a crisis has erupted recently in American politics. It distracts the nation from the serious business of electioneering with comparatively frivolous questions at the same time it addresses a fundamental weakness in higher education, which should not be abandoned to vulgar titillation. It would be a boon to politics & sex both if it could be addressed & those involved most in this matter would surely reap the benefits that accrue to benefactors of mankind. All this started with something to small, comparatively speaking, & so curious, that you would be excused from not taking it seriously. However, this kind of fever is best treated early, when it has not shown its dangers, rather than be faced years down the road, when, untreated, festering, it can become violent. So the young woman could no longer pay for her contraception deserves at the least the erection of a statue to give satisfaction to herself as well as those for which she so innocently & selflessly spoke out. This is one of the most serious problems created by the irresponsibility of the American male in his latest incarnation. At the same time, it is a new problem for new times & it requires the new manliness to address it.
It would be unmanly to go looking for causes on such matters, laying blame, as it were, at someone else's doorstep, & I will not encourage such attempts. Especially in our circumstances, which happily present a simple solution that would urgently set wrongs right. We would not fall limp, but give stiff assurance of our vitality & our enthusiasm to solve such a serious problem. It would give the young males of the species an added sense of responsibility & even of being providers. & at the same time it would assure young women that they have are not abandoned in-between sexual encounters. Only good can come of this & it will be more pleasant than any good heretofore advertised to the attention of student activism & activism more broadly...
The more mature among my audience have already guessed that I mean to suggest that the males pick up the tab for sex. I know this is not beyond the reach of the minds, hands, & wallets of many of you. I do not mean to insult you by suggesting I am being original. I merely want to say what many must have thought, but have not yet said.
In college, I knew not a few young males who had shown the unusual gallantry of paying for the abortions of women. The most generous among them did not even do it because they loved the woman or because they had received compelling evidence that they had impregnated the woman. It was just a show of their liberality, helping a young woman in a difficult situation, thus earning a reputation & encouraging the connection between familiarity & support. They showed they cared, to be brief.
Sympathy, however needs institutional help, especially on large campuses, so it would be important to use the various outreach efforts & diversity centers on campus to raise awareness of the needs for - & the advantages that redound to - young males who show this commitment to sexual diversity &, of course, feminism. Young males should be encouraged to discuss these matters among themselves & to try to find out how best to arrange their matters in order to solve this problem in the particular cases which arouse their interest.
The culture, above all, has to change, so as to remove the stigma from young males whose character really cannot be impeached, being protected by the shield of the most famous education America & the world can offer, & who would support & indeed lead in a manly fashion the efforts to install the kind of rules that would provide contraception for women's needs, taking into account fully the local situation & delegating decision-making to the parties most intimately concerned with & aware of the situation. Such young males would of course deserve the praise of their colleges & of important national associations for their assiduous efforts on behalf of young women's health issues & they would immeasurably benefit the prestige of their alma maters, no doubt. They would make every effort to come to know in an accurate & a deep sense the contraception needs of as many young women as practicable & would therefore never be open to the accusation that they do not know the problem or are not interested in solving it or are not competent.
A safety net, finally, has to be provided for young women in-between partners & for those sexual encounters which by their fleeting nature cannot easily lead to the knowledge & responsibility required to meet head-on the need, although of course even in such cases, as has been done sometimes in the past, the scientific study & the search for first-hand accounts could lead to the compilation of a kind of database which would be of the greatest utility, detailing the needs & the circumstance which arouse them, & thus this would provide full knowledge of these matters to the public & especially to those most interesting in solving this problem. Those who feel the thrust of the future, I am sure, understand there is a need for hands-on leadership to bring this matter urgently to satisfaction, lest it explode & put to shame or ridicule more people than would be affected by the more subtle solution I am proposing here.
That response tells me you don't understand what ethics are.
Wrong. I can go from Aristotle to modern non-foundational liberalism with you. I think you're making a bullshit distinction to try to dismiss the moral claims of others (that's just morality, you can't impose that) while shielding your own moral preferences (they're ethics, they're universal) from such criticism.
Junior, don't talk this stuff to me, I've studied Aristotle's Ethics - the famous one, not the other one - Spinoza's Ethics & I don't think I need to stand for this kind of ridiculous distinction drawn by your mysterious powers.
The only difference between morality & ethics is the difference between Latin & Greek. Morality has to do with the fact that mores change with the people, although all peoples have their mores & I would love to see you prove ethics is not similar. But the Latin for ethics is moralia, for example Plutarch. Go stuff your savvy up your gut & see if it's at all nourishing.
Finally, America's organic laws were dead serious that religion is necessary. Look up the Northwestern Ordinance some day. Look up the stuff written by the guy who designed the final version of the Great Seal. Look up Lincoln on providence. -- What you mean is that since the last years of the Vinson Court & throughout the Warren Court, religion started to be thrown out of the public square. You've got two generations of bad precedents on your side, which is not a little. Just don't preach to me that this is the American way. It was not two generations ago. If it was made, it can be unmade. This is what terrifies at least those liberals not hysterical enough to cry about 'turning back the clock' -- they know that everything made can be unmade.
And I find it amazing that some of those here limit their political vocabulary to the words liberal or conservative, as if those words aptly describe the spectrum of not only a populace's opinion, but an individual's scope of opinion.I find this a myopic view of the world.
In defense of everyone who has replied here, I have not seen anyone do what you say. I, however, do use these words, & in this discussion, have used no other political categories to describe people, except the two parties.
You would have a hard time proving I am myopic; at least, you would have to prove you understand political phenomena better than I do or that you know political history better than I do, given that you allege such as I have a myopic view of the world.
Finally, I want to show you there is something wrong with your thinking, though I wouldn't call it myopic. I use those terms & perhaps only those terms here, but that does not lead to any of your conclusions. I used such terms as I used in this discussion because they seemed relevant both in terms of the political divide, which is a matter of circumstance & cannot be more general than a partisan conflict, & in terms of their political tendencies, which are as general as the political principles that divide the left & the right wing. -- I am generally amused whenever Americans talk about the diversity in their political landscape, when it is by far the narrowest in perhaps the entire world, certainly among civilized countries. Americans have no political interests that do not swear by democracy, consciously or unconsciously; that's a small view of politics, but you could call it ubiquitous in that there is always at least one democratic party...
You don't remember Rick Santorum's delightful money man Foster Friess's tasteless joke about aspirin?
You don't think contraception is important enough to be covered by health insurance. If you don't like abortions, you should support increased access to contraception. If you don't like kids whose parents can't support them requiring public funds for their support, you should support increased access to contraception. I can't imagine what you think the alternative is.
In right-wing fantasyland, before contraception nobody ever had unwanted kids and everything was wonderful and perfect. In the real world, before contraception, women did the following: (1) foist the child on her own mother, who pretended it was her baby; (2) put it up for adoption, assuming she could find a family that wanted her baby; (3) put it in an orphanage; (4) if she was wealthy, she went to a "specialist" for a "procedure" or if she wasn't wealthy she ran the risk of maiming or killing herself with snake oil remedies or the trusty wire coathanger.
If you could explain why you think that was such a wonderful time for us as a society, I'd love to hear it.
The one about keeping your knees together? I remember it. Off color. Not all that funny. Otherwise, not that bothersome.
If contraception is important to you, pay for it yourself. Honestly, I think medical insurance is mostly ridiculous, though. It is too expensive and covers too much ... and, a third-party payer always sends prices through the roof. Insurance is supposed to be there as coverage against catastrophes and major expenditures -- not monthly expenses.
Buy your own damn birth control. Don't tell me you'll be a responsible adult so long as someone else pays for it. Be responsible one way or another, and pay for it yourself ... birth control, condoms, no sex, or freaking raise your kids.
Yeah, you're right, before the 60s, the rate of illegitimacy was much higher than it is now, in absolute numbers or as a percentage of the population.
The number of aborted children, at least compared to social status, were much higher.
The number of children put up for adoption was also significantly higher.
You are not at all insane for suggesting these things used to happen, as if they do not happen now much worse. Bravo!
I am a Republican, a Catholic, a man, and pro-choice. The choice to which I refer is, Have Sex or Don't, use contraceptives or don't. However, when a pregnancy is the result of your choice (and there are NO 100% effective contraceptives other than abstinence) then that is the limit of your choice. Abortion is not a contraceptive. Unwanted is not a reason for abortion, otherwise why don't we support retroactive abortions and get rid of all those we don't want?
"I'm Catholic... and pro-choice." This declaration of stunningly inconsistent logic is probably not the best way to start out a post...
It's common rhetoric in pro-life speaking, and he explained his meaning.
Ahhhhhhh. I skipped over "The choice to which I refer is." Thanks for pointing that out. My apologies, Rick.