just ain't gonna happen. Never has and never will. College students believe that it will never happen to them. Those of us that have gained the wisdom of age are all too aware that that is not the case.
With all the obvious partisan issues available, do you really need to create one that isn't there?
SFBB-stl
I just want to second what dolphin said -- there are SOOOO many medical reasons people take birth control. It's not just to keep from having a baby.
Birth control is also used to treat polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, anemia, acne, and, as dophil noted, debilitating cramps.
Many forms of BC also greatly reduce the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers.
Affordable birth control is about so much more than not having babies.
(As for me, I have great health insurance through my employer, but I still can't afford to buy BC through my insurance plan. I have to buy it from Planned Parenthood because it's significantly cheaper. Oh, and one of the main reasons I use BC is to control my absolutely-horrible acne. I've tried every acne medication under the sun and BC works better for me than any of the acne meds.)
If I understand this correctly, what we had previously was pharmaceutical companies offering a discount on BC to college students and health clinics servicing the poor. The drug companies were not given any government funds, they absorbed these costs themselves for their own reasons. And now a federal law has (allegedly unintentionally) created a financial penalty for the drug companies to do so. I see zero reason to oppose a change in the law so drug companies are no longer penalized for selling discounted birth control.
I'd like to pretend to be surprised that a so-called conservative is applauding a private company being punished by the government for promoting its product and targeting discounts as it sees fit. But I just don't have it in me.
Regardless of why the companies have traditionally offered this discount, it has been a good thing. Reducing unwanted pregnancies is a good thing. Most college kids live on strict budgets, and making bc cheaper increases the chances they'll use it. The health benefits go beyond that. Many young women don't get their first Pap smear until they sign up for bc. The pap test screens for irregular cell growth, including early indicators of cervical cancer. HPV is turning out to be quite common, and the negative health outcomes are costly in the long run. You can't get your bc scrip without an annual Pap, so encouraging this testing is good for keeping America's wombs healthy.
Finally, I regret reading what "some" on the right wing are arguing. I can't imagine the level of misogyny necessary to argue that a woman is a whore for getting her partner to help pay for her birth control. You, Rhymes with Right, are a first class fuckwit. And, on this day after Thanksgiving, I'm thankful that I always chose abstinence when it came to assholes like you.
Sophia
Why do you feel the need to be so obnoxiously detrimental to a discussion? You're like bringing a bottle of tequila to a party. We're happy when you show up, but we know it's going to get ugly.
You didn't take the time to understand the reasons for the price change. You just want to complain about companies that make money.
Rhymes with Right may not share your viewpoint, but that doesn't make him a "first class fuckwit" or an "asshole". It makes him a taxpayer, with the same interest as you in how government subsidies are paid out.
You clearly don't need BC. I'm sure that your attitude towards others is more than an effective means of preventing pregnancy.
Rhymes with Right may not share your viewpoint, but that doesn't make him a "first class fuckwit" or an "asshole". It makes him a taxpayer, with the same interest as you in how government subsidies are paid out.
Did you read this before you hit "publish you comment?" The fact that RWR doesn't share sophia's viewpoint does not make him a taxpayer. He's a taxpayer if he pays taxes. And being a taxpayer also does not exempt one from being an "asshole" or a "fuckwit." Your comment doesn't make any sense.
Seriously, what is ticking me off is the folks who are calling my sister a slut and a whore because she doesn't want to spend 3 days crippled each month.
No one is talking about refusing anyone anything here.
And it's absolutely talking about refusing people medical treatment. My sister works two jobs (because she's trying to get her foot in the door in her chosen field) meaning sometimes she's on her feet for 15 hours a day. She makes less total than I do at my one job. Make no mistake, when you demand that her medical treatment is made prohibitively expensive you ARE talking about refusing treatment.
It's as Dan's title states. Medicine should not be restricted to the upper class.
Dolphin
I'm reasonably sure that Rhymes with Right did not insinuate that your sister should not have the ability to receive medication that prevents her from excruciating pain. Also, he also did not call your sister a slut or a whore. If he did, I would be calling him a fuckwit and an asshole.
From what you are stating; your sister works two jobs so that she can obtain her objective. Not our objective, but hers. And you want to be pissed at Rhymes for not wanting to help her with his tax dollar? How much money do you and your family send to your sister every month?
I know that sounds mean, and I don't really mean to be. I just want you to see it from another perspective.
If the tax dollar goes to your sister, because she works two jobs and wants to get ahead, maybe someone else doesn't get fed. This bowl full of tax dollars is not bottomless.
Well, when you figure that $1.35 daily yearly, it's going to cost kids an extra $486, and that's a bit much out of a college kid's pocket, especially those who work for their money or are on scholarship or don't have parents (there are more out there doing it on their own than you think). I mean, let's really be rational here - sex is going to happen - you all know it's fun and feels good - so why make it harder on the woman to get bc? Why is it ok for a chick to spend $50 on a pack of pills while the guys spend $12 on condoms? Pills are expensive, and they do a lot of good besides preventing unwanted pregnancies...they are even a good second form of bc in case that little rubber sock breaks. The pharma companies make quite a bit of bank (and they also spend it creating cures or creating nightmares, depending on your view of their product), so providing some bc at a reduced rate would not only be good PR and free marketing, but responsible.
As for the whole tax dollars comment, I'm not a mother. So does that mean that my tax dollars shouldn't go to schools? If that was the case, lots of people wouldn't be helping out their communities. Regardless, the article says no taxpayer money would be used to subsidize the contraception (p.2, sixth paragraph). I hope the law is reversed because I believe most college kids do want to be responsible. Bc is like a little insurance policy; you can't afford to get a brand new car if you wreck it, so you buy insurance because you still want to drive. Can't afford a baby, but still want to get between the sheets with a guy, maybe your boyfriend, maybe fiance, so you're glad you take that pill that when taken correctly, is 99.99% effective against pregnancies.
Melinda
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I think most Americans will agree with you. Most of us are happy to give what we can. It is just kind of sad that some people get mad because someone says no . I'm lucky. I made good money. If Dolphin's sister asked me, I'd probably pay for her to get the meds, but I don't think it would be very fair for someone to call me names becaused I said no.
Actually, it is pretty clear that both Sophia and Dolphin are the fuckwits and the first class assholes here.
I'm not arguing that women who use birth control are whores.
I'm arguing that women who cannot afford birth control also cannot afford a baby and therefore should not be engaging in the activity that causes babies.
If you read the article, you would think that sex happens like rain -- completely outside of human control.
And the sense of entitlement that they are exuding -- "If i pay full price form the Pill, I can't shop or eat out like I want to" -- is positively nauseating and indicates a lack of maturity so profound that they clearly unfit for parenthood or a serious relationship involving sex. Why, exactly, should college girls be exempt from paying the same price as working Americans like dolphin's sister or sophia? Are college girls somehow more worthy of the Pill, or of the Pill at an artificially low price, than they are?
Let me guess -- the nest step is to demand free birth control for all women -- another entitlement program!
And I repeat -- $1.35 a day is what this is costing the college girls. If the Pill is that important to them, they should consider a PBJ or tuna fish sandwich for lunch instead McDonalds. That should about cover it.
RWR -
You called the women who use birth control "sluts", "ditzy young floozies", "easy", and said they were "giving it away for free". You didn't use the word "whores", but I think that's more an indication of your limited vocabulary than any sense of restraint.
C'mon Dan
The "ditzie young floozy" comment to Katie Ryan's (I'm sure not a relative) statement of being forced to do less shopping and less going out to eat was appropriate.
If Katie Ryan really believes that the taxpayers should pay for her BC pill so that she can spend her money "shopping and going out to eat", she is a ditzy young floozy.
I did find the "besides easy" comment by Rhymes to be uncalled for, unless he personally knows Katie Ryan, which I seriously doubt. I don't consider every college student that takes the pill to be easy. If I did, I sure wouldn't be spending my time on the blogs. :>)
No, Katie's no relation. And he called her a ditzy young floozy based on one quotation in an article. And his other comments were generally directed to "sluts" who use birth control.
The young 30's guy across the street has a rare form of cancer. He didn't have medical insurance. His parents paid for his medical care and maxed out their credit cards to pay for his chemotherapy. I promise you I'm telling the truth when I tell you that one day the health provider pulled the IV out of his arm mid treatment when they discovered his parents had maxed out their credit cards and couldn't cover the whole bill. He ended up getting on Kansas medicaid but only after he gave up his small business and all of his meager assets.
Then there's my own kids. Daughter and husband and 3 kids with youngest one with a heart condition. Family health insurance costs them $500/month and still they have huge out-of-pocket expenses...don't quality for Schip or any other aid at $50K a year which isn't exactly a rich man's salary.
I think "my right wing eyes" are pretty well focused on priorities when it comes to taxpayer funded medical assistance. I know where I want my tax dollars to go, and it sure isn't to college girls who have to pay a bit more for their birth control pills.
Dan
I think that one quotation was sufficient for me to consider her a ditzy young floozy. I don't have any daughters, but I would hope that if I did, they would be a little more respectful to the taxpayers than to expect for them to pay for their birth control so she could like go shopping or like eat at restaurants. You know.. spend her money on necessities.
ON TO A MORE IMPORTANT TOPIC! Arkansas just beat #1 rated LSU 50-48 in triple overtime. Tomorrow is the big game between Kansas and Missouri. The winner of that game is likely to be rated #1 in the nation. We should all take tomorrow night off from blogging and support our state colleges.
Well, Dan, I see only two ways to categorize girls who are so incapable of restraining their sexual activity that they must receive subsidized birth control to deal with the problem.
Option one is that they are morally disordered, in which case the terms I used to describe them are perfectly appropriate.
Option number two is that they suffer from a psychological problem like nymphomania, and therefore need a referral to the campus mental health center.
Normal folks are able to restrain their sexual urges.
Who said she could not? You made that up.
Wow did Rhymes with Right really just say that all college girls that take birth control are either nymphos or "morally disordered"?
"Birth control is also used to treat polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, anemia, acne, and, as dophil noted, debilitating cramps.
Many forms of BC also greatly reduce the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers"
I would consider anyone that intentionally raises prices on college students who are on average below poverty level in income or anyone that thinks poor people shouldn't have sex, to have a "moral disorder".
How much more close minded and stupid can right wing "conservatives" be?
Rhymes
You forgot option number 3.
They are both, and more. They are invincible; at least in their own minds. They are young adults.
They don't make the same choices that those with a few more years behind them do.
Are they more promiscuous than girls were 30 years ago? I think so.
Is their level of promiscuity a result of society’s moral compass changing? I think so.
Should their actions result in calling them names? No!
I support you when it comes to the student's whining that she can't shop or dine out because he BC cost too much, but I can't go along with calling them sluts.
Anonymous 7:44
The opinions and commentary of Rhymes with Right are not those of most Conservatives or Catholics.
Both parties have daughters in college. None of them are wanting their daughters to come home unmarried and pregnant; at least I hope not. I am getting older, and may be out of touch.
If you can get the rest of society to help pay for your daughter's birth control pills, wouldn't you be in favor of that? That is exactly why this really is not a partisan issue.
No,Anonymous, I did not say that.
Go back and read what i wrote -- especially this part.
I see only two ways to categorize girls who are so incapable of restraining their sexual activity that they must receive subsidized birth control to deal with the problem.
Unless you are arguing that all college girls fall into that category.
And no one has answered my question -- why should college students receive a subsidy that working Americans do not?
Asked by a man who pays around $300 a month for his chronically ill wife's medication -- after paying his taxes and insurance, of course. We don't get to shop or eat out as much as we used to, either. We just have our priorities straight.
Democrats are now the party of the rich. Maybe they should start paying for me and mine. Time for the right wingers to sit on their asses for a while and let the rich Democrats carry the water.
Travelingal -
Wow, you're about 24 hours late to be pushing that already-discredited rightwing meme, but I'm impressed that you're so wired into the VRWC that you must be getting the morning memos on talking points!
Gee, Dan, still don't have the guts to answer that question, do you?
Why should college students receive a subsidy on birth control pills that working Americans do not?
Sorry, Greg, you bored me, and I missed your question.
College students should non-taxpayer-funded, inexpensive contraception available to them because they are at a time in their lives when sexual activity is high, and stands a strong chance of producing an unwanted child, who, in turn, stands a strong chance of being aborted. Lots of people make decisions they may come to regret to various levels - if drug companies can spare the college students from being caught between radically shifting their lives or aborting a fetus, I am in favor of them doing so.
Aren't you?
Well, give me a break, Dan. The holiday this week through me off and I got behind in reading the VRWC talking points. I've told Karl Rove over and over again he needs to account for holidays when he's issuing them! And the Washington Times...they need to take a lesson from the NY Times and just print lies..forget about waiting for the VRWC to feed them. It isn't worth it, ya know.
The dirty little secret, of course, is that this WILL be a subsidized by the taxpayer.
Once the cost of the cheap pills for college clinics is dropped from the formula for medicaid reimbursement?rebates, the Feds will be paying more for Medicaid drugs than they would be with the college pills included. So yes, indirectly, you and i will be indirectly subsidizing their these pills for college girls who have the are incapable of controlling their response to their sexual urges.
By the way -- should the tobacco companies provide these girls with subsidized cigarettes for afterwards?
We do subsidize tobacco growers. Don't you think that, even if your tortured and strained argument were correct, preventing abortions is a better use of subsidies than tobacco growing?
Personally, I think banning abortions and jailing abortionists would be the best use -- but saying so would make me a rabid right winger in your book.
And I think college girls keeping their knees together (and college guys keeping their dicks in their pants) would make this discussion all very elementary.
Alright all of you anti-abortion, anti-birth control people. I've seen enough. Think about this. When that uneducated, unmarried girl has her baby and cannot pay to raise it, who pays the Medicaid bill to support this poor child? And probably for at least 18 years while that offspring commits the same obscene offense of having sex (the mortal sin it seems to be here)and repeats the cycle all over again? How many tax dollars goes to raise those children? Birth control seems a much cheaper society option than half a life of Medicaid.
Yeah -- especially since you pro-birth control, pro-abortion folks seem to think it is a violation of the Constitution and human rights to suggest that abstinence is the better approach.
Because after all, we know that over the last 30-40 years, the rate of out of wedlock birth has gone down with the easy availability of the birth control pill. Oh, you mean it has gone up, and all those tax dollar payments along with it?
Maybe the time has come for us to return to the days where there was a social stigma attached to sex outside of marriage. After all, that sees to have worked better than the system you support -- free pills, free sex, and freely insulting those who dare to criticize such things.
Aww, Greg, did those "sluts", those "easy" "Ditzy young floozies" hurt your feeling with their insults?
I think you have said quite a bit about your attitudes. Jail those who have abortions, and go back to 19th Century mores. That's a fine wish, I suppose, but it's terrible public policy or health policy in the contemporary world.
Dan
Most of us agree that Rhymes has pushed this issue well outside of common interest of society and really wants to legislate morality, but some of his complaints are legitimate.
If Katie Ryan were your daughter, and she stated that the cost of her birth control was seriously interfering with her ability to shop and dine out, what would be your response?
Why would you ask that question, and why would I answer it? What difference does that make in the discussion about how thankful I was on Thanksgiving Day to not see the world through rightwing eyes?
Who the F#@$ do you think you are to come here under the cloak of anonymity and ask me about my relationship with my daughter?! Why in the world would you think I should answer your anonymous questions about my child - my loved one - a young woman you've never met (I hope) - in a hypothetical situation we've never faced?
And what the heck are you seeking? Are you looking forward to judging me, or my daughter, based upon the anonymous cross-examination you are setting up here?
You probably didn't even realize how offensive you are. You probably thought you were posing an interesting hypothetical question. And that is exactly what is wrong with people like you and Rhymes. We are dealing with real human beings here. We are dealing not with some hypothetical rich slut who carries her subsidized pills in a Prada bag while she hops between trendy clubs - we are dealing with real. live, breathing, hoping, growing, learning, struggling human beings. Young women at risk of making mistakes, or making decisions that a young man can walk away from, but a young girl will live with, one way or another, for the rest of her life.
And you, you judgmental ass, want to up the odds a little bit. You want to make those girls feel like sluts if they give in to physical desires after being bombarded with sexual images since birth. You want to sit back in your middle-aged easy chair and say that those girls should have had a deeper relationship based on real, lasting love before going to bed, so it's her own fault that she's pregnant now. You want to be the line judge in the video booth to second-guess the calls on the field, forgetting for a moment or two the calls you've made in your own past.
Apparently, you feel entitled to anonymously ask me about my innermost thoughts, and my daughter's most private issues. I suspect you were expecting a milder, more complacent answer. Something along the lines of "I'd tell her to stop messing around and start studying more." Sorry, you don't get to ask questions like that.
Dan
If you would have bothered to read my post, you would have seen that I do not support Rhymes with Right's position.
"We are dealing not with some hypothetical rich slut who carries her subsidized pills in a Prada bag while she hops between trendy clubs" -Yes we are! That's exactly what Katie Ryan comes across as, and if you can't see that, it probably explains why you got your feathers ruffled by having the question asked.
Anonymous - You asked about my daughter. Now you're claiming that we're talking about some hypothetical slut. Do you realize how stupid and offensive that is?
My feathers got ruffled because you asked an ignorant and personal question. My feathers remain ruffled because you seem to think that it is okay to be stupid and offensive as long as you don't agree with Rhymes.
The fact that you, a commenter who doesn't even have the guts to sign his or her name, would dare to judge Katie Ryan, who I presume you've never met, to be a slut based upon a single quotation, shows just how eager you are to place yourself above others. The fact that you, an anonymous commenter with such a remarkably low moral stance, want to converse with me about my daughter makes me wonder what kind of confused world you live in.
1) No I did not call for the jailing of women who have abortions -- I called for the jailing of abortionists. Indeed, the only folks I've ever encountered who do call for women who have abortions to be jailed are those on the pro-abortion left who insist that women go to jail if doctors do.
2) I don't propose 19th century mores. I propose 20th century mores -- the ones that you and I were presumably both raised with and which I am certain that our parents were.
3) I personally think anonymous asked a legitimate question, and that you have over-reacted to it out of the the the best of motivations, a father's love for his child. But it is a hypothetical question, and you've been known to ask them from time to time, my friend. Permit me to recast it -- What would you say to a young woman (who presumably would not be your daughter because I know you and your dear wife have raised her better than that) who complained that the cost of her birth control was seriously interfering with her ability to shop and dine out?
1. Why would you not jail the women who seek abortions, if you would jail the abortionists? Please explain.
2. Early 20th Century mores or late 20th Century? Either way, you're trying to turn back the clock, and you're living in the past. That's quaint and cute, and you should certainly feel free to live your own life in whatever year you prefer, but you shouldn't set public policy based upon your illusions. (As an aside, aren't you one of those right-wingers who supports the Bush Regime's attack on our Constitution with the argument that 9/11 changed everything>)
3. F that question, and any variant of it. Had you posed the question originally in the form you propose, I probably would have answered it. But I'm still too pissed off at that scummy, gutless anonymous commenter to help him or her judge any other human being. Before we carry on the conversation, I need to allow that person a good long time to think about his or her role in the universe.
Dan
The only one acting like a pompous ass here is you.
"If Katie Ryan were your daughter, and she stated that the cost of her birth control was seriously interfering with her ability to shop and dine out, what would be your response?"
How much more hypothetical can a question get?
I never called Katie Ryan a slut, nor did the question presented ever imply anything of the sort.
None of your posts nor your profile disclosed your parental status.
I took a legitimate shot at a little girl, who seems a bit spoiled, at least as demonstrated by her comments. If that bothers you, it may explain your desire to make this nonpartisan event a partisan rant.
You response to my hypothetical question was childish and ignorant. The only one using the term "slut" repeatedly is you. I have not implied that college girls on birth control are sluts. In fact, I went out of my way to make it clear that Rhymes use of the term "easy" was uncalled for.
What would Freud think?
Anonymous tequila lover,
I assume you are the same twit who pops up occasionally to chastise me for the style and tone of my comments but never manages to address any substance. If there is more than one of you out there carefully tracking my comments and cluck clucking to yourself, I suggest you start using handles so you can identify each other and start a support group.
The discussion here has been on two tracks - the policy of cheap birth control for students and a right wing attitude towards the same. My comment addressed both. Yours addressed neither. The only way you are contributing to the discussion is by trying to make it about me, which it is not.
Dan,
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that FW doesn't advocate throwing women in jail for having abortions because he doesn't believe that women have the mental capacity necessary to commit the crime. I will also bet that he will go to his grave not understanding this about himself, or how much it informs his opinions on these matters.
Btw, very well said:
we are dealing with real. live, breathing, hoping, growing, learning, struggling human beings. Young women at risk of making mistakes, or making decisions that a young man can walk away from, but a young girl will live with, one way or another, for the rest of her life.
Anonymous - Maybe you're new enough not to have seen the multiple posts on the left side of the page about my daughter and son. But you asked a personal question about two real persons, and you got justifiably smacked around for it. No apology.
Now, speaking of pompous, who the F to you think you are? Really? I run a blog here as a hobby, and you come here under the cloak of anonymity and ask personal questions. You vastly overestimated your rights here. You want to examine my conscience from behind the curtains? You want to criticize my parenting without even giving your name?
And what possible answer could you have expected that would have advanced any issue? If I would have answered "A check's in the mail", what would that mean to you? If I would have answered "You're disowned because it appears you're not a virgin", why does that matter to you? Who the F are you to hold an opinion about my relationship with my daughter - even if you weren't clever enough to realize I have one?
It's possible that I've over-reacted to your provocation, but you've overstepped the boundaries of good judgment. Yes, you hit a nerve, and I don't think it's unreasonable for me to voice my opinion of those who come here and drag my daughter into debates where she doesn't belong, just for their weak attempts at logical argument.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan and bitch named Sophia:
I don't support jailing women because i have found in the past that they are usually victims in the situation that leads to abortion. If you folks want any future legislation amended to include jailing women for having abortions, feel free to get your fellow liberals to introduce it. Conservatives will oppose it. Your position on this issue would fit well with the current Saudi practice of whipping rape victims.
No, you brainless bitch, I am not calling them whores.
I am, on the other hand, saying that if they can't afford birth control or a child, they should not be having sex OR they should be asking their partner for financial assistance to get the birth control. My point was that if she she feels that asking her regular male partner (and I assume she has one and is not indiscriminately having sex with any guy who comes along) to chip in for the mutual benefit of birth control makes her seem like a whore 9or feels like it will threaten the relationship), then what does her having sex for free outside of marriage indicate?
I'm dealing with her view of herself -- but you missed that in your desire to tar anyone you disagree with as misogynistic.
Greg: Ignoring your good Christian approach toward Sophia, I have to ask why women are victims in seeking abortions? I thought that a few posts ago you were arguing that they needed to exercise responsibility. Are you now arguing that they are incapable of that?
If you think that an abortionist should be jailed, don't you think the woman who hires him or her should be, as well? Isn't the analogy pretty close to refusing to prosecute someone who hires a hit man?
Or are women so morally weak that they should not be held to account for their decision to have an abortion?
Seriously, I'm curious as to how you can reconcile that.
To me, it appears that people like you realize that a woman seeking an abortion is too sympathetic and therefore too costly in a political sense for your anti-choice agenda to be associated with. But, if you have a logical explanation, I'm all ears.
Well, Dan, I was talking about 1960 or so.
And please realize that I'm not so much talking about living in the past for the sake of lifinf in the past. I am talking about finding a model that works. It seems pretty clear that the one we have today does not.
Well, Dan, I'm merely returning in kind the sort of "good Christian" treatment the bitch has given me.
Her use of profane and abusive language towards me set the terms upon which she wishes to define equality between us. I am merely respecting HER choice and giving her what she asked for.
My reason for taking the position I do on jailing women has to do with counseling teens who were dragged to clinics by parents and aborted against their will. It has to do with a girl I taught who was promised a day of shopping by her boyfriend and his mother in the nearby big city, only to be driven to a clinic 150 miles away and told that if she wanted to get home she would shut up and have the abortion that they were going to pay for. I've seen too many such cases to not regard women in abortion to be victims. but as i have said in the past, if it takes jailing women who get abortions to get you and your pro-abortion pals to support jailing abortionists, I will stand mute and not oppose YOUR demand that these women be jailed.
Rhymes -
Wow, a nice calm response! Thank you! I feel like I can take a cleansing breath, and type my own response with fingers instead of fists . . .
1960 is almost half a century ago, and I don't think it's coming back. I do, however, think that things are not as bad all over as we sometimes think they are.
I don't see a return to a majority of double-virgin marriages. Corporations make too much money from sex, and it's not going to change, because they don't want it to. It's not the hippies who tore down the mores - it was NBC and Marriott and Ford.
I do see a rise in responsibility as being possible, though. I'm not talking about aspirin between the knees responsibility, though - more like young women realizing that their self-interest is best served by restraint and caution, and young men realizing the same things. That will take better sex education than the Bush Regime supports, but President Clinton will probably make it a center point of her administration.
Rhymes -
I think you're being dishonest. Certainly, prosecution of women seeking abortions could be subject to qualifications for those subjected to force or overpowering influence. Just as I might be able to get off for killing a person if I could demonstrate that a person was holding a gun to my own head.
So quit hiding behind the odd case.
If a rational woman in complete control of herself seeks an abortion, why should she not be subjected to the same laws as the person she hires to perform the act?
Methinks you're dodging the logic of your own position . . .
The problem here, and what you are obviously missing, FW, is that it wouldn't occur to a young woman to think she was acting like a whore by asking her boyfriend to contribute to her birth control costs. At least not until someone like you comes along and makes the point. And it's such a transparently silly point I doubt it would have an effect on any woman who was raised with an ounce of self esteem. But it's precisely the kind of point that would leap to the mind of MRN types who have serious anger issues towards women. Hence, my branding of you as a misogynist.
I see the argument you are trying to make. But you don't see the arguments you are implicitly making. You are apparently unaware of the foundations or consequences of your own arguments.
For example, pregnant women as the victims, rather than criminal actors, of abortion. A 14 year old girl isn't charge with statutory rape when she has sex with her 21 year old boyfriend because statutory rape is premised on the idea that at 14 she doesn't have the mental capacity to consent to sex, and is therefore a victim. A law that jailed doctors for performing, but not women for soliciting, abortions would be based on similar reasoning -- that a woman does not have the mental capacity to consent to the procedure. That is the essence of what you are arguing. Please demonstrate how I am wrong.
Dan
I am sorry. My english it is not so good.
I should have made sure that I knew your life's story before I presented you with a legitimate question that would require a genuine answer.
You seem very happy to tell others how they should respond, but when someone asks you how you would respond to a girl that thinks the taxpayers should support her shopping, you become defensive.
I didn't bring your daughter into this. Hell, I didn't even know that you had a daughter.
Don't take things that aren't personal so personally. If I had wanted to attack you personally I am sure that I could have done so. Now you want me to feel bad because you read more into a question than was presented. Sorry -that is not going to happen.
If I caught you at a bad time, I'm sorry. The question that I presented is not something that I consider to be inappropriate, your reaction was.
Like I said, Dan, I'm more than willing to acquiesce to your demand for jailing women if abortion is outlawed.
And Bitch, don't read into my argument what is not there. Don't tell me I am too stupid to understand my own arguments. Don't project your insecurities and prejudices on to me.
And since you brought up statutory rape -- if we are going to presume that young girls lack the capacity to give consent for sex, how can we deem them to have the capacity to consent to abortion? Seems to me that we can have either one or the other. But no doubt you will next turn around and falsely accuse me of advocating child molestation, because you (not most women, just you) are incapable of disagreeing with a man without projecting putting him into some negative category so you don't have to deal with him rationally, or as a human being.
Her use of profane and abusive language towards me set the terms upon which she wishes to define equality between us. I am merely respecting HER choice and giving her what she asked for.
This is comical. You are correct that I don't care if you call me names, but I suspect you wish I did. I'm not sure where to start unpacking the inherent, wait for it, misogyny in this little gem. I confess to sinister motives, in that I think if we continue this discussion you'll eventually break out into full Archie Bunker women's libbers mode.
I guess I'll just openly laugh at you thinking that my calling you a "fuckwit" is the terms upon which I wish to "define equality" between us. If you'd written that I was defining the level of civility between us, it would still be a sniff sniff whiney thing to say. But defining "equality"? You think I called you that to establish my equality to you? What a strange way to even approach a discussion. We both obviously have access to the internet and Dan has provided this forum for us to share our thoughts. We have equal opportunity to participate and express ourselves. I don't think we have equally good arguments, but others are free to judge. I'm comfortable I've made my case that you're a fuckwit. I'll own up to the use of vulgar language, but I don't think that makes me a brainless bitch.
don't read into my argument what is not there.
It's called deduction. It's this nifty trick invented ages ago so that liberals could pick on conservatives. And speaking of dealing with things rationally, I brought up statutory rape to make a specific point about consent. A point you have, so far, refused to address, preferring instead to go off on your own tangent. Let's talk adult women. Would you argue that an adult woman lacks the capacity to consent to an abortion? If not, what is your legal justification for labeling someone who knowingly and intentionally solicits and conspires in a (would be) criminal act as a victim of that act?
I've never thought this through before, but I wonder if you don't go the "capacity to consent" route if a law that criminalized abortion providers but not seekers would be unconstitutional as underinclusive. Justice Kennedy, for your information, has already laid some groundwork on the consent line.
spohia
"I'll own up to the use of vulgar language, but I don't think that makes me a brainless bitch."
NO, but it does make you appear to be one.
You act like a little dog behind a fence. Bark away. Show your teeth. You have your fence to protect you.
If Rhymes would have started the vulgar name-calling, I would be saying the same thing to him.
If Dan condones that sort of language, I can't do anything to stop it, but I doubt that anyone with an opposing political viewpoint could get away with it.
It is there, Rhymes, and I think the most honest part of your argument is when you say you are "more than willing" to jail pregnant women. Really, it's the only logical result, and the only response you've offered so far.
Unfortunately, you don't have the intellectual integrity to admit that, so you dodge the question. Clever, but dishonest.
Look, anonymous, it appears you're new here. If you weren't, you'd know I don't delete comments for content, and strong language doesn't really offend me.
You offend me, though. Here you are again, claiming you didn't personalize this thread and drag my daughter into it.
But, still, I won't delete your comment - I work on the "Give 'em enough rope" theory, and you have established yourself as illogical and unable to stay on a point. You still haven't explained what any hypothetical answer could have added, and now you're knocking Sophia while ignoring Rhymes' egregious intellectual dishonesty.
I'd much rather have someone honest but profane than someone dishonest posing as pious.
I won't resort to your level of ignorance.
The readers can see that at 5:19 pm on 11/23, I determined that Katie Ryan is not your daughter.
Then, at 10:12 AM on 11/25, I asked "If Katie Ryan were your daughter, and she stated that the cost of her birth control was seriously interfering with her ability to shop and dine out, what would be your response?"
You really are an ass!
Anonymous - you dragged my daughter into it when you asked about my daughter. Maybe you didn't mean to - I now believe you were unaware - but you did it. And, again, it served no purpose whatsoever, as you have acknowledged by ignoring several opportunities to explain yourself.
Rhymes - I don't think you get to call anyone intellectually dishonest while you refuse to explain your stance on prosecution of women seeking abortions.
Gee, Dan, I indicate that I'm would reluctantly accept YOUR demand for punishing women in cases of abortion (despite my stated misgivings) in a spirit of compromise and somehow I'm the bad guy. YOU are the one who made the proposal -- one that I have stated repeatedly that I and every pro-lifer I know rejects. I've stated my reasoning and rationale -- that I believe women to be victims of abortion, just like Susan B. Antony and other early feminists did -- and you reject it. That does not mean that I am not being logical or intellectually honest.
And as far as dodging questions, Dan, after the big one you dodged tonight in a fit of pique (even after I restated the original inoffensive hypothetical in a manner you admit is utterly non-offensive), I wouldn't throw the "dodging the question" argument around. Hypocrisy doesn't look good on you.
Dan -- the Bitch keeps setting up strawman arguments and attacking them, rather than my actual position. That is intellectual dishonesty in my book.
And I did explain my position on the prosecution of women -- at least twice -- and you (and the Bitch) just don't like it. There is a difference between giving a clear answer that one's opponents dislike and not giving an answer. Think about that one for a while.
Rhymes -
Rhymes -
Alright - I misinterpreted your answer as sarcasm, but you really do mean it. Sophia had it right. You really don't think that women have the mental capacity to commit the crime. Wow. I no longer think you're dodging the question, but you'd sure as hell dodge having any intelligent women hear you say that.
Anonymous -
Similarly, I realize that I misinterpreted your original comment - "If Katie Ryan were your daughter, and she stated that the cost of her birth control was seriously interfering with her ability to shop and dine out, what would be your response?" To me that was dragging my daughter into it, and it can still be read that way, but I believe you when you say you didn't intend to. But you asked a sloppy question, and the consequence of that is that you got smacked around - so sad. But you're still dodging the question of how any possible response would add to the debate - at least 3 times now. So, you're intellectually dishonest, and profane on top of it. And you're on Rhyme's side . . .
No, Dan, that is not at all what I am saying, and you fully know that.
I'll stand with Susan B. Antony, and you can stand with the Bitch. I know which of us is in better company.
Yes, Rhymes, that is precisely what you're saying. If they have complete moral capacity, then their decision to have an abortion is more "culpable" than that of the abortionist. To deny that is to deny the moral capacity of women.
Finding one old quotation does not make your position any less demeaning to women.
Your interpretation, not mine.
But I'll urge the sponsor of law putting women in jail for abortions to name the legislation after you, since you insist upon jailing women for having an abortion.
Where is the flaw in my logic, Rhymes? Your clever attempts to dodge that issue show intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.
I do not accept your argument - and I don't argue in favor of imprisoning women. I merely point out the result of your argument, with the only addition being that I believe that women are morally competent.
I've been following your argument, Mr. Right, and I think Dan has you here. If women are morally competent, how are they the victims of a crime they participate in? How is a woman who chooses to pay somebody to abort her fetus a victim?
I'll let go the hypocrisy of claiming to be pro-life while opposing birth control (which, whether you like it or not reduces unwanted pregnancies); opposing sex ed ( and wasting millions of tax dollars on abstinence only ed, which is demonstrably ineffective); opposing abortion; opposing expanded healthcare (including schip which provides services to pregnant women--BIT THEY'RE ADULTS!!!); and opposing programs that assist poor mothers to raise and educate their children. Such right wing idiocy is all too common.
But I will say anyone who thinks there was less sexual activity 30 years ago is a complete fuckin' ingnoramus.
Can I refer back to the "leaving comments blog", and call RWR a real douche bag?
In reading all of these comments it reminded me of a really funny George Carlin skit...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU
Post a Comment
<< Home