"The Banalization of Sexuality"

The Murloc sent me an article the other day, asking me to tear it apart. So tear it apart I shall.

The article is called "Why I Want a Male Birth Control Pill", by Kyle Munkittrick and can be read here.

The first paragraph is perhaps the most egregious, so we shall save it for last. Let's start with, this:

"Sex as we know it has two major biological problems: disease and unintended pregnancy."

It boggles my mind that one could look at the natural function of a biological process and call it either a problem or unintended. This is akin to saying "eating has two major problems: food poisoning and nourishment," or "breathing has two major problems: smoke inhalation and respiration."

Consider the phrases: "I intentionally at the entire cheesecake and accidentally gained weight." "I intentionally jumped off the roof and accidentally fell to the ground." "I intentionally had sex and accidentally got pregnant." The first two make the speaker sound like an idiot, but the third one, for some reason, is how people actually think.

Of course, this is just the contraceptive mentality: the delusion that sex is not for sexual reproduction, but rather for pleasure, and the reproductive aspects of it are an unintended side effect. It's a mindset I frequently see in the post-sexual revolution apocalypse. And one Mr. Munkittrick seems to be afflicted with.

Dave Barry (hardly a hero of the pro-chastity movement) even made a joke about this, with one of his book titles: Babies and Other Hazards of Sex. Of course, the joke here is that we all know that babies are what's supposed to happen during sex. It's comical to pretend that they're a hazard, and not the natural end, of the act. It's like saying, "my wife and I took a plane trip to visit her mother but, unfortunately, it didn't crash." The joke is that what was supposed to happen, happened, but we didn't want it to happen. The joke is that we want the opposite of what we do.

But it's only humorous when intended, like Dave Barry's book title, as a joke. Mr. Munkittrick seems to think it seriously.

For men there are approximately four ways of dealing with these issues without the need for a partner’s help: abstinence, condoms, coitus interruptus, and vasectomies. Abstinence prevents everything, including sex itself, so it’s kind of like avoiding food poisoning and gaining weight via fasting: yes it works, but it isn’t exactly practical for most of us.

I assume when he says that abstinence isn't practical "for most of us" that he is referring to married men whose wives have a very active sex drive, and are required by their vows to love their wives as Christ loves his Church, and so must make the hard sacrifice of always being available to satisfy her. I have a hard time imagining in what other circumstances abstaining could be "impractical".

In his most recent book-length interview with journalist Peter Seewald, Light of the World, Pope Benedict XVI said that robbing banks with an unloaded gun may be a first step for a criminal to being more responsible.... No, wait, he said that a prostitute using a condom may be the first step to being more responsible, a first step to realizing that not everything can be allowed. Of course, the pope can't say "condom" in an empty room without creating controversy, and there was much discussion in the media that the pope had said it was morally permissible to use condoms (he didn't) and whether this indicated a reversal of teaching of the Church (it doesn't). But lost in the controversy was, I think, a very wise, and very insightful statement by His Holiness that cut right to the core of everything from the abortion holocaust to the AIDS epidemic. The Holy Father says in part,

[T]he sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being. (p. 119, emphasis mine)

 After reading this quote, I began to be more aware of this attitude towards sex, that it is a drug to be administered. How often do we hear someone speak of a "need" for sex, or go to extreme or even dangerous lengths to get a fix? And indeed, even from a neuroscience viewpoint, sex does act like a drug on the brain, releasing chemicals that cause pleasure and can lead to addiction.

From this viewpoint, Mr. Munkittrick's statement makes sense. It is "impractical" for most men to abstain in the same sense that it is "impractical" for a junkie not to shoot up, or it is "impractical" for an alcoholic not to get drunk, or for a chronic gambler not to hit the slots; not in the sense that avoidance would be physically impossible or harmful, but rather in the sense that the addict lacks the willpower to stop.

Of course, the way one deals with a junkie or a drunk or a gambler who insists that it's impractical to avoid his vice is not to make sure that he has a steady supply of whatever it is he craves, but to teach him self-discipline, so he can avoid the destructive behavior. Society has a sexual addiction. We insist, like the addict, that it's "impractical" to end our addiction. But what is really needed is a 12-step program. We need to admit that we have a problem.

Condoms are the best option men have, as they both protect quite well against disease, prevent accidental pregnancy and still allow, you know, sex.

This line doesn't sit well with me, and it took me a while to figure out why. I think it's because, to a large extent, it undermines the point of the rest of the article, particularly from a viewpoint on this side of the sexual revolution. He's arguing for a male birth control pill, and in the course of his argument, mentions that men already have a birth control method that also protects (to some extent) against disease. So what will happen if a male birth control pill is introduced? Well, we already know that.

I read an article recently about a study by the UK government on the effects of their program to make Plan B freely available. Not only did it not impact teenage pregnancy rates, but it increased rates of STIs. And it's easy to see why. "We don't need a condom; I'll just take Plan B tomorrow!" People, particularly teenagers, in the throes of passion are notoriously bad at making sound, objective judgments. Of course, the UK government, on discovering the utter failure of their £15 million program to bring about any good, did what any normal post-Christendom government would do: they increased the size of the program.

Women have a whole range of birth control options, including hormonal ones, for which there is no male analog: IUDs, sponges, cervical caps, the Pill, and Plan B. All of these options require planning ahead, going to the doctor, thinking about what sort of sex might happen and what to do if the birth control doesn’t work. Further, a woman is often required to think about all of these problems knowing her male partner is blissfully unaware and probably unconcerned with them. Guys just don’t have the same societal pressures or signals. Men don’t think about birth control or pregnancy as much. With a male pill, guys would be forced plan beyond just a condom in the wallet. [Why?] We would have to chat with our doctor, try different methods (ultrasound or hormones?) and get regular check-ups. Birth control would finally be on our collective male minds.

Birth control will never be on the promiscuous male mind as much as it is for women for the simple reason that men can't get pregnant. We don't have to deal with the life-changing impact on our bodies and our lives in the same way as women. An unwanted pregnancy doesn't make us grapple with the decision to abort, and bear the scars and guilt of that for the rest of our lives, or carry to term and fear how our friends and relatives will judge our swelling belly. No pill will ever be able to make pregnancy as much of an issue for men as it is for women.

No, the way to get a man to think about pregnancy is for him to be in love, agape, with a woman; to make him swear a solemn vow before God and man that he will, henceforth, forsake all others and cherish his beloved unto death; that he will lay down his life for her and their children; to give him a solemn duty to her, and make him responsible for the care and upbringing of their love incarnate. That is what makes a man think about pregnancy, not giving him a pill and telling him "fornicate with as many women as you want! Just be sure to take this."

Women, particularly young women and teenagers, are often not just embarrassed to go on the pill, but are seen as promiscuous or easy for doing so. They are slut-shamed out of making responsible decisions.

Considering the concept of slut-shaming, I have only one thing to say, which is more of an aside and not connected to the point being discussed: anytime I read a defense of chastity, invariably a commenter will equate it with "slut shaming", that is to uncharitably mock the sinner, as if it is impossible to abhor the sin and yet love the sinner. The pro-sexual revolution types seem to argue that one simply cannot argue for sexual purity without putting down those who don't live to the ideal. This is a similar to the tendency I see that whenever one speaks out against homosexual acts, he is also labeled a "homophobe", again, as if it is impossible to say an action is wrong without hating those who commit it. I find this telling; one of the marks of a guilty conscience is that it is extremely sensitive to being called out for its sins. Perhaps the shame is inferred rather than implied.

Since I do not wish to be accused of arguing with a straw man, I point out that this is not in rebuttal to anything that Mr. Munkittrick has said. I don't know if he adopts this position, so my comment is not addressed at his words.

Many parents actively prohibit their daughters from going on the pill because they (falsely) believe that 1) fear of pregnancy will prevent early sex (it doesn’t) and that 2) the use of the pill will encourage their daughter to sleep around without other protections (it doesn’t).

Hm, perhaps I should just end this rebuttal right here. It is clear that I am completely unqualified to debate Mr. Munkittrick, since he quite clearly has met every single female on the face of the planet, and is familiar enough with each of them to know that not a single women would ever not engage in sexual intercourse out of fear that she would get pregnant.

Sarcasm aside, he may have a point. Jennifer Fulwiler mentions that:

On multiple occasions when I was a young teen I recall hearing girls make the comment that they would readily risk dangerous back-alley abortions or even consider suicide if they were to face unplanned pregnancies and abortion wasn’t legal. Though I was not sexually active, it sounded perfectly reasonable to me —that is how much we desired not to have babies before we were ready. Yet the concept of just not having sex if we weren’t ready to have babies was never discussed. It’s not that we had considered the idea and rejected it; it simply never occurred to us.

 She describes the effects of the contraceptive mentality. When the idea that we have a right to enjoy sex without consequences becomes ingrained firmly enough in our mindset, it is possible that people will no longer even consider the consequences of sex. Of course, the solution to this is not to further entrench this simple madness, but rather to ingrain that pregnancy is the nature of sex.

Concerning his point that the pill encourages sleeping around, or discourages other protections, 1) see previous point about Plan B and STIs (I have read that The Pill has a similar effect), and 2) anecdotally, my mother once told me a story about a friend she had in college, whose mother, being the progressive and caring person she was, gave her daughter The Pill before she went off to college, as protection. My mother said that her friend had not been planning on sleeping around, but her mother's lowered expectations affected the friends attitude. "I have the pills," she said. "I might as well use them." And in a larger view, there is evidence to suggest that the contraceptive mentality changes the way people approach sex.

The enormous problem here is that while girls are forced to contemplate STDs and pregnancy early, boys are largely unconcerned until they have sex for the first time. In many cases, it will be the girl who asks about a condom or says “I’m on the pill, it’s ok” or something else responsible. If the two do have sex without any protection, the girl is forced to deal with the consequences, be it Plan B, abortion, or pregnancy. A male pill would dramatically alter some consciousnesses. [How?] Both sexes would be having discussions about preventing pregnancy as well as preventing diseases in sex-ed. The burden of responsibility would be equalized early on.

Mr. Munkittrick keeps insisting that a male pill would change the way men think about birth control, without ever really explaining the mechanism. Considering he has already conceded that men already have a form of birth control (the condom), how would providing another method make them think about it more than they already do? What magic properties would this pill have that would force men to focus on it so much? Why would they not just treat it as another condom? And if this new male birth control method required so much more planning and foresight than just a condom in the wallet, wouldn't most men just say "screw it" and grab a condom? People tend to take the path of least resistance. One of the criticisms I've heard of NFP is that it requires planning and foresight, as opposed to the pill, which you just take without thinking.

Another major perceived problem is, of course, is that taking the pill will be emasculating. I emphasize “perceived” because I’ve always found this argument baffling. I don’t know why anyone thinks being responsible is emasculating.

Well, it would be emasculating, almost by definition. The sexes are defined in relation to each other, particularly in the sex act. Males beget children, females nurture them. For a man to sterilize himself goes directly against his masculinity; it removes one of the primary distinctions of his sex, and moves him towards androgyny.

You know all those “man up” and “be a man” and “this looks like a job for a man” slogans? Well, they imply repsonsibility. A man takes care of things. Why can’t one of those things be his fertility? [Doesn't he mean "virility"? I was taught that women are fertile; men are virile.] I don’t want to have a kid right now, so I nullify my fertility with a pill. That sounds pretty manly to me. But the male pill isn’t just about me. I want the men around me to start taking responsibility.

Responsibility. He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

"Responsibility" means taking account for one's actions, and not shirking one's duty. It does not mean doing whatever one wishes, trying to pretend the consequences don't exist, then being surprised or caught off guard when they happen anyways. Responsibility means preparing for the outcome of ones actions, and not engaging in an act if one is not prepared for the results. Responsibility means swearing fealty to a woman before bedding her, so that should she get pregnant, both she and the child will be cared for.

That's what I learned when I meditated on the pictures of Damien and Anthony in the womb. Responsibility, I knew, means never putting my desires before their needs.

The male pill is something that men are going to talk about. “Are you on it?” “Feel any different?” Suddenly birth control isn’t something you think about right before or right after sex, but daily, in the locker room and at the office and every day when you take the pill. There will be ads on TV (no more footballs through the tire swing, please) [Please], your doctor will ask if you want it, and it’ll come up in entertainment.

Yes, me and my boyfriends, when we go to the bathroom in groups, as we always do, will talk about the pill and share our feelings about it.


Sheesh.

When an accidental pregnancy happens, suddenly it won’t just be “did you use a condom?” but “why weren’t you on the pill?” It’s easy to forget a condom in the heat of the moment, it’s hard to explain why you weren’t on the pill.

I can easily see this argument being reversed. "It's easy to explain why you weren't on the pill, because of the hassle, or because you're not sexually active, but hard to explain why you didn't just use a condom. That's easy."

[O]ne of the major benefits that goes ignored is that a male pill would destigmatize the female use of the pill. Currently, birth control is a single sex issue. The pill is a women’s rights issue, a “special interest group” issue, an identity politics issue, a liberal issue. Male birth control is not, because male issues are not often labeled “special interest group” issues (which is another problem and discussion all together).
[...]
Now for the real kicker: once the male pill is readily available, it will normalize birth control. Even conservative parents will want their sons to have birth control pills, because conservative parents know “boys will be boys.” Male sexuality and virility is a point of pride for the Fox News father. Might as well make sure the boy doesn’t cause too much trouble while he’s sowing his wild oats, right?

The fact that Mr. Munkittrick even makes this argument betrays how fundamentally he misunderstands conservatives. I suppose he must be one of those who thinks that if men got pregnant, abortion would be sacred.

This is a straw man, plain and simple. Misrepresent your opponents views (create a "straw man") and knock them down easily, because they are only an absurd facsimile of the original, and can't stand on their own. Even better, make unwarranted and unprovable assumptions about the secret inner reasons for your opponent's position. This takes the form "you're only saying that because...."  E.g., "You're only opposed to birth control because you're a man and it doesn't affect you."

The opposition to contraception has nothing to do with it being a "women's issue". If it was purely a matter of women's rights, then the opposition would, by and large, be men. And yet, the fiercest proponents of chastity I know are, surprise, women. And of course this is so. As pointed out before, they're the ones that get pregnant, so they have the most to lose in a society that indulges the contraceptive mentality.

And for those with a fragile male self image, just consider the increased male responsibility, normalization of birth control and reduced accidental pregnancies as fringe benefits.

Ah, I see. So those who oppose male birth control have a fragile self image. See "straw man argument" as discussed above, with a generous helping of argumentum ad hominem.

Finally, the male pill will put a real dent in abortion rates.... The combined impact of increased male responsibility, birth control normalization, and male pill usage would probably reduce accidental pregnancy by an order of magnitude.

I think one of the greatest lies of the post-sexual revolution apocalypse is that contraceptives reduce unwanted pregnancy. It makes sense, right? You're more likely to get pregnant if you have unprotected sex than if you have protected sex, right? But that begs the question that sex is inevitable, and ignores the influence of contraceptives on one's mentality.

Consider the city of New York. I read an article from a woman who had researched the city's approach to sex education. According to her research, New York has one of the most comprehensive "safe" sex education programs. Each year, they have spent more and more on sex education, even adjusting for inflation. Birth control is available like candy, in the city. The New York Metro had a promotional program, recently, where you could get condoms decorated with the Metro's colors. And yet, their abortion rate is 41% (60% among blacks), or nearly twice the national average.

A survey of Spanish women ages 15-49 from 1997 to 2007 found that over that ten-year period, contraceptive use increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. Over that same period, the abortion rate also increased, from 5.52 per 1000 women, to 11.49.

According to the Guttmacher institute, about half of the 3 million annual unintended pregnancies in the US happen to couples who use contraceptives in the month they become pregnant.

Citing a non-pregnancy-related statistic, the only country in Africa to post declining AIDS infection rates in recent years was Uganda, which also had the strongest abstinence program. The countries that received the most international money for contraception programs, such as South Africa, had among the highest.

And yet, the sexual revolutionaries keep crying for more contraceptives to cure the scourge of unwanted pregnancy. And yet it's contraception that gives us the concept of unwanted pregnancy. If sex is approached from the viewpoint that pregnancy is the natural consequence, and people behave responsibly, then the only pregnancies that occur will be wanted. Pregnancy only becomes unwanted when they think they can have sex without it.

I don’t want my only birth control options to be a condom, vasectomy, or trusting her.

"Trusting her." Because he doesn't want to have to trust the person he's sleeping with. See sexuality, dehumanization of.


But when he asks for a male birth control pill, he's asking women to trust him. This undermines his previous point about reducing the unwanted pregnancy rate. A male birth control pill will just provide men with another way of seducing women. "It's OK," Don Juan says, "I'm on the pill." Of course, Don Juan doesn't care if she gets pregnant, as he won't see her after tomorrow morning.

How many women will be left in tears, sitting in the bathroom, holding the pregnancy test? "He told me it was OK." No, even from a pro-revolutionary perspective, its best if she who bears the consequences maintains the safeguard.


And, as I promised, the first paragraph last:

The 50th Anniversary of the Pill was last year. Lots and lots of people mentioned how good, bad, unimportant, or essential the Pill has been. Our society changed the way it thought about sex, about reproduction, even about love and relationships.

Yes, it did. Now, sex is merely for pleasure. Reproduction is like getting struck by lightning—an accident that happens for no good reason, and love and relationships are disposable.

Women being able to take control of their reproductive abilities is one of the greatest advancements in the history of modern human biology.

The Murloc laughed at this line. The Murloc—who has never touched a Pill, IUD, patch, diaphragm, sponge, cervical cap, or injection, and has gotten pregnant exactly twice, exactly when she wanted—laughs at the insinuation that a pill is necessary for her to control her reproductive abilities.

That aside, really, Mr Munkittrick? Greatest advancement in the history of modern human biology? Greater than the polio vaccine? The rabies vaccine? Early detection and treatment for cancer? NICUs? Insulin injections? X-rays? MRIs? Anesthetics? Antibiotics? All these methods that have saved perhaps billions of lives, and one of the greatest he can come up with is something that allows him to get his jollies with no consequences?

What a tool.

Even if it isn’t universally beloved, the Pill is worth defending and improving. It makes the world a better place. Female hormonal birth control is an exemplary form of human enhancement.

We now present the closing arguments in the trial of the contraceptive mentality, and the effect it has had on the world. Speaking for the defense is Roosh, a professional Pick-Up Artist:

Sleeping with a ton of women has some mental consequences that aren’t ususally talked about. Here are four things that I have noticed:

• Inability to view women as equal human beings. My default opinion of any girl I meet is “worthless dirty whore until proven otherwise.” When so many girls have opened their legs up for me so quickly and easily, it’s hard for me to respect them (and their opinions or ideas) like I would a family member or close friend. I think this is leaking out into other areas of life as someone pointed out to me that I seem to read books written only by men.
• Decreasing ability to sympathize and empathize with the female condition. Because I learned early on that talking to a girl about her problems or issues is the fastest way out of her pants, it’s become habit for me to simply nod or say “That sucks” when a girl has a genuine problem, even one that I can help solve. I have no desire to help a girl out with her life, and I don’t care if she falls flat on her face.
• Decreasing patience to work things out. I don’t give a girl more than one chance to act “right” because it’s so easy to find a new whore at the bar. My ability to stay in a long-term relationship, putting up with its natural ups and downs, is evaporating as I adopt the mentality of a dictator, with my bitch the subservient who must attend to my needs without making any mistakes. Over the years my temper has greatly shortened.
• Decreasing view of sex as a beautiful act of love. Sex is a mechanical means for me to relieve the pressure building up in my sack and nothing more, one small step above jerking off with my tight-gripped hand. I do not feel any closer to a girl when I pump her, and most of the time I respect her less because my opinion of her as a worthless dirty whore who probably likes being choked was proven correct.

The only way I see to reverse these consequences is to step out of the game completely and go through a massive cold streak that makes me value a woman again, to see her as something important that I need. Since I don’t see this happening, the odds that I will meet a new girl who I genuinely care for and maybe even love will be about the same as me winning the grand prize of a scratch ticket lottery game. And I’m fine with that. For now. ("The Dark Side of Game")

Speaking for the prosecution is Pope Paul VI:

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. (Humanae Vitae, 17)

The defense and prosecution are in agreement, it seems.


I've said it before, but I'll say it again, because it bears repeating: a society in which everyone strives for the ideal of chastity, where women are held as sacred, sex is not sought except within marriage, and even then it is always open to life, is a society where families stay together, children have two loving parents, divorce and domestic violence are rare, unwanted pregnancy is unheard of, and abortion and STIs are unknown. The society where chastity is unheard of is... well, we all know that society. We live in it.

Unwanted pregnancy, AIDS, sexual abuse, divorce and broken families, fatherless children, and abortion are the prices of turning away from chastity. Are they really worth a few fleeting moments of pleasure?

A Pair of Deuces, Revisited. Part II: Marriage

Part of the ongoing conversation.

Devin says: "Same-sex marriage is not asking for special recognition to gay relationships. It is simply asking for them to be seen as equal. At this junction, we have a separate but equal idea of marriage in this country. This has been the case throughout history whenever social issues have come to the forefront. When interracial marriage was introduced, it was seen as the bane of people's existence."

This seems to be a favorite line of reasoning of the proponents of gay "marriage", that of comparing it to racial inequality. Frankly, I just don't see the comparison.

Under the proposition that "all men are created equal" (and remember that is the gender-neutral definition of the word man, since context does not require it to refer to males-only)—a proposition unique to Christendom, I might add—racist actions are contrary to truth. Treating people as unequal contradicts this idea known through reason.

But the debate over gay "marriage" isn't about whom, it's about what. It's not about equality of persons, it's about equality of relationships. I have never heard it proposed that "all relationships are created equal," and to do so would be absurd. No one would (or could) argue that the relationship I have with my cat is equal to the one I have with my son, which in turn is not equal to the one I have with my wife, or the one I have with God. Each one of these relationships is different, unique, and inherently unequal.

So in order to justify gay "marriage" as an equality battle, one first has to demonstrate, contrary to common sense and empirical evidence, that homosexual relationships are equal or equivalent to heterosexual ones. Lest we forget how they differ, there is this. In order for a homosexual relationship to be equal, they would have to be capable of producing, at least in principle, something of equal value to a human life.

"Homosexuals do have the rights of everyone else except in this one. And I suppose we can take the route that marriage is not a right but a privilege, but then we get into hegemony and privilege and that becomes a controversial topic and this one is controversial enough, so let's not go there."

What? Devin avoiding controversy ;-)

Funny thing: prior to a year or two ago, I had never heard the phrase or concept "fundamental right to marry". It almost feels like I stepped into a parallel universe where this concept is one that has been taught for centuries.

But again, the thing being debated here is not the "fundamental right to marry", but rather "the fundamental right to marry whomever I wish." Slippery slope arguments apply here, as this same line of reasoning can be used to justify polygamy, incest, and really whatever other type of sexual perversion we wish.

"So I suppose the main question is why does anyone get married in the first place? Some would say love, other say for security (marriage protects the woman, the man and the children) and other say that the purpose of a marriage is to raise a family."

As I have stated before, the institution of marriage, and governments involvement in it, is to ensure that children are raised by their parents by positively encouraging people not to engage in procreation until they are ready to deal with the consequences; to positively encourage spouses to stay together; and to negatively discourage spouses from abandoning each other and their children. If marriage is simply about love, then there is no reason for societal involvement in it.

"So simply because gay people cannot have children naturally they should be unable to wed? What does that say about people who happen to be infertile? Shouldn't they follow the same rules?"

Aha! Finally, in my opinion, the only good argument against child-bearing as the reason for marriage: infertility. However, I have heard too many good arguments to consider this a promising line of reasoning for gay marriage.

Firstly, how does the couple know there infertile? It would have been impossible for the Murloc and I to know that before we got married. Secondly, if they think they're infertile, how certain can they be? Couples who have thought they were infertile have still gotten pregnant. Even if they honestly believe they can't conceive, I would prefer people act prudently and act as if they could, lest a surprise occur. This also applies to people who get married with no intention of ever having children.

But the big point here is that these infertile couples can still conceive in potentiality, even if the specifics of their situation don't permit it (technically every woman is infertile about 75% of the time). Heterosexual sex, even when infertile, is still a different kind of sex than homosexual sex, since the latter does not even have that potential. To equate homosexual relationships with infertile heterosexual relationships is to confuse the general with the specific.

"What about people who abuse their children/each other? If the purpose is for security and there is no security, should the marriage be invalidated? What about if love goes out of the equation?"

This argument is a specific type of logical fallacy. There is probably a name for it, but I only know it as "the abuse does not nullify the use."

Examples of this logical fallacy in other contexts.

Proposition: Jews are good people.
Fallacious counter-argument: But Bernie Madoff was a Jew and he swindled people out of millions of dollars.
The specific example here does not counter the goodness of every other Jew.

Proposition: The Catholic Church has been one of the driving forces for scientific progress over the last 1000 years.
Fallacious counter-argument: But Galileo Galilei was persecuted by the Church for his scientific teachings.
The specific example here does not counter the hundreds of other ways in which the Church positively encouraged the development of the scientific world view.

Proposition: Marriage ought to be between one man and one woman to provide security for the rearing of children.
Fallacious counter-argument: But a small percentage of marriages do not provide security.
The specific example here does not counter the vast majority of marriages that do, nor even the ideal form of marriage.

John C. Wright, great opponent of gay "marriage" that he is, once wrote a piece where he shot down the argument that gay marriage should not be allowed because gay marriages were not as healthy as straight ones. His words: "no one would argue that if everyone in the neighborhood but me and my bride were fornicating like bigamous weasels, a prudent magistrate would forbid legal recognition of marriage to me and my bride. How is my right to get married barred, or even influenced, by the misuse others make of their rights? If I lived in a neighborhood of slanderers, would a prudent lawmaker take away from me the right to freedom of the speech? Or would he merely punish slander?"

No, because some marriages are not the ideal in no way means that any marriage ought not try to be.

"It seems to me that there exists the idea that we should be picky about what we will allow to happen and what we won't."

In a word, duh. We ought to be incredibly picky about what we will allow to happen and what we won't. We won't allow murder, rape, theft, arson, prostitution, perjury, slander, scams, speeding, double-parking, false advertising, or medical malpractice. To name a few. The purpose of the law is exactly to be picky about what we will and won't allow to happen.

"I don't disagree that we live in a society of instant gratification and entitlement. And perhaps there are far too many easy ways out, but what does this have to do with marriage."

In brief, the prudent use of sex requires self control, which is contrary to the philosophy of instant gratification. The desire for instant gratification as it pertains to sex requires that sex be consequence-free and marriage be unnecessary. Both of those in turn lead to permitting gay "marriage" and the need to do away with the consequences of sex.

"Because one person might consider being homosexual to be a sin does not mean that that person does."

Largely irrelevant. I could substitute just about anything in place of homosexuality and still have a true statement ("Because one person might consider slavery/racism/murder/child prostitution to be a sin does not mean that another person does.") The universality/commonality or lack thereof of a belief has no bearing on its truth value.

Also, a point of semantics (which I think you knew) is that the Catholic Church does not consider being homosexual to be a sin. Sin is an act of volition. Homosexuality is a condition and therefore cannot be a sin. Acting on homosexual desires can be a sin. We will sometimes call homosexuality a disordered inclination.

"You are more than willing to call me all sorts of horrible names (although I know that you never would - that's the thing I honest and truly love about Jesus), but it doesn't mean that I would call myself them nor accept your titles."

I hope you meant the first part rhetorically. If I ever gave the impression that I want to call you names or think ill of you, I sincerely apologize. It is not my desire or intent to insult or denigrate you.

"The attitudes of sex in this country are off, yes it's true. The attitude of sex should be: Here is the situation. Here are the possible consequences. Here's why you should not do it before you are ready/married (however you choose to put it). Here's the best way to not have to deal with them - Have respect for your body. Have love for yourself. Have trust and faith in your decisions and your intuitions. Have enough self-respect and self-confidence to ignore what the media/peers tell you. Surround yourself with like-minded people or have enough chutzpah to tell those you choose to surround yourself with to piss off. However, just because that is how we should raise our children does not mean that our ideal has the potential to come true."

Applause! A beautifully written paragraph, it perfectly expresses my thoughts and warms my heart to know we agree so perfectly on at least this one thing.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Teaching self respect and prudence are extremely important to combating the dangers of unwanted pregnancy and STIs. The difficulty is that when society, the media, and peers have nothing but contempt for those values, it is extremely difficult for parents (who, remember, are often the epitome of un-cool to teenagers) to teach this message. I worry that a society that embraces consequence-free sex will make the parents' job that much harder.

I think that one reason you may have difficulty understanding this (if you do have difficulty), is that from what I know about you, you were unlike most teenagers. You respected yourself and loved your parents. You put on the role of a wholesome person with the ease that post people put on a shirt. This is not so easy for many other people. Many, if not most, teenagers struggle with this. The teenage years are when kids begin to question the wisdom of their parents and open themselves to dangerous influences. In order for these teenagers to not fall into dangerous pits, society has to help the parents by not doing everything it can to undermine them.

"I cannot see how same-sex marriage would weaken marriage. I have never been able to see how love can weaken marriage."

You might have a point here if any kind of love were sufficient for marriage. But that is not the case. I love Damien, my mother and father, and my brother and sister, but not with the kind of love required for marriage. Marriage requires a special bond of conjugal love, the kind that physically manifests itself in the person of the child it creates. Changing marriage so that it involves another type of love, no matter how true or real, threatens to change society's idea of the institution so that people no longer think the special conjugal love is required.

"The institution of marriage has been challenged by lack of respect for our spouses, lack of love for our spouses, lack of conviction, enthusiasm in temptation and lack of condemnation from friends."

I could not agree with you more. A brilliant observation. Brava!

"I can see what you mean about the separation between homosexuals and heterosexuals in the realm of responsibility for their actions regarding the possible consequences of sex. However, you cannot negate the fact that things just don't work any other way. I like the analogy, but it doesn't work the biology department."

You are, of course, correct. The consequences of an instance of homosex are minute compared to the consequences of imprudent heterosex. The homosexuals haven't irresponsibly risked the creation of a life for which they are unprepared to care and love. This is why I harbor sympathy and perhaps a bit of pity (but not in a condescending way) for homosexuals. They don't appear to harm anyone with their acts, but yet I can't condone it simply because doing so would condone the separation of sex and procreation.

"I agree that the choice is between all those things, but I cannot understand how homosexual unions equal sorrow."

If the equation were true, if homosexual unions always and inevitably lead to sorrow, then gay marriage would not even be an issue. It would be plain for all the world to see that this type of relationship could never be good. But that is of course not the case.

Perhaps one of the greatest definitions of sin I have ever heard was one given by Fr. Robert, a resident priest at our parish. "Sin," he says, "is a love of the good in the wrong way." If all sin automatically lead to misery, then no one would ever do it. It would be too obvious and no one would take the risk. But sin, as Father points out, involves love of something good. Since love is involved, the harm of the sin may be blurred or obfuscated by the love, and the sinner may get away with his sin with no harm. This is sin's greatest strength. But the good of love can still work through the sin, and that is sin's greatest weakness.

Of course, this is a theological discussion and has no place in a discussion of political ramifications. I understand your frustration with this seemingly false dichotomy that gay marriage automatically leads to unwanted pregnancy. I myself have difficulty seeing the connection, which is why I humbly defer to the wisdom of others; my Church, my parents, the philosophers, and other wise men and women who see the connections between the philosophy that permits gay marriage and the one that breaks down the sexual boundaries protecting women, men, and children.

It would be wonderful if human nature was pliable enough that we could completely disassociate these two philosophies. If gays behaved as perfectly as chaste Christians, saved themselves for their spouses, practiced the virtues of prudence and self-mastery, and discouraged fornication amongst themselves and others, then I would have no argument. But this is not the case. There is a connection between acceptance of homosexuality and unchastity in heterosexual relationships, even if it is only a non-causal correlation. They seem to come together. Perhaps it is a false dichotomy to say that you can either do away with gay marriage or unwanted pregnancy, but history appears to tell us otherwise. When the world turned away from chastity, it opened itself to both homosexuality and the behaviors that lead to sorrow and tears for the women sitting in the doctor's office, awaiting the results of their pregnancy test. Maybe these two can be separated. Maybe we can create world where women are always loved, children are always embraced and never thought of as a punishment, and homosexuality is accepted. But sad human experience indicates otherwise. I simply cannot see how fallen men are capable of such a world.

A Pair of Deuces, Revisited. Part I: Abortion

I put on my robe and John C. Wright hat.


Devin has responded to my arguments that marriage does not apply to homosexual relationships. She has done so in more words than I used to make the original post. Her comment warrants a more detailed reply than what will fit in a combox, so I will dedicate two posts to it. This, the first post, deals with the first part of her reply, about the seemingly-unrelated topic of abortion. It is actually somewhat appropriate considering there is a direct and strong link between homosexual "marriage" and abortion, which I will talk about later.

Devin linked to a video from NARAL where several women spoke of alleged misinformation given to them at an unnamed "Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center". I watched the video, and my first response was the word most commonly written in red ink on my history papers by Miss Smyth, my high school history teacher: "evidence". I.e., the lack thereof. Unlike the video I linked, which shows the statements of a nurse in a Planned Parenthood clinic giving false information to a patient, the NARAL video consists only of a series of women stating things which allegedly they were told at an unnamed crisis pregnancy center, like neighbors gossiping over the fence. No context is given for these statements. We are not told who made them, if they were in printed materials, if they were spoken, what the context was, if they represent the view of one recently-hired nurse or the director of the center. We are not told the affiliation of the center, if it was run by a major national pro-life organization or out of someone's garage. All those details are left to the viewers imagination to encourage us, I guess, to assume the worst.

For these reasons alone, I could dismiss the entire video as uninformative and unhelpful, but I will address the allegations point by point.

First alleged statement: HIV can swim through the holes in condoms.
Well, if there are holes in the condom, this is true. But I assume the statement refers to the urban legend that HIV is small enough to fit between the molecules of the condom, or whatever.

While this has been debunked, it is largely irrelevant the point about condoms' ineffectiveness. The typical use conception rate for condoms is 10-18% per year [Guttmacher Institute (1992). "Choice of Contraceptives". The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics 34 (885): 111–114]. That means if 100 women use condoms as their primary form of birth control for one year, 10-18 of them are expected to get pregnant. The "perfect" use pregnancy rate is 2% per year.

The rate of breakage is between 0.4% and 2.3%, while the rate of slippage is between 0.6% and 1.3%. [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services (2001-07-20). "Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention".] Even if no breakage or slippage is observed, 1–2% of women will test positive for semen residue after intercourse with a condom. [Walsh, T; Frezieres, R; Peacock, K; Nelson, A; Clark, V; Bernstein, L; Wraxall, B (2004). "Effectiveness of the male latex condom: combined results for three popular condom brands used as controls in randomized clinical trials". Contraception 70 (5): 407–13.]

So while the details of the alleged statement may be wrong, the message is correct: condoms can't always protect against HIV.

Second alleged statement: Your risk of breast cancer almost doubles after one abortion.
This is a true statement, or near enough to it. If the National Cancer Institute disagrees, then they have their collective heads stuck firmly in the sand, to the detriment and harm of women worldwide.

Here is a list of studies that have found more than a two-fold increase in breast cancer risk after abortion:

• M. Segi, et al., “An Epidemiological Study on Cancer in Japan,” GANN, Vol. 48, Supplement: April, 1957.
• Pike, et al., (1981) British Journal of Cancer 43 Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women 
• Nishiyama, (1982) Shikoku Ichi 38: 333-43
• Laing et al., (1993) Journal of the National Medical Association 85:931-9 Breast cancer risk factors in African - American women: the Howard University Tumor Resistry experience
• Laing, et al., (1994) Genetic Epidemiology 11:A300 Rohan et al. American Journal of Epidemiology September 1988;128(3):478-89.
• Rohan, et al., American Journal of Epidemiology 1988 Sep;128(3):478-89
• A population-based case-control study of diet and breast cancer in Australia.
• Bu, et al., (1995) American Journal of Epidemiology 141:S85

Here is a list of studies that show an increased risk of breast cancer, due to abortion.

• Ye, et al., (2002) British Journal of Cancer 87:977-981
• Brinton, et al., (1983) British Journal of Cancer 47:757-62 Reproductive factors in the etiology of breast cancer.
• Rosenburg, et al., (1988) American Journal of Epidemiology 127:981-9 Breast cancer in relation to the occurrence and time of induced and spontaneous abortion.
• Marcus, et al., American Journal of Public Health 1999 Aug; 89(8):1244-7 Adolescent reproductive events and subsequent breast cancer risk.
• Palmer, et al. (1997) Cancer Causes Control 8:841-9 Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to risk of breast cancer.
• Lazovich, et al., Epidemiology 2000 Jan;11(1):76-80 Induced abortion and breast cancer risk.
• Daling, et al., American Journal of Epidemiology 1996 Aug 15;144(4):373-80 Risk of breast cancer among White women following induced abortion.
• Daling, et al., Journal of National Cancer Institute 1994 Nov 2;86(21):1584-92 Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion.
• Laing, et al., Journal of National Medical Association 1993 Dec;85(12):931-9 Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: the Howard University Tumor Registry experience.
• White, et al., (1994) Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86:505-14 Breast cancer among young U.S. women in relation to oral contraceptive use.
• Newcomb, et al., (1996) Journal of the American Medical Association 275:283-7 Pregnancy termination in relation to risk of breast cancer.
• Howe, et al., International Journal of Epidemiology 1989 June;18(2):300-4 Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40.
• Andrieu, et al., British Journal of Cancer 1995 Sep;72(3):744-51 Familial risk, abortion and their interactive effect on the risk of breast cancer—a combined analysis of six case-control studies.
• Hirohata, et al., (1985) National Cancer Institute Monograph 69:187-90 Occurrence of breast cancer in relation to diet and reproductive history: a case-control study in Fukuoka, Japan.
• Ewertz & Duffy (1988) British Journal of Cancer 68:99-104 Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark.
• Lipworth, et al., (1995) Int Journal Cancer 61:181-4 Abortion and the risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Greece
• Rookus & van Leeuwan Journal Natl Cancer Inst 88:1759-64 Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study
• Talamini et al. (1996) Eur Journal Cancer 32A:303-10 The role of reproductive and menstrual factors in cancer of the breast before and after menopause
• Watanabe & Hirayama (1968) Nippon Rinsho 26:1853-9
• Dvoirin & Medvedev (1978) Meth Prog Breast Cancer Epidemiol Research, Tallin 1978. USSR Acad Sci pp 53-63 (In Russian)
• Le, et al., (1984) British Journal of Cancer 72:744-51
• Luporsi, (1988) British Journal of Cancer 72:744-51
• Wu et al., (1996) British Journal of Cancer 73:680-6
• Robertson, Van Den Donk, Primic-Zakelj, MacFarlane, Boyle, The association
• between induced and spontaneous abortion and risk of breast cancer
• in Slovenian women aged 25-54. Breast 2001; 10:291-8.

Thirteen of 15 studies conducted on post-abortive American women report increased risk of breast cancer. Seventeen studies are statistically significant and 16 found increased risk. Most of the studies were conducted by abortion supporters. The first study was published in an English publication in 1957 and focused on Japanese women. It showed a 2.6 relative risk, or 160-percent, increased risk of breast cancer among women who had abortions. These studies suggest that an induced abortion causes biological changes to occur in a woman’s breasts which make her more susceptible to breast cancer. Approximately 1 in 100 women procuring an abortion is expected to die as a result of abortion-induced breast cancer. [M. Segi, I. Fukushima and M. Kurihara, An Epidemiological Study on Cancer in Japan, GANN (Japanese Journal
of Cancer Research) 48 (Suppl.) (1957): 1-63.]

As of March, 2002, there have been published in the worldwide medical literature 37 studies reporting data on the risk of breast cancer among women with a history of induced abortion. Twenty-eight of these studies report increased risk. Thirteen of the 15 American studies report increased risk, eight with statistical significance (at least 95 percent probability that the result is not due to chance) irrespective of age at first full term pregnancy. The relative risk increase of the 37 studies combined is 30 percent. [(2002, July). APLOG Statement on Abortion & The Risk of Breast Cancer, Physicians for Life.]

Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself supportive of a right to perform abortions, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream with her federally funded research on the topic. Her report, released in 1994, found a 50% increase in breast cancer risk due to induced abortion. She said, "I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid and our data is accurate."

Even Planned Parenthood admits the breast cancer/abortion connection: “It is known that having a full-term pregnancy early in a woman’s childbearing years is protective against breast cancer. ... Interruption during the first trimester of a first pregnancy causes a cessation of cell differentiation, which may result in a subsequent
increase in the risk of cancerous growth in these tissues.” [(1997, September 5). Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, Inc. Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Issues 3.]

This is what I found in about 30 minutes of searching. One could write volumes on the proven link between abortion and breast cancer, and volumes have been written, but I will stop here, my case having been made.

To address the National Cancer Institute's study, their summary report, "Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer," reached contradictory conclusions with respect to the link between abortion and breast cancer. It acknowledges one of the two breast cancer risks associated with abortion - the protective effect of a full term pregnancy - but then contradicts itself by stating that "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk." And during the production of that study, Pro-life scientists were almost entirely barred from the National Cancer Institute's "study" of the link, and its resulting statements were fatally flawed.

The pro-abortion activists are tipping their hand here. They demonstrate that the sacrament of abortion is so sacred to them, so paramount, that they are willing to ignore evidence. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of women to uphold the "right" to slaughter an innocent babe in the womb. I hold nothing but contempt for these people's lies.

Third alleged statement: 28% of women attempt suicide after an abortion.
This is a slight misquote of a Finnish study. With no context to NARAL's claims, it's impossible to determine if the crisis pregnancy worker was misquoting the study, or the NARAL supporter was misquoting the crisis pregnancy worker:

According to the study, "approximately 60 percent of women who experience post-abortion sequelae report suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, and half attempted suicide two or more times. Researchers in Finland identified a strong statistical association between abortion and suicide in a records-based study. They identified 73 suicides associated within one year to a pregnancy ending either naturally or by induced abortion. The mean annual suicide rate for all women was 11.3 per 100,000. Suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9). Rates for pregnancy loss were significantly higher. For miscarriage, the rate was 18.1 per 100,000 and for abortion 34.7 per 100,000. The suicide rate within one year after an abortion was three times higher than for all women, seven times higher than for women carrying to term and nearly twice as high as for women who suffered a miscarriage. Suicide attempts appear to be especially prevalent among post-abortion teenagers." [A. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1987). M. Gissler, E. Hemminki and J. Lonnqvist, “Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study,” British Journal of Medicine 313 (1996): 1431-4.C. N.Campbell, K.Franco, and S. Jurs, “Abortion in Adolescence,” Adolescence, 23(92) (1988): 813-823. H.Vaughan, “Canonical Variates of Post-Abortion Syndrome,” Portsmouth, NH: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1990.]

So it's not 28% of women who obtain abortions; it's 28% of women who experience psychological trauma related to those abortions. The number of women who experience post-traumatic stress  disorder (PTSD) due to abortions is difficult to determine. A Russian study puts the figure at about 46% [N. Mufel, A. Speckhard and S. Sivuha, Predictors of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Following Abortion in a Former Soviet Union Country, Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health 17(1) Fall 2002.], while an American study put the number at a minimum of 19% [C. Barnard, The Long-Term Psychological Effects of Abortion (Portsmouth, N.H.: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1990)].

Fourth alleged statement: The more abortions you have, the more you miscarry.
True statement. The health risks that abortion causes with subsequent pregnancies are well-documented. At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in women with prior induced abortions. Abortion is significantly related to an increased risk of subsequent ectopic pregnancies. Induced abortion increased the odds of ectopic pregnancy four-fold over live birth. Ectopic pregnancies, in turn, are life threatening and may result in reduced fertility. [A. Levin, S. Schoenbaum, P. Stubblefield, S. Zimicki, R. Monson and K. Ryan., “Ectopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion,” American Journal of Public Health 72 (1982): 253. C.S. Chung, “Induced Abortion and Ectopic Pregnancy in Subsequent Pregnancies,” American Journal of Epidemiology 115 (6) (1982): 879-887.

A Boston study by a group who have aggressively done abortions denied any increase after one abortion, but, after two or more abortions, they did find a "two-to three-fold increase in risk of first trimester spontaneous abortions [miscarriages]," as well as "losses up to 28 weeks gestation." [Levin et al., "Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss," JAMA, vol. 243, no. 24, June 27, 1980, pp. 2495-2499.]

Women who had one, two, or more previous induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.66 or 2.03 times more likely to have a subsequent preterm delivery, compared to women who carry to term. Prior induced abortion not only increased the risk of premature delivery, it also increased the risk of delayed delivery. Women who had one, two or more induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.61 and 2.23 times more likely to have a post-term delivery (over 42 weeks). [Z. Weijin, et al., “Induced Abortion and Subsequent Pregnancy Duration,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 94 (6) (December 1999): 948-953.]

Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5% rate in a non-aborted group. [Richardson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination on Subsequent Pregnancy," British Med. Jour., vol. 1, 1976, pp. 1303-4.]

Women who had delivered their first pregnancy had (in the second pregnancy) the "best reproductive performance." Those who had a spontaneous miscarriage on the first had "the highest frequency of an early loss." Those with induced abortion on their first had "the highest frequency of late spontaneous abortion and premature delivery." [Koller & Eikham, "Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion in Primagravida" Acta OB-GYN Scand, 56 (1977) p. 311.]

"In a series of 520 patients who had previously been aborted, 8.6% had premature labor compared to 4.4% of [non-aborted] controls." [G. Ratten et al., "Effect of Abortion on Maturity of Subsequent Pregnancy," Med. Jour. of Australia, June 1979, pp. 479-480.]

"The induced abortion group had the highest incidence of late spontaneous abortion and premature delivery." [O. Kaller et al., "Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion in Primigravidae," Acta OB GYN Scandinavia, vol. 56, 1977, pp. 311-317.]

Fifth alleged statement: STDs can hide in the vagina, crawl up into the fallopian tubes and make you infertile.

Aside from the cartoonish idea of an STD hiding and crawling, NARAL's response agrees with the pregnancy center's statement, that STDs/STIs can cause infertility. We are in agreement on this one.

As a point of fact, neither the Murloc nor I have ever been tested for STDs. I can only imagine that it would be "important" to get regular check ups for these things if you decide to live the type of dangerous lifestyle, in opposition to prudence and common sense, that would put you at risk. Wisdom teaches us that STDs/STIs are easily avoided.

Sixth alleged statement: You probably have several STDs from sleeping around, and you’ll be dead before college if you continue this lifestyle.

It is to laugh. NARAL expects us to believe that this represents the type of official information given by crisis pregnancy centers? What was the context for the statement? Did the NARAL advocate accuse the crisis worker of hating women, or tell her her mother was a whore? Was this part of a heated debate over abortion in which the worker lost her cool? We can never know.

Expressing care for others by urging them away from a dangerous lifestyle, i.e., one that carries a risk of STDs is noble and an expression of Christian charity. One simply has to be careful of the words one uses to do so. The worker's heart may have been in the right place, even if her head was not.

Seventh alleged statement: If you have an abortion, your next baby will be twice as likely to die in the first few months of life.

See point four about the increased risk of ectopic pregnancy. The actual increased risk is four-fold. True statement.

Eighth and ninth alleged statements: Because the doctor can’t see what he’s doing, he could accidentally suck out your bowels. During an abortion, the uterine lining can be pulled out entirely, and, once it gets pulled out, it will never grow back.

Context required. Worker is likely confused. Abortion does carry a risk of uterine and cervical damage. Between two and three percent of all abortion patients may suffer perforation of their uterus, yet most of these injuries will remain undiagnosed and untreated unless laparoscopic visualization is performed. [S. Kaali, et al., “The Frequency and Management of Uterine Perforations During First-Trimester Abortions,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 161 (August 1989): 406-408. M.White, “A Case-Control Study of Uterine Perforations documented at Laparoscopy,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 129

(1977): 623.]

Uterine rupture occurs during labor in almost 1% of cases when women have had earlier first trimester abortions. [140 D. Nemec et al., "Medical Abortion Complications," OB & GYN, vol. 51, no. 4, April 1978, pp. 433-436.]

In addition to overt injury to the cervix during suction curettage, covert trauma is also important. Microfractures of the cervix may occur during forceful dilatation of the cervix, which may lead to persistent structural changes, cervical incompetence, premature delivery and pregnancy complications. [K.Schulz, et al., “Measures to Prevent Cervical Injuries During Suction Curettage Abortion,” The Lancet (May 28, 1983): 1182-1184.]

The statement there is a “preponderance of evidence that abortion does not impair women’s future fertility" is a lie. The preponderance of evidence is that abortion harms a woman's future fertility. Tipping the hand, the sacrament of abortion, once again, is more important to these people than women's wellbeing.

Tenth alleged statement: When you have an abortion, the cervix is forced open and sometimes it won’t go back to it’s original size. This can lead to miscarriages since it isn’t closed properly.

Basically true statement. See fourth, eighth, and ninth points, about risks of abortion on subsequent pregnancies, and damage to uterus and cervix.

Eleventh alleged statement: Many women who have had an abortion now have bad flashbacks whenever they hear a vacuum.

True statement. Nowhere does it say that all women are the same. NARAL's response is a strawman and a lie.

Twelfth alleged statement: Everyone who has an abortion regrets it even if she says she doesn't.

An exaggeration, but largely true. 

Dr. Anne Speckhard, of the University of Minnesota, published a study on women who had abortions. These women reported:

Preoccupation with the aborted child 81%

Flashbacks of the abortion experience 73%

Feelings of “craziness” after abortion 69%

Nightmares related to the abortion 54%

Perceived visitations from dead child 35%

Hallucinations related to the abortion 23%

[A. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1987).]

Dr. Hanna Söderberg, the lead author of a study, conducted interviews with women one year after their abortions. Her research team found that approximately 60 percent of the women in their sample of 854 women had experienced emotional distress after their abortions. This distress was classified as “severe,” warranting professional psychiatric attention, among 16 percent of the women. The research team noted that over 70 percent of the women stated that they would never consider an abortion again if they faced an unwanted pregnancy. [H. Söderberg, C. Andersson, L. Janzon and N. Sjöberg. Selection bias in a study on how women experienced induced abortion. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 77 (1998): 67-70. H. Söderberg, L. Janzon N. Sjöberg. (1998). Emotional distress following induced abortion: A study of its incidence and determinants among abortees in Malmo, Sweden. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (1998): 173-178.]

In a study of post-abortion patients eight weeks after their abortion, 55 percent of the women expressed at least some guilt feelings, 44 percent complained of nervous symptoms, 36 percent had experienced sleep disturbances, 31 percent had regrets about their decision, 11 percent had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by a doctor, eight percent believed they had make a mistake by having an abortion and eight percent

reported worsening guilt feelings. [J.Ashton, “The Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion,” British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 87 (1980): 1115-1122.]

Thirteenth alleged statement: The only birth control you need is abstinence.

True statement. NARAL and I agree on this one. Their further statement "it also indicates that there are no other options," is a strawman and a lie. The original statement says no such thing.

That aside, abstinence is the only 100% reliable option. Women have gotten pregnant on the pill (a friend of mine got pregnant three times, each on a different kind of pill), when using condoms, when using any imaginable form of birth control (including NFP). The only responsible way of dealing with pregnancy is not to have sex unless you are ready to deal with the consequences. That is the message of chastity, of the Church throughout its 2000 year history, and the message that NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, and all those who profit through abortion want to suppress. To promote contraceptives as a viable alternative to abstinence for the unmarried is like promoting drunk driving as a viable alternative to calling a cab. Yes, you will likely get home, maybe even safely. But the risks and the potential for injuries do no make it worth it. Those who attempt to live by the virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude, and wisdom cannot substitute safety and health for mere personal pleasure, nor condone such in the behavior of others.

A perfectly monogamous society would have no concept of such things as unwanted pregnancy and STIs. We as a society can choose between those two options: free sex or free Life. So long as sex is seen as consequence-free, we will need contraceptives. So long as we use contraceptives, there will be failures. So long as there are failures, there will be unwanted pregnancy. And so long as there is unwanted pregnancy, there will be abortion.

That is the link from gay "marriage" to abortion. To paraphrase Mark Shea, show me a society that hates chastity, and I'll show you a society that hates children. The society that encourages fornication will find the need to do away with the inconvenient result of it:

An inconvenient result. Not worthy of protection. Does not have a right to life.

Conclusion

The biggest difference between the alleged misinformation of the Unnamed Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center and the lies of Planned Parenthood has not yet been mentioned: Crisis Pregnancy Centers are suppressed by the government, while Planned Parenthood is encouraged. As you point out, the city of Baltimore is trying to steer people away from the crisis pregnancy centers (no other charity is required to list the services it doesn't perform). However, Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of dollars every year from the federal government. That makes their lies government-subsidized.

There is one more difference worth mentioning. The alleged misinformation given by the Unnamed Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center is at debatable, or an exaggeration, or true in concept but false in details, it is at least in some way related to the truth. You and I can debate endlessly, linking and quoting surveys and studies. We can dismiss each other's references with charges of bias or argumentum ad hominem as you have dismissed the pro-life sources and I have dismissed the National Cancer Institute's findings. A study can be made to say whatever it is you want it to say. But the crisis center claims were at least backed up by something. There is some evidence, some piece of information that supports the claims, even if it is misquoted or exaggerated.

Planned Parenthood's statement about the humanity, or lack thereof, of the unborn cannot make any such claim. The worker's statement that "there is no head, no brain, no arms, no legs, no heart," has absolutely no basis in fact. No evidence can be brought to support it. No scientific report could be misinterpreted to make her think the baby does not have the shape of a human. The statement cannot be justified or explained away as being partially true. It is simply not true. It is the exact opposite of truth. It is a Lie.

Part II to follow when I'm done playing StarCraft II I have time.

I am so S-M-R-T

A point I made several months ago has been confirmed by John C. Wright!

Me, on 12/17/09, commenting how I find it odd that the left is so forgiving towards radical Islam, despite that it is anti-sexual revolution.

Mark Shea agreed with this point, and drew the parallel to alliances made against the Real Magisterium. I suppose this makes sense from the diabolical chess point of view—the devil plays his pawns as one team—but not from the human reason point of view. The pawn can't see the whole chess board, so why should he trust the black pawn next to him, who in other circumstances would slit his throat? I mean, it's not like the pawns actually believe there's an all-seeing and all-evil mind behind their moves.

John C. Wright, on 6/25/10, commenting on the left's dog-piling on the new Sex in the City movie for being culturally insensitive.

It must seem a mysterious phenomena to those of you who are economically conservative and culturally liberal, Objectivists and so on, that the wing of the Leftist part who seems to agree with your basic “Government cannot legislate morality” stance. So why are your ex-allies siding with the Paynim over the Swingers? The answer cannot be given in your world view, since your model of the universe does not admit of the entities necessary to explain the facts. To my co-religionists, I will merely drop the hint that the sexual revolution cannot do any further major damage to the Church, its work is done, and therefore the Dark Lord who rules this world of sorrow has dropped this weapon and now picks up a new one, called Radical Islam in one hand, and Multiculturalism in the other.

As I said, S-M-R-T.

The Power of the Feminine

So babby's aunt/godmother is staying with us this weekend, which provided the Murloc and meself with free babbysitting. We took the opportunity to go out to the movies (the first time since we saw Half-Blood Prince!) and went to see the non-Imax, non-3D Alice in Wonderland.

The movie was entertaining and visually splendid, but suffered from the same thing every Tim Burton movie I've ever seen; that is, it's formulaic and the characters didn't engage me. With the possibility of Victor Van Dort, I can't think of a single Tim Burton character that I cared for enough that I would have been emotionally moved by the character's death. I think part of it stems from an unclear character dramatic need and motivation. (So what's Alice's dramatic goal, upon reaching Wonderland? How does Charlie's deep-seated want influence his actions once he's in the chocolate factory?) Also, within ten minutes of the start of Alice, I predicted how it was going to end and even what her final speech was going to be, with a great degree of accuracy (and I'm talking more than just general "the good guys win" prediction).

About the time Alice donned the silver armor and rode into battle with the Vorpal sword to slay the Jabberwocky (that's really not that big of a spoiler; see: predictability), I realized why my co-worker liked the movie so much, and why she urged me to see it, to the point of offering to babysit. Alice is definitely the strong female character, but as I watched, I began to wonder whether she was in fact a strong female character, or a strong character, who just happened to be female. When I thought about it, I realized that she didn't have a single pronounced feminine trait, and had the movie been Bob in Wonderland, it would not have been significantly different or fundamentally changed.

(And we have seen this movie staring a man before. It's called Harry Skywalker and the Dragon of Narnia. In the only-six-plots-in-the-world school of thought, this movie is "boy destined to destroy evil; boy resists destiny; boy finally fulfills destiny," except replace "boy" with "girl". Not that this is a bad thing. I happen to like this plot, thank you very much. But in this particular movie, it's hampered by the fact that Alice's dramatic need is that she wants to be the master of her destiny, and not have to live to other's expectations of her. Her arc of change (learning to forge her own destiny) is kind of incongruous with the movie's events (fulfill other's expectations of her destiny).)

One might argue that everyone expecting her to marry and be a good wife is a part of the movie that only works if Alice is a woman. But this would still work even if the main character was male. The expectation could have been for him to take a wife and follow into his father's business when he wanted to do his own thing.

This is something I've been aware of for a while. Where are the strong female characters? I mean the characters who are strong because of their femininity, instead of in spite of it? This was something that bugged me all the way through "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". After seven seasons, she still didn't have a single trait that required she be a woman. And in fact the other strong "female" character, by which I mean strong character who was female (Willow), had some distinctively masculine traits, i.e., being in love with a woman. This is a problem with all of Joss' shows. Typically speaking, his strong women are usually strong men who happen to have two X chromosomes.

(And this flows directly from my issues with modern pseudo-feminism: that is, women become strong by becoming just like men. "The basic flaw is that feminists start by seeking equality," writes John C. Wright in a recent post, "but finish by seeking androgyny." Women are told that in order to find equality, they need to be like men. Of course, this goal is in direct conflict with biological, psychological, and spiritual realities, in which women are not men. The end result of this philosophy has women rejecting there bodies, and becoming both physically and psychologically sterile.)

I started thinking about female characters who I liked, who were actually strong women, not strong humans. Princess Leia sprung to mind almost immediately. But how is she feminine? I mean, she's good with a blaster, strong leader of her people... y'know, masculine traits. But then I realized that's not what makes her strong. She's a strong character primarily because of how she influences the other characters, namely the men, and namely Han Solo. Luke (a character with an extremely clear dramatic need, as opposed to Burton's characters; he states it outright: "I want to become a Jedi like my father before me") joins the rebellion because of Leia. Han sticks around and changes from scoundrel to noble because of Leia. She really shows the true power of femininity; that is, women have power over men.

A man's power over a woman is purely physical. He can beat her up and take what he wants, but if he is civilized and taught that women are not men (an idea the pseudo-feminists are rapidly trying to expunge), he won't. But a woman's power is so much more than that. If she wants something, all she need do is bat her eyelashes and smile sweetly.

Understanding this relationship also throws St. Paul's teachings into clarity. He puts as head of the family the member who is most easily swayed by the needs of the other, then tells him to love his family as part of his own body. Any guy can understand this, because we already act as servants of our bodies. If it itches, we scratch. If it's hungry, we feed it. If it wants a beer, we drink. To say that we should server the needs of our wives as we do that of our bodies is language any caveman (and let's face it, men are just barely one step above cavemen, largely due to the efforts of women) can understand.

I think at least on a subconscious level, I understood this. When I started writing Jack Flint: Space Pirate (you knew this was coming!) I wanted to write the anti-Joss woman (understandably, because JF:SP is partly my rebuttal to "Firefly.") (Of course, you write what you know, and since I don't know what it's like to be a woman, that sort of leaves out writing a realistic female character, so I did what I assume every other male author does and wrote my fantasy of a woman.)

Regina Burke is my idea of the strong female character. While she is certainly a strong character who happens to be a woman—Jack of all trades, master of many; she's the best pilot Redemptrix has ever had, a good engineer, can handle the guns, and even helps the ship's cook—that's not what makes her a strong female character. Instead, her real strength comes from the one quality she has as a woman that no man can have: her influence on Jack. She, and she alone can stand up to Jack, change his mind, and push him to do good. Not even Jack's long time friend and first mate can manage that. I mean, how could he? Male-male relationships are won by strength alone, and Jack has superior strength over Damian, by virtue of rank. Regina, even though she is the lowest ranking member of the crew, has a power no one else has.

And this is a similar trait that, I realize, all my heroines—written and un-written—have. Father Max's assistant (when I write her), and the heroine of the story I will write when I finish Father Max. </toot my own horn>

This is only what I intend, of course. Whether or not I am good enough to translate the thoughts in my head to words on a page is left as an exercise for the reader.

* * *

"Miss Burke," Jack finally started after a long deliberation. "When I give an order on me ship to me crew, I am accustomed to having it followed."


"Excuse me, sir?"

"Back on the fluyt, you disobeyed me direct order to await me return before leaving. Now, I find this a disgusting display of insubordinate behavior."

"Your order reeked, Captain," Burke retorted. "It would have gotten us all killed. Had I stayed for your arrival, you wouldn't have had a ship to come back to."

"Well that is most certainly your opinion, but your reckless actions nearly got you killed anyways, or have you forgotten the EMP you flew me ship into?"

Burke narrowed her eyes and pointed at Jack. "You are not blaming that on me! Your junk heap of a ship failed on me. I saved her at every turn and came up with the plan to defend her without power."

"Me 'junk heap' was working just fine when I left her. Me engine mate could have fixed any problems you had. Maybe if you had waited for him, instead of rashly running off to battle, we wouldn't have even needed your defense plan—which I might point out only worked because of the stupidity of your enemy and not any cleverness on your part. Or perhaps you're too busy trying to do every job yourself, except those I give you."

She made a noise of disgust and rolled her eyes. He continued. "I am the captain of this ship and as such, you will show me the respect me position deserves. And as captain, me orders are final and should be obeyed without question."

"Well, Captain," Burke said snidely, "you're only such because you stole this ship from Lord knows who, not because of some merit-based promotion. Now, judging by your crew's unwavering loyalty, I'd guess that normally your orders warrant respect, but when you're giving orders that will result in the death of your crew, I'm very disinclined to follow them."

"Miss Burke, you are completely out of line. Now as far as disciplinary action—"

"Cut the crap, Jack," she blurted out. "I know your attitude towards me is just part of your 'breaking-in' process. You want to learn if I work under pressure. That's fine. I can deal with it. I served in the armed forces. But I've bled for you." She pointed at the crusted blood on her forehead. "And this marks the second time I've saved your skin without so much as a 'thank you.' I think I've demonstrated my trustworthiness, so you can back off a little."

She stared at him, arms akimbo, her blue eyes looked as if lasers might shoot out of them. Jack returned her glare. She was a good six inches shorter than he, and stared up at him, but didn't back down one bit. He felt the fury boil under his skin. "Miss Burke, you're dismissed," he said coldly, not able to think of anything else to say.

She didn't move. She didn't even shift her gaze.

"That means 'get out'," he explained. But she remained rooted in place. After a few moments he sighed and asked, "Is there something else, Miss Burke?"

"Yes," she replied, with a certain sharpness in her tone. "I think you owe me an explanation."

Jack could feel his ire rising. This was too much. "I do, do I? About what?"

"I think I deserve to know what I've gotten myself into."

"What's your meaning?" Jack said, feigning ignorance. He was afraid he might know the direction she was heading.

"You had been on that fluyt before." Jack was about to raise an objection but she beat him to it. "And don't try to deny it. You knew the layout. You knew which quarters were which. You knew exactly where to find the disk."

"Aye, so I did. Were you going somewhere with this?"

"Yes. It's not a hard jump to make from realizing you were on that ship to realizing you attacked that ship. Which means that, apparently, I'm now the pilot on what's probably the most wanted ship in the system. So I wonder, Captain, what other sorts of jobs am I going to have to perform? Anything that could get me thrown in prison for life or strung up by my neck?"

Jack chortled dismissively. "Miss Burke, you may have only just now noticed, but we're privateers. And since the laws of space change depending on the whims of lawmen and the alignment of the planets, we, almost by definition, do jobs of questionable legality. We're not in the US Navy, so we don't have the luxury of making up the laws by which we want to abide. So if you're suddenly concerned or are getting cold feet that you might have to steal—"
 
Burke cut him off. "Stealing's not my concern here, Captain. I understand I'll have to do a bit of that. I'm more concerned about murder. I saw at least one dead man on that ship, and I can only imagine what happened to the rest."


And with that, she had hit on something that had been nagging at Jack for almost a month now. As much as he tried to avoid killing, as much as he tried to blame the man with the case, Jack was the one who attacked the fluyt. He was the aggressor and therefore, he was at least partially responsible for spilling their blood. He tried to suppress the sudden guilt he felt. He couldn't understand why he was feeling it so strongly. He'd been dealing in questionable ethics for years now, and hadn't had any trouble sleeping at night. But suddenly, with Burke giving him that accusatory stare, he could no longer suppress his—what did other people call it?—his conscience.

He couldn't bring himself to look back at her, so instead as he spoke, he stared out the windows at the back of his quarters, at the dreadnought, now small in the distance. "Those deaths... were regrettable."

"Oh, regrettable. Is that it? Is that how you see it? Captain, I wonder how regrettable it really was for you. Did you enjoy it? Is that how you get a thrill in this job? Tie a man up, then starve him of air?"

"Regina," he said, looking back at her. 

Something softened in her expression. She seemed to notice that it was the very first time he had addressed her by her first name. 

He continued. "I know you have no reason to believe me, but I need to tell you anyways. I took every step I could to keep those sailors alive. Didn't you see the marks on the hull? Three clean shots through the sails and one through the cannons. We could have more easily punched a hole through their quarters and killed half the crew before even boarding. I mean, for God's sake, we left their communications untouched so they could call for help."

She relaxed her body language, and while she still looked doubtful, something told Jack that she believed, or at least wanted to. "So then how did those sailors die?"

"The man we were after, the man with the disk, killed them." Jack told her about his near-death experience and how he only just barely managed to get onto his ship before it was stolen.

Regina uncrossed her arms and, but for scowl she was still giving him, seemed at ease. "But you still could have saved them, couldn't you?"

A memory flashed across Jack's eyes. He felt the shudder of his corvette as she powered up; the adrenaline he had felt, fearing his ship was about to be hijacked. He remembered diving into the hold and slamming the aft hatch shut mere moments before she pulled away. And he remember watching through the aft portal as the bodies and cargo were flushed out into the vacuum of space.

"Yes," he finally said. And he felt that a weight had been removed, finally admitting it to himself. "Yes, we could have. But I didn't. All I could think of was meself."

Several fellow students (all of them women) in my writing class have left perfectly polite comments on my last two homework assignments. I have decided that I am going to go get the town crier all over them.

The comments:

At the beginning of chapter 3, Jack gives Regina the order to depart Arcas spaceport with the command "Miss Burke, take us up." Three women in the class seemed to take exception to this. One circled "Miss" and wrote "Pilot"; one wrote "Ms."; and a third circled "Miss" and left the note "Wouldn't she have a title with more dignity?"

In the next week's homework assignment, Regina referred to herself as "the new gal" aboard the ship. One of the women circled it and wrote "Women don't like this word" and gave several alternatives, such as "girl", "pilot", "crew member", "mate".

Really? Women don't like that word? You are speaking for all women? Then why do I hear my grandmother use it so often? Are you contending that she is not a woman?

Concerning the implication that "miss" is a title without dignity, this one single sentence demonstrates and proves with one single breath the heinous thing, and my biggest gripe, with political correctness: political correctness seeks not to avoid offending, but rather to find offense where none is intended or, even more likely, even present.

Does anyone argue that when Jack refers to Regina as "miss", he is doing it specifically to degrade her, or demean her? (He is quite capable of  doing this in other ways.) Would you argue that if I held a door for a young lady and said "let me get that for you, miss," that I am purposely and actively, with malice aforethought, trying to show my superiority over her, lower her dignity, take away her right to vote, and chain her to the kitchen?

Please. Be surd. (absurd : surd :: incest : cest)

The "best" argument I have heard against the titles of miss and mrs. is that these titles "chain a woman's identity to her marital status, and thus make her a slave of her husband" which is logic on par with "if a woman weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood and thus a witch." This betrays what John Wright so expertly points out about those who follow the Religion of PC: "They think (or rather, they feel) that when they are calling one thing by another name, that the actual nature of reality changes. They put themselves in a position where they can no longer talk about real things. Words are severed from referents."

He is, of course and as always, right. Those who worship at the altar of PC, and also those in the left wing (usually the same crowd) believe in the magic of language relativity: that is, by changing the way we refer to something we can change the nature of the thing itself. This seems to me to be closely associated with moral relativism: the belief that we can change morality by wishing it away. What is wrong for you or for another is not wrong for me because I don't want it to be. We see this in other aspects of life, too: if we call a "baby" a "fetus", it is no longer human, and can be killed; if we refer to people as having "gender" instead of "sex", then by changing their gender, they can change the fundamental nature of themselves. News flash: if I name my cat "rover", refer to her as "the dog", and feed her dog biscuits, she still won't bark. Sex is a biological and supernatural reality. Changing how we refer to it won't change its nature.

The reality of miss and mrs. seems to me to be far more innocuous. In a society where men purse and women allure, one would expect simple and obvious social cues that would indicate to the pursuer if the allurer is available to be pursued. Titles are one aspect of this, as are rings (hence, a woman wearing an engagement ring; I think of a man's wedding ring more as a reminder to himself than as a signal to other women). Were we to live in a society that operated in the opposite fashion, where women sought out a mate, bought him dinner, escorted him to the opera, and took him home and kissed him goodnight on his porch, I would expect the titles to be reversed.

But the PCists, of course, are chained to their idea of language driving nature; thus if we call an unmarried woman "miss" and a married woman "mrs.", we are saying that her nature changes when she gets married. Since they feel this is offensive (and I have never heard a good explanation for how it is offensive, probably in no small part because they feel rather than think it is offensive) they think (or rather, feel) that by changing a woman's title to the generic "ms.", we have somehow altered her nature and the nature of marriage.

As mentioned before, one of the primary aspects of political correctness is how it assumes offense where none exists. To refer to a married woman by a different title as an unmarried woman seems reasonable to the normal, rational person. In fact, these are the terms that were used for decades, if not centuries, and no offense was meant or taken. But then one day (and that is probably quite literal) some follower of the dogma of PC decided that words that had no offense attached to them before suddenly were offensive and that they had to be changed. Granted, language changes, but suddenly deciding that words have new meaning never before intended is not the sort of gradual change as "chuse" changing to "choose". Other examples of this include suddenly deciding that using the pronoun "he" to refer to groups of mixed sex is offensive, where it never was before, and that the term "secretary" to refer to those with a secretarial job, is offensive. (I once asked a PCist why it was that "secretary" was demeaning to women. She explained that it was because it harkened to a time when women were only allowed three careers: secretary, teacher, and nurse. She did not explain why "teacher" and "nurse" were still allowable. (This is one reason I'm Catholic and not PC; the rules are far more intuitive and easier to understand.))

Another aspect of Political Correctness is that it only seeks to find offense directed a certain groups that are mascots of the left. Surely, the PCists object to "offenses" against blacks, American Indians, women, homosexuals, and other "protected" groups. I have never heard one so much as flinch at offenses directed at Irishmen, men, Catholics, or evangelical Christians. Somehow, Muslims have weasled themselves onto the "protected" list, which means those outside the Church of PC get to watch, with wonderful bemusement, how those in the PC Church "protect" from offense those who are probably the least PC, and indeed viciously hate some of the other protected groups. (For instance, my writing instructor mentioned, perhaps in a doubt of the faith, that she was having a hard time accepting the PC dogma that fundamentalist Islamic societies had a "right" to horribly abuse their women. I remain blissfully outside of PCism, so I can answer as any sane man should: no such right exists and we can kill the bastards for doing such.)

If you want evidence of how imbalanced the double-standard for offensive speech is, look no further than the NCAA. Remember a few years ago when, out of sensitivity to "Native Americans" they tried to outlaw all schools with American Indian mascots? (They apparantly had a very selective use of "Native American"; I am a native to America too, but they didn't outlaw any team called "the Josephs". However, since no team with that name exists, perhaps they thought it a non-issue. I will give them the benifit of the doubt, and assume that they would have.) This, of course, was a monumental search for offense, such that they must have been using NASA's Spitzer space telescope to find it, as they clearly ignored the fact that many colleges with American Indian mascots do so with the approval and blessing of the tribe! One thing I found particularly interesting was that the University of Illinois Fighting Illini were to be banned, because "Fighting Illini" is offensive. However, there never was any mention of banning the University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish. How, exactly, is "Fighting Illini" racially insensitive and "Fighting Irish" is not? Are you going to argue that the Irish have not been oppressed? Are you going to argue that it is politically correct to portray Irishmen as drunken, brawling, leprechauns, but incorrect to portray American Indians as tomahawk-wielding warriors with feathered headdresses? Now we must play a game of measuring relativism, and explain why one offense is more offensive than the other.

So it is because of political correctness that society jumps at imagined shadows of offense, but only those shadows cast from a certain angle and from certain objects, that you have to turn your head sideways and squint to see, but then it just looks like a bunny. It is because of political correctness that I can't say "miss", but no politically correct person would bat an eyelash over the term "hocus pocus", with all its associated anti-Catholic bigotry. (For those not in the know, "hocus pocus", originally, was a mockery of the Latin words of consecration: "Hoc est enim corpus meum" or "This is my body", the climax of the Mass, and that sacred moment when a host of unleavened bread is turned into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. I, personally, do not take offense to "hocus pocus", because I know that no one today uses it to offend Catholics, and probably no one who is not Catholic even knows where the term comes from. I would not stoop to correct someone who uses such a term in ignorance.)  It is because of political correctness that I can't refer to a secretary as a secretary, but the followers of PC can—and do—take Our Lord's name in vain, without so much as a worry or care to whether or not they offend me (and I do take great offense to that). I am not in a protected group; I am not worthy of avoiding offense towards. (In fact, someone once argued on this very blog that it is allowable to insult and offend white Christians because they have it coming.) But if those followers of PC don't care if they offend me, on what grounds do they argue that I should not offend them?

Since I can't think of a witty or snappy end to this article, I will let the inestimable John Wright do it for me, even though I think I am over my allocated "John Wright quote or link" quota by quite a lot this month:

Quoted for Truth:

The rudest society imaginable is one where everyone is hyper-sensitive, thin-skinned, and willing to see insults where none are intended, and, most of all, a society were everyone demands, as a matter of right, as a matter of entitlement, that no one cross or offend his ultra-fine nerves, which have been sandpapered to the most exquisite pitch of sensitivity. The professional crybabies have been given a trump card that wins every hand and always collects the kitty. So, we get more crybabies. Dignity, adieu: rudeness, hail! Hail, horrors!