Action vs talk - George Carlin on the anti-abortion movement

[JaneV2.0]

The existence of so many unloved, rejected, neglected, abandoned, and abused children is vastly more appalling to me than are medical abortions. I don't know why so many people avoid readily available birth control and then seem surprised by the resulting pregnancy. People make me tired.

And speaking only for myself, I think less shame around sex is just one of the positive developments of the late sixties/early seventies.

[catherine]

And speaking only for myself, I think less shame around sex is just one of the positive developments of the late sixties/early seventies.

True, but that doesn't mean the experience has to be like the drive-thru at McDonalds.

[creaker]

by the by, I admit that I was a very, very weird teenager.

I think the word you're looking is "awesome" - that was pretty cool :-)

[Zoebird]

considering i've only had one partner, i agree that abstinence is great and healthy and should be taught/considered.

but, i don't think that "abstinence education" is that great. It mostly focuses on one thing, and not educating on the other issues and concerns.

the program in our school was comprehensive. they did teach abstinence. a BIG part of the program was the social and emotional (personal) impact of premarital/extramarital sex. What wasn't covered were ethical foundations.

there are many reasons why i wanted until i was with my husband. but here are some of the foundations:

1. my body theology asserts that the body is a sacred vessel or an aspect of a sacred whole. just as anything held sacred is protected and held precious, well cared for, and so on, so also should my body.

2. sex is a powerful, bonding and procreative act. anyone who understands, for example, how powerful a high-voltage station is, wouldn't "play" with it. when you understand how powerful something is, you don't "muck about" with it.

3. in general, it is wrong to seek to use or harm other human beings -- they have dignity and sovereignty, and seeking to use or harm them for your own purposes is inappropriate. As I had no desire to use someone, I also had no desire to be used (see 1).

These sort of belief-premises which form the foundation of my ethics are what guided me to not have sex until i was with my husband (it was pre-marital, but after engagement/commitment).

It made the decision simple. I know how sacred I am. I know how powerful sex is. I know that I do not want to be used as a pleasure-toy (in the pick up artist realm or "game" realm, it's called a 'pump and dump' when you actively use someone as a pleasure toy). I also know that I do not want to use someone else in that way (i find the behavior repugnant and beneath my dignity).

I tried to explain this to my friends, but most of them failed to see it. "sex is fun!" and "there's nothing wrong if everyone is consenting!" and "sex is sacred too!" obviously, they didn't really comprehend how "sacred" works.

And this is part of the problem, imo. Even in cultures where multiple partners, orgies, and the like might be the norm, these sexual ethics are still there. Sex would not be using someone, nor would it be merely "consenting partners." it's not just a "game for fun and pleasure!" in such cultures, they are deeply procreative bonding acts.

Heck, go back to the norse people. they had festivals throughout the year, and the point of these festivals was to procreate. Men would visit towns for these festivals (men who were viking or on travels of various sorts), and this would purposefully 'mix up' the gene pool. It was absolutely critical for the health of the community, and festival babies were considered "extra lucky." Marriage wasn't important for these festivals, men would return home to wives pregnant by the festival, and it was considered a blessing and would be "his child." Fostering children was also a common practice -- which increased blood ties and social ties across communities.

So, it's not like it's this strict "no sex before/outside" of marriage thing. But it wasn't a free-for-all. You could have multiple, extra marital partners for the *festival* and it wasn't using people, it was a sacred celebration and everyone knew the rules. It's completely different than the way a lot of people characterize things today. And, we live in a different world.

Anyway, i find this topic frustrating in general. I do not know why people -- in general -- do not behave with more self respect and dignity, and treat others with more respect and dignity.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't know why so many people avoid readily available birth control and then seem surprised by the resulting pregnancy. People make me tired.

And speaking only for myself, I think less shame around sex is just one of the positive developments of the late sixties/early seventies.

+ 1

[Zoebird]

I would say that 10 is a low number for a woman of 28 today. Or maybe I know particularly loose women.

Most women, if they are married between 22 and 25 might have 4 or fewer partners. But, most have more than that -- as far as I can tell -- but there are a lot that they "don't count" (one night stands after parties, etc are "not counted" because it was "just casual." I don't get how people twist the numbers).

So, a 'good girl' may have 5 or so by 28, but that might mean 15 or 30 or 100 depending upon a lot of factors. But if they are younger, and if they get married younger -- they likely have far fewer partners than their older counterparts.

I admit, i don't get it.

[chanterelle]

There is another aspect to this discussion other than unwed teens and young women getting pregnant.
I am old enough to remember the first womens focus groups of the mid to late 60's.
As many critics have pointed out, the women were mainly white and fairly middle class [as was I], they also were a very mixed group married and unmarried women of all ages. The women I met were not welfare queens, uneducated or clueless.
When the discussions centered on birth control and abortion it was disclosed just how many married women, with children, had sought out the then illegal procedure during their marraiges.
Family economics were an issue, even though most of these women were not of the poverty class, but many confessed that they just could not handle any more children. They were tired, wanted out of having another child and also wanted some control of their own reproduction process. Many women back then could not demand that their spouses use whatever legal means were available and many were constrained by social and religious views which left them out of the process. They sought out illegal procedures as a result...they made themselves criminals inorder to get some control of their lives.

The discussion today needs to get away from the inevitable harangue about young unmarrieds , those on welfare and those people who are too clueless to use birth control. There is more to this issue.
We need to focus on the fact of basic human sexuality. People have sex, thay have always had sex and we must stop demonizing people for doing so and make birth control, not only available but a valid and common place health option. Unwanted pregnancies are greatly lessened if the stigma that planning for sex is a shameful act is ended.

Women need to know that they have the power over their lives. Young girls need access to education and jobs, because statistics prove that birth rates drop when this happens.

[JaneV2.0]

...

The discussion today needs to get away from the inevitable harangue about young unmarrieds , those on welfare and those people who are too clueless to use birth control. There is more to this issue.
We need to focus on the fact of basic human sexuality. People have sex, thay have always had sex and we must stop demonizing people for doing so and make birth control, not only available but a valid and common place health option. Unwanted pregnancies are greatly lessened if the stigma that planning for sex is a shameful act.

Women need to know that they have the power over their lives. Young girls need access to education and jobs, because statistics prove that birth rates drop when this happens.

Well put. Most European countries have much lower rates of unwanted pregnancy than we do.

[Zoebird]

yes, that's exactly what i think, chanterelle.

[madgeylou]

I would say that 10 is a low number for a woman of 28 today. Or maybe I know particularly loose women.

Most women, if they are married between 22 and 25 might have 4 or fewer partners. But, most have more than that -- as far as I can tell -- but there are a lot that they "don't count" (one night stands after parties, etc are "not counted" because it was "just casual." I don't get how people twist the numbers).

So, a 'good girl' may have 5 or so by 28, but that might mean 15 or 30 or 100 depending upon a lot of factors. But if they are younger, and if they get married younger -- they likely have far fewer partners than their older counterparts.

I admit, i don't get it.

frankly i find much of the language on this thread to be far more shocking than the idea that a woman might have 10 sexual partners in her life. i feel like i stumbled into the first season of mad men or something when the doctor tells peggy that if he finds out she's "abusing" her birth control pills, he will taken them away from her.

why is a woman's "number" something that we feel we have the right to pass judgement on? or even COMMENT on? there are PLENTY of men who have had FAR more partners than that, and no one says a word. why?

it's the same reason that we are still having this same tired abortion debate: because women's bodies are still in a very real sense seen as public property. especially by those who hold a traditional worldview.

this pisses me off. if a woman wants to get laid 5 nights a week by 5 different guys and then eat mc donald's on the way home, that is her right as an adult in possession of her own brain and genitals. and everyone else can shut the hell up about it.

also, some perspective: if you became sexually active at 18, and had 2 partners per year (not exactly a shocking number), you'd still be up to a couple dozen by age 30.
this is normal.
and why are we conflating the number of partners with someone's likelihood to have an abortion?
they have NOTHING to do with each other.

some interesting reading for those whose ideas about sex and abortion are stuck in a time warp:
http://thehairpin.com/2012/01/ask-an...rative-edition

edited to add: not trying to single zoebird out with this quote ... it just seemed to sum up the last few pages of this thread.