the incompatibility of pro-choice and anti-choice worldviews

[chimerically]

I've realized that I could never effectively argue with most anti-choice activists about birth control and abortion because we would be making completely different assumptions about the world -- different and fundamentally incompatible paradigms, in Kuhn's terms (since I've been reading lots of and about him in my philosophy of science class). Their arguments about what the Bible says about sex and other topics hold no weight for me. My arguments about problems of abused and neglected children, overpopulation, and a woman's right to control the course of her life hold little or no weight for them.

The point where we might be able to actually speak to one another, rather than past one another, is the issue of viability and when "life" starts, but even there they take what I see as ridiculously extreme views such as "life starts at conception" or sometimes with the possibility of conception (thus, the fight against birth control as a preventative measure) that I can't possibly agree with, given the messy realities of life: so many fertilized eggs don't implant, so many proto-fetuses don't last even a week, etc.

Furthermore, if they take this stance, why aren't they attacking in-vitro fertilization as vehemently as they are abortion and birth control? Multiple fetuses are grown and then one (or sometimes a few, but certainly not all) is implanted, and the rest are discarded. Isn't that murder in their eyes? Shouldn't all viable fetuses be given the chance to live in that case too? Funny how the intention of the couple seems to change the morality of the fetuses: people who are going through in-vitro fertilization want to be parents while people practicing birth control don't.

Along those same lines, it's also very strange that some anti-choice people take childlessness to be irresponsible, while from an environmental perspective, I think that having children is the more irresponsible choice (which, of course, some eco-minded parents mitigate in various ways, as I hope I would too if/when I have children -- but all things considered, that's still another person using a lifetime's-worth of resources, which is not small even when minimized). And moreover, making sure that one has children at a point in one's life when they can be best provided for seems to be, to me, a lot more responsible than risking having kids as soon as one starts having sex, which for a very large part of the population is very young (even with abstinence-only education like I grew up with, as a recent study shows). Of course, the anti-choice people would say one shouldn't be having sex until one is prepared to have children (which is the often-unsaid corollary to most of their points), but that's a whole 'nother can of worms with its own set of worldview incompatibilities, and I'll save that for another post (though you're welcome to rail in the comments if you want to).

No wonder this is such a hotly-contested debate. Except that it's not really a debate at all.

(NOTE: I don't mean to imply that one side is more "rational" than the other, even though I have made it clear which "side" I am on. These sorts of disagreements happen all the time, in many areas. My main argument is that the incommensurability of worldviews prevent the two sides from even seeing eye-to-eye.)

Comments

[tokyorose329.livejournal.com]

What saddens and frustrates me so much is that both pro-choice and pro-life advocates want EXACTLY THE SAME THING: FEWER ABORTIONS. Pro-lifers touting pro-choicers as merry baby-killers who dance a jig every time someone gets a D&C are despicable. No pro-choice acitivist WANTS people to have more abortions. They just want people to have them safely if they *need* them (and yes, what constitutes "need" is a slippery fish), but an ounce of prevention is still worth many, many pounds of cure in this case.
It's in the prevention methods that the difference of opinions becomes really infuriating. Abstinence-only sex education is almost criminally negligent. But the difference comes regarding the nature of sex itself. Again, we all share the same idea that sex is powerful and slightly dangerous and not to be taken lightly. But the religious-based arguments against sex are all based on the idea that sexual desire is unnatural and bad, and therefore the only way to handle it is to reject it except in very narrow, rarified circumstances. Conversely, the more inclusive programs teach that sexual desire is not inherently bad, but an urge like any other and can be managed in a variety of ways. And this lack of condemnation, I think, is what makes it effective. Because trying to stem the tide of adolescent and post-adolescent hormones is a losing battle. And trying to paint sex as bad and unnatural could potentially be as damaging as an eating disorder. We don't tell our kids that getting hungry or thirsty or lonely or tired is bad, do we?

[stellae.livejournal.com]

I don't think that all religious based arguments against sex are based on the idea that sexual desire is unnatural or bad (though it's easy to make them sound like that as saying that is much easier than setting a double standard of 'sex is fun! but it's only supposed to be for married people!)... my readings of the Bible on the subject simply say that sex is meant to be enjoyed because it is to bring a couple closer together... and a lot of the arguments I've heard made, beyond simply 'God doesn't approve,' have to do with reminding people that sex can lead to a lot of heartbreak because it tends to create very strong emotions and emotional attachments between partners.

On the other hand, I think the kind of abstinence education that works is the kind that uses definitions of abstinence that are empowering... not 'I'm saying no because I'm afraid of what God/my parents/my teachers will do to me if they find out' but 'I'm saying no, right now, in this circumstance because I am not comfortable with having sex' and gives people freedom to find their reasons to have or not have sex... and also teaches people how to have sex safely so that whatever choice someone makes, he/she can feel empowered by it.

[tokyorose329.livejournal.com]

But that's the problem! Abstinence education usually DOESN'T teach you how to have safe sex. That's why it's called "abstinence-only", on the grounds that giving young people the methods of protecting themselves against pregnancy and disease is tantamount to saying, "it's okay to have sex". Which, I think, stems from a basic philosophy that sex is bad and must be controlled, as well as an idea that sex is only for procreation, (i.e., "you can't have birth control because you have live with the consequences")
I agree that good sex ed should include a healthy dose of "decide for yourself WHY you want to have sex, and have a better reason for it than 'it feels good and s/he wants me to' ". That's what I had, and it worked very well (God bless the Episcopalians!) but there are plenty of people who would be mature enough at a younger age than I was to come up with a reason, and they should be coached carefully but with a positive attitude towards it.
After all, sex has been around a lot longer than marriage. And when it comes to the people who can't get a legal marriage...but that's a whole nother can of worms.

PS: in my more cavalier moments, I even take some issue with the emotional aspects of sex. Of course it's capable of forging serious emotional bonds and attachments, but I did hear someone once say that sex is like food and hunger. Some days you want a full gourmet meal that you can savor and enjoy fully, and some days you just want a cheeseburger for the sheer gluttonous pleasure of it. And with hunger, we don't see either as bad in moderation. Eating too much gourmet food makes you fussy and unable to enjoy a wide variety of food, and we all know what eating too many cheeseburgers will do to you. But a little of both (and of course, other stuff) is healthy and okay. And I agree, and I don't get upset when I crave, um, "cheeseburger sex".
Um.
A better term for it, anyone? The mental picture is killing me :-P

[chimerically.livejournal.com]

Hehe, I think I'm too amused by the term to suggest a better one. ;~)

The abstinence-only education I received in Utah did not include information on contraception -- teachers weren't allowed to bring it up except in answer to questions (so of course, my friends and I made a point of asking lots of questions, but that's still not substitute for a systematic discussion of alternatives). It did include lots of scare-statistics about STD's and descriptions about their terrible symptoms, but almost nothing about treatment options for them and nothing about prevention except "don't have sex." I was quite shocked (though in a good way) at how extensive sex education was at Willard middle school in Berkeley, where I tutored for a year. Abstinence-only programs do vary, sometimes pretty substantially, from place to place, though -- some may cover contraceptives and treatment while still emphasizing abstinence, and maybe even without resorting to shaming tactics that promote unhealthy attitudes toward sex (especially in women).

I didn't include sex in my post above because my feelings on it are very complicated. I have too many friends who had sex early for all the wrong reasons, and developed conceptualizations of their sexuality that could be just as personally harmful as the "sex is shameful" conceptualization that was stressed in my middle and high school health classes. (And the combination of these two is especially harmful and pervasive: sex is shameful, but you're still expected to "put out" for your partner, especially girls for boys. Just don't actually enjoy or explore it, or you'll be a real slut.) Anyway, I know there are lots of elisions and confusions in all this, because my own thoughts on it are similarly jumbled. The sex-positive attitude promoted in Berkeley's female sexuality class is the best alternative I've found to this combination of putting-out/shame, but even it has its problems.

[stellae.livejournal.com]

I should have changed 'abstinence education' to 'education about abstinence' (as I don't believe in abstinence-only education. People are GOING to have sex; they do have a right to do it safely and minimize their risk of really negative long-term consequences) ... some education that focuses on safe sex neglects to spend time explaining what abstinence means beyond 'abstinence is waiting until marriage to have intercourse' ... which is a lousy and very narrow definition. I think good sex-ed should include both how to be safe if you choose to have sex and how to feel good about a choice not to. It scares me a little that the world has become the sort of place where it is more okay to talk about all sorts of bizarre fetishes than to say 'I'm waiting until x relationship milestone' to have sex. (For the record, I am fine with the discussions of fetishes and so on... I just don't like the pitying 'oh, honey, WHY?' looks and comments that I get when I say that I am waiting until I find someone that I want to marry and who wants to marry me to have sex).

As to the emotional aspects... I think that they vary from person to person. For some people sex and love must go hand in hand or they wind up feeling cheap and dirty, for others, not so much.

[chimerically.livejournal.com]

I'd be very surprised if any school program teaching about sex doesn't spend some time explaining what abstinence means and what the benefits are. Even at Willard, which seemed to have a very progressive sex-ed program (though given my point of comparison, that may not mean much :~)), had a whole unit on how to effectively say "no" and the aspects of abstinence. (And they certainly never talked about fetishes!) But that kind of program is quite different from the kind I had in Utah (described in another comment).

I think what you've encountered is not what the schools promote, but the norms of local teen and young adult culture (which goes counter to school teachings in many realms, including this one :~)).

[stellae.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah...

I have had I guess 3 kinds of sex-ed -- one that took a tone of 'well, if you're reeeeeeally going to have sex, do it safely, because here are the consequences of not doing so' accompanied by a lot of really grotesque slides of complications and symptoms of various STIs, one that was very abstinence only (religion. duh.), and one that was given at my university orientation where abstinence wasn't brought up at all, aside from what constituted statutory rape.

No wonder I'm so cynical...

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

The sec ed I got in high school gave what I thought was a pretty balanced picture of STDs and prevention of such (not too scare-tacticy but not too laissez-faire either) but when it got to the abstinence part I think it backfired. Mainly because there was a lot of emphasis on "SAY NO!" which MY brain interpreted as "those evil horny boys will be pressuring you to have sex. of course you don't want sex. you're a good girl. so we'll just do our best to pump up your confidance so you don't give in to the pressure. it's OK to say NO." I honestly don't know how much of this was actually stated and how much I formulated on my own, but I know some of it came from the persistant cultural message that "boys like sex but girls don't", which while not the teacher's FAULT was definitely something they should have anticipated and tried to account for.

I very quickly concluded that the easiest way around having to say no was to be the one doing the asking. Which I finally got up the nerve to do with my first boyfriend at age 17. Which was really too young for me. OTOH, no lasting harm came of it.

[(Anonymous)]

Good points all around. I think the pitying glances are probably coming from the misconception that you're trapped in a narrower mindset and that's why you haven't taken the plunge.
Frankly, though, people's sex lives are no one's business but their own, and we should all just hush about it, except perhaps over girly drinks every once in a while. :-)

[chimerically.livejournal.com]

I certainly hear the "sex is unnatural and bad" message a lot in Utah and among my Catholic relatives -- especially for "recreational" (as opposed to procreational) sex. Desire and libido is something to be controlled, suppressed, and ignored, not explored and understood (which also leads to "control," but of a very different sort).