Pharyngula

Yes, she's a kook, but at least you realize that there are women who sincerely believe that crap. There isn't a conspiracy of men who want to control women (which is the usual explanation by leftists of anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive lunacy)

Posted by: Jonathan Badger | May 20, 2006 6:49 PM

What I'd like to see is a barrier contraceptive that can be instlled and forgotten until the user desires it to be removed. Method that rely on people to actually think will have a high failure rate due to the obvious.

Abortion should always be available, though I'd like to see widespread use of the above-mentioned contraception, simply because abortion-for-convenience is an ethically cheapening act. Better to prevent the need for it.

***

There isn't a conspiracy of men who want to control women - Jonathan B.

I dunno. Abdul al-Stoning-For-Rape seems to be giving it the old college try.

Posted by: MegaTroopX | May 20, 2006 7:01 PM

There isn't a conspiracy of men who want to control women

*********************************************************

Read or watch the Handmaids Tale- this may not be a conspiracy of men who want to control women, but in the Handmaids Tale it was women who were responsible for making women conform to societal norms. I don't think that is acceptable either. I have written about a friend who was denied Plan B by a pharmacist- guess what? She was a woman. I don't really care what sex you are- you have no business making my sexual decisions for me. None. Period.

The problem is, whether we like it or not, we live in a pluralistic society. Homogeniety is pretty much a thing of the past whether it be race, culture or religion based. One philosophy cannot fit all people. When it does we become like China. Micromanaged to death if you are one of the faceless anameless masses without power and prestige. Christians always talk about free will, yet at every opportunity they seem to want to stifle any choice that can be made. Why is that? And why is it that a Christian theocracy is any less abhorrent than a communist dictatorship?

Can we agree to live under common law? Sure, as long as it is not based on religion. And as much as anyone wants to say so, our laws are NOT based on the Ten Commandments. Nor should they be.

Back to women keeping other women in check. Back in the eighties I went to a religious school. I had more than one friend sent home for wearing something "THAT WAS TURNING THE MALE TEACHERS ON". Direct quote. While talking about this, it became apparent that women were responsible for policing the dress of other women because men were unable to control themselves as they were "visual". So in order to keep them in check an elaborate system of rules for appropriate dress were developed. If you broke them you were sent home. If you dressed androgenously (think Madonna in a suit) you were expelled.

They have tried this at the public school my daughter attended. I freaked. Men teachers were demanding that the girls hold their arms in the air to see if the girls tops rode up past the waist of their jeans. Women teachers were sending girls home or asking girls to cover up with jackets in order to prevent them being sent home by the woman vice principal. I told the actual principal that if I was told to reach for the sky by a male boss, I would have a sexual discrimination suit going so fast......
The practice was halted.

Clothing restrictions for women only, birth control restrictions for women only, and the like are tiny steps towards the slippery slope. They are terrible and need to be stopped. I have never been an abortion advocate, but I understand the direstion life can go with unplanned pregnancy. There is a blog called STOP MY ABORTION that a pregnant woman has put up saying give me money or I abort my kid. Not something I would do. But the reality is, an unsupported unplanned pregnancy can result in disaster for young women who have no safety nets- education, money and family. There is a lot of people who say that they would adopt- but that is only if the child meets certain criteria. A lot of kids do not meet those criteria. Or, I know of cases where I am from where Native Bands have halted adoptions of Native children to white couples because culture is more importan than a consistent loving environment. WTF??? There are thousands of older kids who need to be adopted, but no-one on the right is willing to step up and take these kids in because of their age and their (insert problem here).

What to do? What NOT to do?

Posted by: impatientpatient | May 20, 2006 7:16 PM

Yes, she's a kook, but at least you realize that there are women who sincerely believe that crap. There isn't a conspiracy of men who want to control women (which is the usual explanation by leftists of anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive lunacy)

In what way does a woman believing that contraception is wrong let men off the hook? Is her church run by women? Did she receive her education from women only? Did the patriarchy have no role what so ever in her life?

You assume that if a woman says it, it has nothing to do with sexism. Historically, many women have sought to support the very patriarchy that holds them down. It's called indoctrination and it works.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | May 20, 2006 8:54 PM

I base my thinking on several Biblical concepts. The foremost concept is that God is always described in Scripture as the sole procreative decision-maker. To my knowledge, every incident in Scripture describing pregnancy or barrenness gives God complete credit.

Splendid. Then can Ms. Stanek point out to us the millions of women who get pregnant without having sex that her theory implies?

Posted by: George Cauldron | May 20, 2006 9:49 PM

I think it's pronounced like 'eye'. You know, the first person singular nominative pronoun.

Posted by: George Cauldron | May 20, 2006 10:02 PM

And you shouldn't wear a seatbelt, because it's up to God whether he wants you to die in an automobile accident or not.

And Christian construction workers shouldn't wear hardhats, because it's up to God to decide whether your brains are to be bashed in or not.

And you shouldn't use an umbrella, because it's up to God to decide whether the raindrops hit you or not.

And you shouldn't plow fields, plant seeds, or irrigate crops because it's up to God whether you have food to eat or not.

You shouldn't seek prenatal medical care because it's up to God whether your child is stillborn or not.

Somehow I don't think this woman applies this logic consistently in every aspect of her life.

Posted by: udargo | May 20, 2006 10:46 PM

The column Savage Love has been talking about this lately, too.

"In particular, and not to put too fine a point on it, they want to change the way Americans have sex," Shorto writes. "Contraception, by [their] logic, encourages sexual promiscuity, sexual deviance (like homosexuality), and a preoccupation with sex that is unhealthful even within marriage." Shorto quotes Judie Brown, president of the American Life League: "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion. The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set.... We oppose all forms of contraception." And there's this from R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: "I cannot imagine any development in human history, after the Fall, that has had a greater impact on human beings than the pill... Prior to it, every time a couple had sex, there was a good chance of pregnancy. Once that is removed, the entire horizon of the sexual act changes. I think there could be no question that the pill gave incredible license to everything from adultery and affairs to premarital sex and within marriage to a separation of the sex act and procreation."
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove

Posted by: BC | May 20, 2006 11:32 PM

Moreover, who is Stanek, or the Pope, or anyone else to say if it is God's will or not - what if he decided that the best way to prevent a whole slew of conceptions was via contraception? Isn't it God's will if someone uses a condom, or doesn't?

I see this as one of the primary (non-ontological) problems with many organized religions. Sure, they're wrong in general about God and in particular about people, but you'll never convince them of that. What can occasionally be effective (I've never seen it work, but the boyfriend has pulled it off) is asking "why are you putting limits on a God you claim is omnipotent?" It's even better if you can jettison atheism for long enough to get really worked up -- "how dare you presume to tell God what he does and doesn't want?" Apparently you'll occasionally be rewarded with a flicker of doubt.

Posted by: jess | May 21, 2006 12:15 AM

If you want abstinence to work, you have to raidse your kids to be geeks - it's the only sure-fire way to know they're not having sex....

My sixteen year old is at an all nighter - at a computing gaming store....

Posted by: tigger | May 21, 2006 1:16 AM

If you want abstinence to work, you have to raidse your kids to be geeks - it's the only sure-fire way to know they're not having sex....

My sixteen year old is at an all nighter - at a computing gaming store....

*eyeroll* I grew up a geek and I was having sex at 17. The geekiest of my immediate acquiantances started at 15 and 16, I believe...

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 21, 2006 1:26 AM

I think high school nurses should have a big jar of condoms that they hand out to any student who asks for them.

I would go further than that and say that high school nurses should keep a big jar of condoms in the bathroom attached to the nurse's office, so that the students can take as many as they want without anyone seeing. Free dispensers in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, too.

Good idea, but I can see one potential problem: condoms are obscenely expensive, and schools are rather squeezed for money as it is, so it's going to be a severe hardship to the school when immature boys repeatedly empty the dispensers just to show off to their buddies how many condoms they need. That and many of the condoms are going to just wind up being used for water balloons, so this could be construed as the school being an accessory to multiple instances of littering.

Abortion should always be available, though I'd like to see widespread use of the above-mentioned contraception, simply because abortion-for-convenience is an ethically cheapening act. Better to prevent the need for it.

I certainly agree that the circumstances which result in abortion should be prevented. I also agree that viewing a pregnancy as purely a matter of convenience (in the commonly understood meaning of the term) would be "ethically cheapening." Now, could you please demonstrate that any such thing has ever occurred.

I can think of one example; a friend of mine ran into someone online who claimed to have had upwards of 20 abortions as a result of her choosing to have unprotected sex repeatedly specifically because she enjoyed the "thrill." I would definitely call that "ethically cheapening" and a less printable things besides (as a parent, I find the callousness and selfishness of this woman's alleged behavior completely appalling--though they argue strongly against her suitability as a parent. Bitch shoulda just had a tubal ligation. But this person may or may not have been telling the truth and bears absolutely no resemblance to the reasons behind the overwhelming majority of people who have in any case.

As an example of a more typical reason, this encounter, above and beyond its sheer creepiness, royally pissed the friend in question off, a fact about which I heard at great length, since her rationale for having an abortion when she was 17 was twofold: 1, she felt she owed her child a better life than the one she would be able to provide and would not consider the life she could provide to be a worthwhile one, a fact corroborated by her observations of others who had been raised by incompetent parents; and 2, she was not willing to sacrifice her future and her plans for her life, especially for such an outcome, nor deal with her family's reaction to the pregnancy. This is hardly a matter of "convenience."

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 21, 2006 1:57 AM

"The thing that gets me about the whole "against God's will" is, isn't this God person supposed to be omnipotent? Wouldn't it be impossible to engage in sexual acitivity, much less procreate, against the will of God?"

See, the thing is, God gave us free will so he could give candy to the people who do good, and sizzle those who do evil. That'll teach us.

Then he peppered the strata with big dino bones to test our faith, because that way otherwise moral people ight also get to be sizzled. What a trickster.

And then, omnipotent, he created cancer, but didn't create a cure, because that would teach us the value of the life we are striving to leave for his Disneyland in the sky or something... or anyway, it all just looks cool from up there.

Basically, God is an antisocial little brat with an ant farm and a magnifying glass on a sunny day.

Posted by: CCC | May 21, 2006 2:25 AM

"Contraception encourages homosexuality?"

Makes sense. Look at the figures over the last 40 years or so. Compare the number of women taking the pill with the number of men who say they are gay. Pound to a penny the curves show the same trend

Posted by: Hinschelwood | May 21, 2006 3:29 AM

What I don't understand about Jill Stanek's reasoning is that if God really wants her to get pregnant, it can always cause contraception to fail. Condoms and the pill both fail at a nontrivial rate (I think 0.03% per intercourse), so she can just have a lot of sex with contraceptives, and if God wants her to be pregnant, they'll fail.

Posted by: Alon Levy | May 21, 2006 4:01 AM

Hah! I've just upgraded to 1.5.0.3 (the latest formal release for Mac OS X. They've fixed hearts but not the other three suits.

Posted by: Bob Dowling | May 21, 2006 5:37 AM

Omnipotent God?? I thought he had less power than the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture?

Posted by: The Science Pundit | May 21, 2006 7:35 AM

Consistent in other parts of her life? This woman isn't being consistent in the one thing she's brought to our attention: her attitudes towards sexuality.

It wouldn't matter if the failure rate for contraception were so low that for all practical purposes they were 100% effective. A God such as the one she claims to believe in would still be able to cause pregancies to occur. If for some reason this God's activities were restricted to inducing pregnancies after sexual intercourse, then the more often people had sex with absolutely effective contraception, the more often God would have the opportunity to override that contraception and induce pregnancies that He desired.

Her conclusion doesn't even follow from her premises.

Posted by: Caledonian | May 21, 2006 8:13 AM

*eyeroll* I grew up a geek and I was having sex at 17. The geekiest of my immediate acquiantances started at 15 and 16, I believe...

I'm sorry, but if you were having sex in high school, you were *not* a geek. A geek POSER maybe. POSER! POSER!

Posted by: Jonathan Badger | May 21, 2006 8:41 AM

Women who uphold anti-woman sexism could be described as quislings.

After Vidkun Quisling, Norway's leader during the Nazis' occupation of that country in World War II.

Posted by: Loren Petrich | May 21, 2006 9:16 AM

PZ:

I'm an atheist who thinks contraception should be freely available to anyone who asks for it, no matter what their age.

Well, I think if a four year old asked for Mommy's pills, it would be reasonable to refuse on the grounds that they won't do them any good and could conceivably cause them harm if swallowed--plus, on the general principle that you are allowed to deny kids their full constitutional rights at times in the interest of guardianship.

Posted by: PaulC | May 21, 2006 10:35 AM

Ian H Spedding:

Simply agreeing that no human life - not necessarily just that of an adult - should be taken without good cause is sufficient to render abortion-on-demand immoral.

This assertion fails on two counts. First of all it is not so simple to agree that no human life, without exception, should be taken without good cause.

More importantly, though, it's vacuous, because there's no explanation or justification for what constitutes a "good reason", and absolutely no justification for the implicit assumption that not wanting to carry around an unwanted person in your uterus for nine months does not, in fact, constitute a "good reason". All this assertion does is move the debate from what constitutes a "human" life to what constitutes a "good reason" for ending a human life.

Jonathan Badger:

There isn't a conspiracy of men who want to control women (which is the usual explanation by leftists of anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive lunacy)

Your logic is entirely invalid here and your conclusion unsound. The presence of a female advocate for a position is entirely irrelevant to the presence or absence of some consipiracy of men for that position. The two cases are not mutually exclusive.

Second, a "male conspiracy" is not the usual explanation of leftists. We are well aware of female opponents of birth control, abortion, and full civil rights for women (hint: Anita Bryant, Phyllis Schlafly, etc. ad nauseum).

Some remedial reading on both leftist politics as well as basic logic seems warranted.

Posted by: PLP | May 21, 2006 10:47 AM

I was a registered nurse in the Labor & Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, in 1999 when discovering babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in the soiled utility room.

I've worked in hospitals most of my adult life and I've never heard of this sort of thing happening. Of course, I'm an oncologist, so I don't get to the ob ward often. I suppose they could be eating babies there for all I know. On the other hand, my step-mother, who is a semi-anti-abortion ob nurse, tells me that she's never seen anything even vaguely like this in her life either. It's hard to imagine a hospital that disposed of dead fetuses, muchless live ones, in the dirty utility closet passing its unannounced JACHO inspections. Or remaining unsued for long. It'd be an improper disposal of biohazardous material even ignoring the moral issues. And entirely unnecessary: a fetus that survived an attempted abortion (probably an early induction of labor) is unlikely to survive long without extraordinary measures. Even assuming that "evil abortion doctors" were out to kill the newborns, why not just put them in a bed and let nature take its course? I'm afraid PZ needs to revise his opinion of Ms Stanek's honesty.

Posted by: Dianne | May 21, 2006 11:14 AM

Oops, my attempt at formatting failed. The first paragraph in my post above is a quote from Stanek.

Posted by: Dianne | May 21, 2006 11:18 AM

I have two phones. One is the equivalent of a yahoo.com email spam trap. It gets cited or listed whenever I'm required to cite one, and so when that line rings, I know it's no one I actually know. But I do occasionally answer it, just because I sometimes feel like messing with telemarketers. And I do get surveys on it sometime, which I always take, since it's good to get one's position known.

A few moments ago, an automated survey called me. It asked me about my position regarding abortion. Press One, it said, if you are Pro-Life. Press 9 if you are in favor abortion rights.

Okay, so far so good. I'm a 9, as it happens. I pressed.

The response: "Thank you for being Pro-Life. Now more than ever we need like-minded people to help us reach our goal in the next congress." And went on from there in a self-congratulatory glurge about how great it was that I thought like they do and how if they could just mobilize the five million pro-life families they could get their program through.

I wondered if somehow I had misheard or pressed the wrong button.

Now, I have my position here and other people have different ones, but that's not what this is about. What it's about is that now someone has paid for a survey in which I will be cited statistically with a position not my own.

The recording then offered me the opportunity to help 'us' reach our goals by pressing 3.

I waited. There were no other options. After a bit, I pressed 3. Maybe I'd get to talk with someone. The survey explained (surprise!) that they wanted money. Press 6 to arrange to donate.

That was again the only option. This time, I pressed 0.

Thank you, said the survey, for your offer to donate. You will be contacted by mail very soon.

That's when I realized: It didn't matter what button I pressed. If I pressed any button, the survey would record an affirmative.

At the beginning of the call, it did say that if I didn't want to take a survey, I could hang up. Apparently they only wanted to survey those who agreed with them and arranged the survey so that disconnecting was the only option if you didn't.

No organization was named in the call, no talking points were uttered. It was an attempt to find people who could then be solicited for funds and undoubtedly to my mind, to generate statistics to threaten politicians with.

So now I'm in a Pro-Life mailing list. I am now going to engage in a personal vendetta against any whoever sends me a request for donations. I swear I will cost those people more money and time than they can afford by any legal means at my disposal. And I'm posting this around to interested places.

Steve "And I'd do it to anyone who tried to exploit me" James

Posted by: longstreet | May 21, 2006 11:31 AM

So now I'm in a Pro-Life mailing list

A suggestion: If they send you any requests for donation and include a postage paid envelope stuff the envelope with their propoganda and send it back. Or attach the envelope to a large and heavy book and send it back. Perfectly legal as long as you don't send any threats and they have to pay the postage.

Posted by: Dianne | May 21, 2006 11:38 AM

I thought this was an appropriate item to post given the Christian reliance on the Bible when asserting what is right and wrong. If you've already seen it, my apologies for reposting it. I think it clearly demonstrates the degree to which the Bible is selectively applied.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is the talk radio personality who offers advice (and opinions) to people who call into her radio show. She has been quite vocal in her criticism of the homosexual lifestyle. In one of her programs she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and that it therefore must not be condoned under any circumstances. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura that was posted on the internet. It's funny as well as informative. It does a good job of pointing out the selective use of Biblical quotations used by individuals with particular agendas.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev 15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev 25:44 states that I may indeed posses slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev 11:10 it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20 or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blends). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them - Lev 24:10-16? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws - Lev 20:14?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

more observations here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Posted by: thoughttheater | May 21, 2006 12:51 PM

A suggestion: If they send you any requests for donation and include a postage paid envelope stuff the envelope with their propoganda and send it back. Or attach the envelope to a large and heavy book and send it back. Perfectly legal as long as you don't send any threats and they have to pay the postage.

Oh, yeah. I'm thinking of a brick, but possibly some old textbook might work. Or a heavy shipping envelope full of sand. Not white sand, lest they scream anthrax. Well, they might anyway. Old cigarette butts aren't heavy enough, but might be added for flavor. Any other suggestions?

Steve "Call me a hater. Go ahead" James

Posted by: longstreet | May 21, 2006 1:19 PM

Only in the very literal and non-interesting case. Similarly, both a weather balloon and an alien spacecraft could have crashed in Roswell in 1947. They aren't mutally exclusive either. But once you accept the weather balloon, the spacecraft seems unlikely.

A false dichotomhy is not merely a "very literal and non-interesting case; it is a common logical fallacy.

You are correct that some statements are mutually exclusive. If it is the case that accepting the weather ballon entails the unlikeliness of the alien spacecraft, then these statements are mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually exclusive precisely to the degree that the likelihood of one entails the unlikelihood of the other.

But the fact that some statements are mutually exclusive does not entail that your own dichotomy is mutually exclusive.

You would need to show that the presence of a female advocate makes it unlikely to believe that a conspiracy of males exists at all. Which, of course, you cannot do.

But this is beside the point. I offered the original criticism merely because I believe that careful logic i