.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, March 06, 2006

Questions

Given the South Dakota abortion ban, and Amy Sullivan's call for more religion in the Democratic party, a few questions are going around in my head. I'd like to hear some answers.

Assume that we are talking about two young adults, male and female, who have never had sex. They get married without engaging in pre-marital sex. In other words, two people who are not "immoral" in the eyes of the fundies.

1. These two younguns have always heard the "abstinence until marriage" message, and they have followed it until they married. Now what?

Seriously, now what? Is it okay to start having sex within the bonds of marriage? What if they don't want kids right away; can they use birth control? Or is it their duty to start shooting out kids right away, and doing anything else is wrong? Please note: any answer that includes "natural family planning" will not be considered a serious answer.

2. They have two or three kids, and decide that they can't afford any more, or they don't want any more. Now what?

Can they start using birth control now? Do they have to stop having sex? Whose duty is it to call off the sex? What if the other person doesn't like that? Is it okay to have an affair? How many people would put up with a marriage that had no sex? Is sterilization (tubal ligation or vasectomy) an option?

3. What if there's a mistake? Let's say Alice and Bob are celebrating their anniversary, New Year's, or some other fun event, and they get a little bit tipsy. Things happen as they are wont to do, and even though there are no regrets, they find themselves in a situation where a pregnancy would not be a good thing. Would it be okay to go to a pharmacy and get Plan B? Should they be condemned to Hell for a mistake that countless people make, especially if it is within the confines of a marriage? We're not talking abortion here, just the morning-after pill. Are these immoral people?

These aren't extreme "sodomized virgin" questions. These aren't even the more atypical hypotheticals about incest or rape. These are pretty normal questions that lots of people deal with on a daily basis.

The people who are behind the South Dakota abortion ban, or who want to keep Plan B out of people's hands, are going to answer these questions in a pretty specific way. Their answers are going to be far outside of the mainstream, and they want everybody to live by those answers. That's why it's important to pay attention to things like South Dakota: these extremists want complete control in a way that is horrifying to most people, and they need to know.

Finally, the question of the day: if you were in a fertility clinic that was burning down, and you could save either a two-year old child or a petri dish with five blastulae, which would you save?

Or, if you were at the Casa de Shapiro, and you could save only one of the Virgin Ben's dirty used tube socks, or.....nah, we'll forget about that one.

4 Comments:

At 10:00 PM, March 06, 2006, Blogger Swiftee said...

"Please note: any answer that includes "natural family planning" will not be considered a serious answer."

'Course it won't.

It too completely renders your specious post moot.

 
At 12:54 PM, March 07, 2006, Anonymous Chris said...

"Their answers are going to be far outside of the mainstream, and they want everybody to live by those answers. That's why it's important to pay attention to things like South Dakota: these extremists want complete control in a way that is horrifying to most people, and they need to know."

Sure, but that's one of the problems we've been having for the past five years. The wingers' views are so extreme that when you tell people about them, they don't believe you. They think nobody could hold views like that. Point to someone like Napoli and they'll say, "well, he's just part of a fringe, people like him don't have any real power." And the more you or I insist they do, the crazier WE seem to Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter.

Then something happens like South Dakota, and people say, "Why didn't the Democrats warn us?"

 
At 6:00 PM, March 07, 2006, Blogger MN Politics Guru said...


It too completely renders your specious post moot.


Actually, it's because couples who are serious about not getting pregnant wouldn't use natural family planning for the same reason that they wouldn't use the withdrawal method or voodoo dolls: they all don't work.

I'm talking about real life people with real issues and real concerns, not mythical people who use natural family planning because they don't mind having kids more than they are afraid of insulting the Pope.

 
At 9:32 PM, March 07, 2006, Blogger edgaralgernon said...

Ahhh natural family planning... works so well that in 1968 after a wife and mother had had her second child and was lucky to survive the complications... Her Roman Catholic doctor told her to go on the pill.

This R.C. mother of two asked how the doctor could prescirbe the pill and he said that the life of the mother was more important.

Needless to say... my mother went on the pill.

Seriously, if done with extreme care n.f.p. can sorta, kinda work. But its playing the odds. Odds that are far worse than if one uses the pill, condems, etc.

So no switee's argument is not moot, if one lives in reality.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home