THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

The video on YouTube is called: Jon Stewart - Sarah Palin and how the Republicans see her

You cannot “confront” O’Reilly about those things any more than you can confront Hulk Hogan about talking out of both sides of his mouth as he shifted from the tradional Hulkamania good guy persona to the Hollywood Hulk Hogan heel persona.  They are both entertainers, and their compensation correlates positively with how much they huff and puff and bug their eyes out and yell and scream.  It does not have any correlation with the soundness or validity of their actual arguments.

By pure luck, last night, Bill O’Reilly did indeed play the Stewart clip in its entirety.  And his comment?  Something like “Eight out of context clips?  Jon!!” However, O’Reilly did not prove that they were out of context; he just said they were.  But, you gotta give it to the showman for actually showing that clip.  As much as I become dumber listening to him, he does provide non-over-the-top entertainment (unlike Hannity who is so boring in his one-track mind).

Stewart, and more so Colbert, are masters at clipping scenes to make their comedic point.  It doesn’t even have to be based on truth as long as we believe it is true.

I’m sure you can find the O’Reilly clip on Fox’s site.

Well, that was interesting.

It is amusing to me that you admit to being largely ignorant of The Bible and yet you freely call Palin’s commitment to family values hypocritical.

(And by the way, “a woman’s place is in the home” is not from the Bible. It is just a cliché.)

Coming from a large family, I know how these things work. First of all, there are relatives (grandparents) on both sides of the family. And then the elder siblings, of course, often become the caretakers of the children. I myself was raised more by my older brothers and sisters than by my own parents, both of whom were working.

Part of the problem with the criticism of Palin in this regard is that people who don’t have kids or just have one or two don’t realize how little of a deal it is to those who have many. They’re just kids. It’s not rocket science. You figure it out.

Btw, I disagree mostly with MGL’s post.  I don’t see the difference between my wife and I being the stay-at-home parent, in terms of the social upbringing of my son (or daughter if that were the case).  And, I don’t know that Palin’s husband is any better or worse as a stay-at-home dad, since that’s the other choice here.  Obviously, a stay-at-home parent is preferred, but if vpILF is the one with the star on the rise, than the husband is the one that should be admonished for not staying at home more (if admonishment is required).

In any case, nothing will stop a h-rny teenager, as all of us here have been one at some point in their lives.

Re: Stewart, R’Reilly.

While I agree politically with O’Reilly more than I would with Stewart, I think the latter is the far more honorable and decent of the two. In the times I have seen him in interviews with cable news anchors, including O’Reilly, he has always been the more polite, civil, and accommodating.

Keith Olbermann is that you?
vr, Xei

Here is the Stewart clip:
http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/09/09/bill-oreilly-slams-jon-stewart-sometimes-a-teen-pregnancy-is-just-a-teen-pregnancy/

As a young, single, childless male, I have a very different outlook on life than Sarah Palin. I’ve been told, though, by multiple people with children that I will never love anyone more than I will love my first child while he or she is my only child, and that I will never love anyone as much as I’ll love my own flesh and blood that I bring into the world. In that context, Palin is a puzzle.

Here’s the issue touched upon in the post that can’t be addressed by anyone in political power lest they appear insensitive: If she were really family-first, lived a family-first morality, and gave her family full precedence in her life decisions, she wouldn’t be running for Vice President. She would be devoting herself to caring for her infant son, her pregnant daughter, and her daughter’s unborn child 100% with her 100% devoted husband.

Of course, she’s splitting the difference and attempting to balance family with an ambitious career, but it’s obvious that she can’t be a full time parent while running for high office. Obama has acknowledged it in his own life, in “Audacity of Hope”. But his girls are at least cognizant of the world, and he has only two. When was the last time a major candidate ran for office while raising small children, let alone an infant? Kennedy?

I love John Stewart.  He’s funny as all get out and a fine person too.  I also think his interviews are often very good.  However, I try hard to remember that he’s a satirist and not an objective reporter (something he’ll freely admit).

I’m not a fan of Palin’s politics, but I have no problem with her decision to run for public office, even with a large family and a Down’s baby.  Every parent faces the tradeoff between personal ambition and family focus and I don’t think that conservative social values necessarily conflict with having a strong career drive.

In my own career, I found that there was a time for family first, and there was a time for career focus.  You have to be willing to take career opportunities when they arise, and you have to have a strong partnership with your spouse to make it all work.

Sorry, not to be debate-y, but no place in the Bible does it say a woman’s place is at home. Deborah was a woman in the Bible that led Israel to deliverance as an example that God can call women to lead. I really don’t find her decision hypocritical if she feels she can serve her country. She was going to be criticized about her pregnant daughter whether she opted to be a Veep or a Governor of a state. Granted, not on this scale but maybe she was naive enough to believe that elections should be about issues. Or maybe the McCain camp just thought it would galvanize pro-lifers into saying this lady could have forced her daughter to have an abortion to save her political career, instead she didn’t. I don’t know.

I just think people look for any reason to discredit the Christian beliefs. While Christians are to preach and more importantly live right, the essence of the Christian faith isn’t living right but that God has made us right with himself by faith and not by our deeds.

Her daughter made a regrettable decision, sure. But to quote the Bible, “he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone”. That’s John 8:11.  The media needs to get over it. If they are looking for hypocrisy, find it in her record as a mayor or as a governor. Whether or not she can efficiently lead is what we SHOULD be talking about.

If she were really family-first, lived a family-first morality, and gave her family full precedence in her life decisions, she wouldn’t be running for Vice President. She would be devoting herself to caring for her infant son, her pregnant daughter, and her daughter’s unborn child 100% with her 100% devoted husband.

Of course, she’s splitting the difference and attempting to balance family with an ambitious career, but it’s obvious that she can’t be a full time parent while running for high office.

Thank you.  That is the exact point I was making, and I stand by it.

I don’t have anything against someone who balances a career with raising children although I think it is ideal not to do so if at all possible.  But when someone like a Palin is trumpeting her devout Christian beliefs it is definitely hypocritical to be pursuing a very demanding career while raising (or NOT raising I should say) a family.  That is a clear choice she makes each an every day.  If she truly is a devout Christian (or just a really good parent), she should NOT be running for VP, quit her job as Governor, and go raise her da-n kids.

In fact, I am really tired of people who profess to follow the Bible and the “word of God” but only when it suits their particular whims.  Really tired.  There is nothing wrong with being imperfect, but assuming that you are, please shut up about how devout a Christian (or Jew, or Muslim or whatever) you are.

I know virtually nothing about the Bible. I was listening to a Christian radio talk show the other day, and in it they quoted something about, “A woman’s place is in the home.” I assume that there is something in the Bible that commands women to be at home raising her family and supporting her husband, although apparently not in those very words…

And not one person in 10 posts has addressed the issue that she chose to put her 17-year old daughter under intense scrutiny because SHE wants to run for VP.

Tango, what exactly do you disagree with?  You think it makes no difference on the average whether one parent is stay at home versus both parents working?  You think it is better that both parents work so that they can buy their children more toys?  That she is not being hypocritical by trumpeting her religious beliefs and her family values, yet chooses to work literally a 24-hour a day job when she has young children to raise?

Is whether a person is hypocritical or not a qualification for VP or President?  You bet it is.  If they are hypocritical, they are not being intellectually honest.  People who are not intellectually honest are not as qualified to make important decisions as those who are.  Do I think that it is a fatal flaw?  No, I don’t.  We are probably all hypocritical to some extent and there is probably not a politician who has ever existed that was not intellectually dishonest to some extent. 

I was merely pointing out some issues relating to Palin that I thought were interesting and somewhat important.

The vice president has nothing to do.  It’s the perfect job if you want to raise a family and draw a good salary at the same time.  I would love to be VP, because I’d have more time to blog.

A couple of years ago I was reading about the Mass. Governor (woman) who was traveling two hours each way to work, and she had 5 kids.  Or something like that.

***

I don’t know that being a Christian necessarily means living by The Bible as if it is an instruction manual.  I’m agnostic, but the rest of my family is Roman Catholic.  As I see it, most people use religion as a guide, not as a blueprint, something to give their spirit a leap of faith.

Any discussion on Man v Woman is simply inappropriate in a The Bible or Religious context, any more than some religious book might differentiate between Whites and Blacks and Other Colors.

***

Does a parent necessarily have to be home 24/7?  What if you have great grandparent and family support?  Indeed, it does not necessarily mean that 24/7 is better than 23/6.  It may be worse.  Who knows.  The kid needs exposure from more than 1 adult.  I don’t know what is necessarily the best balance.  I’d like to think that stable parenting is the best, but how stable?  What if the optimal approach is for one parent to be there for 4 hours, another for 4 hours, a combo for 2 hours, grandparents for 2 hours, and 12 hours for sleep?

But, the problem I have is that these discussions only happen when a woman with children is in office.  When it’s a man, it’s never discussed.

Regardless, we have no idea what the guardianship issue is with the Palin family right now, do we?  And what it has been for the last 10 years?  And who’s to say that being Governor necessarily takes more time than being Mayor or being CEO of Johnson & Johnson?  Or even being a plumber or working two jobs to make ends meet?  More responsibility does not mean more time.

I say the discussion should only happen if we widen the parameters far more than the Palin/VP one.

Fair enough.

While you may think that the proper or acceptable format of religion is to use the Bible as a guide, most devout Christians I have known profess the Bible to be the word of God with no exceptions and no wiggle room.

I would love to hear Palin’s opinion of the role of the Bible in her religious beliefs.  IOW, would she think that it was a mere guide and that she can pick and choose as she wishes or would she say that it was an intractable rule of law?

I don’t know what Palin’s situation at home is.  In general if both parents work and have young children at home, I believe that they are being selfish or misguided and doing a disservice to their children. Not in all cases, but in general.  And I repeat that it is not the worst thing a parent can do. Certainly you can be a loving and devoted working parent just as well as you can be a lousy abusive or neglectful parent with no job.  In fact, there are plenty of those.

I thought that Clarence Darrow showed that the Bible was not completely literal when confronting Bryan in the Scopes Trial.

For example, the Bible would put the age of the Earth at less than 10,000 years.

Parenting is hard, and there are no set rules. You see great kids come from terrible people, and vice versa.

I’m just curious, but how is this post any different than Murray Chass writing about how stat-nerds are ruining baseball because all their numbers are scary? He doesn’t know anything about statistical analysis, so in general, we don’t care what he says about it.  You don’t know anything about the Bible (as you freely admit), so why should we care what you think about it?

Now, obviously, this isn’t to say you shouldn’t have posted it, since this is your blog and you can write whatever you want.  I’m just not sure why you felt like this was an opinion worth sharing, as you have a long history of pointing out why we shouldn’t listen to people who aren’t educated enough to have opinions of value when it comes to baseball?

That last post reads harsher than I intended it.  It wasn’t supposed to come across as “your opinion is worthless”, but instead as a question.  I’m afraid it reads as the former, though.  Sorry in advance.

...most devout Christians I have known profess the Bible to be the word of God with no exceptions and no wiggle room.

Well, maybe when you use the word “devout” you’re biasing your sample or something.  But I can tell you from personal experience that many, many Christians believe that the Bible should be interpreted and isn’t to be taken literally.  That’s part of the role of the pastor/minister. I daresay that most polls will show that the majority of Christians don’t take the Bible as literally.  Try to find ten Christians that follow all the rules in Leviticus!  Unfortunately, evangelical Christians seem to get all the press.

For example, the Bible would put the age of the Earth at less than 10,000 years.

Many devout religious persons I know believe that to be the case.  Why wouldn’t they?  With religion and God, anything can be justified.  For example, if God wants to make it appear as if the Earth is 5 billion years old, He can, right?

David C., I don’t understand your comments so I cannot respond to them other than to say that I don’t give a rat’s ass if anyone takes me seriously about anything I write, baseball or otherwise.  That being said, from the number of posts in this thread, at the very least there is some interest in the topic at hand.

David, no problem.  Studes, yes there are many religious factions, some taking the Bible literally and others not, probably more the latter I would think.

Let’s take religion and the Bible completely out of this (to appease David C. ).  I still say that a woman with several young children at home who devotes a good portion of her life to her career (I assume that to be a Governor, you have to spend more than a few hours a week “governing") and has a pregnant 17-year old daughter should not be using family values as her pulpit.  That’s all.

I don’t think anyone should be using family values in any political context. 

Dan Quayle v Murphy Brown

I’d separate church from state from home.

***

In general if both parents work and have young children at home, I believe that they are being selfish or misguided and doing a disservice to their children. Not in all cases, but in general.

I’d say, in general, it is economic survival, not selfish and/or misguided.

I’d say, in general, it is economic survival, not selfish and/or misguided.

I disagree. I’d rather live in near poverty and spend more time with my kids.  Not to mention that if you have school-age children, you can work from 9-3 or you can work at home, etc.

Anyway, the “in general” part obscures so much of the issue.  There must be millions of families that make a lot of money while both parents work.  You cannot call that economic survival.

I agree that religion should not be part of a campaign and one’s religion or lack of should not be a qualification for a candidate.  In fact, I am so sick of religion being part of this current campaign, it literally makes me want to either throw up or scream.

Barack Obama has two young children. Is it irresponsible parenting on his part to be running for the highest office in our country (or the world, actually)?

Consider for a moment: 17 year olds make a lot of stupid decisions.  A lot.  They have sex when they’re not really ready and they make stupid decisions about protecting themselves.  Would a stay-at-home parent, whether mom or dad, have prevented Bristol Palin’s pregnancy?  That’s waaaaay too simplistic an outlook.

Sex has become the way that adolescents assert that they are adults in America.  We don’t really have a right of passage in our culture, so something fills the void.  Parents can teach all they want on the subject, but you’re dealing with a time when kids are trying to separate from their parents and prove that they are adults.  Those cultural messages about how to prove it are more powerful than is even believed.  It doesn’t mean that parents shouldn’t try (the single best predictor of sexual activity is parental attitudes toward sex, but it’s not the only factor in the equation).  Sometimes you do everything right and it doesn’t work.

And on the Good Book, my mother was fond of saying that we are not perfect, just forgiven.  Christians mess up, badly sometimes.  In Christianity, the greatest sin isn’t murder or theft or lying, but thinking that I can’t be forgiven (the sin of despair.) Christ came not to call the righteous, but to call sinners to repentance.  I find it odd that people look at whether or not someone else is a “real Christian” based on the outward state of their affairs.  That’s missing the point.  If that were the test, we would all be in trouble.  The Christian God is infinitely merciful in that we don’t get what we really deserve, and infinitely just in that we get what we ask for.  I realize that not everyone buys into the idea of (God/Christianity/spirituality/flying spaghetti monsters), but that’s what I think is missing from the discussion on whether Gov. Palin is a “phony Christian.”

(And in one of life’s minor ironies, as I was writing this post, one of the Google ads at the bottom of the page was “Join the McCain-Palin team!")

Political commentary is frustrating in a lot of ways; one of the most grievous of which is that people tend to get worked up about the most inconsequential of things. Calling someone a hypocrite for believing in family values while simultaneously taking a job with huge responsibilities is less than worthless, because in addition to being a judgment based on a set of assumptions about what constitutes family values and what other people think constitute family values, it also distracts us from actual hypocrisies that are much more important. Isn’t it far more hypocritical that Palin can tell the RNC that she wants to be VP in order to serve the people even though she’s abused the power of her current office for personal reasons? Or if there really is an immediate choice for some Americans between good parenting and poverty, isn’t the really important question whether or not it’s hypocritical to support family values while simultaneously cutting the taxes of the most wealthy, eliminating welfare, refusing to ensure health insurance to our citizenry, refusing to increase the minimum wage, and pushing for deregulation of industry (not that Palin supports these things - a lot of conservatives do, but it’s virtually impossible to know how she feels about them, since no one’s talking about it)?

To me, the beauty of Stewart’s skit was that everything he made fun of, well, deserved to be derided.

I’m not sure how anyone could trust McCain given his campaign strategy before choosing his running mate, the choice he made, and the abrupt about face in his strategy after the decision.

And to think four years ago the GOP made their living selling flip-flop burgers....

I don’t know how any impartial observer could have anything but disdain for the penchant of politicians to cavalierly make any argument only to eschew it in favor of the counter argument at the second it becomes more advantageous to do so.

The only thing more odious is the electorate that allows them to profit by such behavior.

My gosh, the religious right should be screaming about the intellectual dishonesty coming from the GOP rather than joining in lock, stock, and flaming barrel.

How can any intelligent adult not seriously take pause at the suggestion that Palin is the most qualified republican to assume command of one of the most influential nations in the world in the event that McCain has to battle cancer??????

My God these are scary times.

If this country has proven anything, it’s that any ordinary Joe (or George) can assume the most powerful post in the world, and the country will still be able to, at worst, limp along.  All you need is the personality of a leader, some intelligence, and nothing more.  Therefore, I would say that there is at least one million reasonable candidates for President.

I haven’t read all the posts, so I’m not sure if I’m repeating what someone else has said.

It seems unfair to me that Palin was singled out for this thread.

Don’t all pro politicians have a strong degree of personal ambition? Don’t all politicians talk about ‘family values’ in their campaigns? And don’t all (or almost all) politicians profess a belief in God and attend services regularly?

I haven’t seen evidence that Palin is any more ‘disingenuous’ than other politicians. Certainly, she is putting her best ‘spin’ on her life story. But, spinning is as natural as breathing to politicians, and is a necessary part of the game.

Furthermore, like Palin, Obama is in his 40s with small children, professes family values, and belongs (belonged?) to an uncommon church. But unlike Palin, Obama’s spouse was earning $350,000 a year IIRC--enough for them to live comfortably on. So, he didn’t have to run for president. He could have gotten out of dirty politics and stayed home raising the kids.

Somehow, I must have missed the similar thread on Obama’s life choices…

(this post should not be interpreted as though I favor any particular side in the election)

David, my post 14 is probably closest to your post.

If Obama’s wife is not at home taking care of the kids, then yes, she and he are not being responsible parents.

I picked on Palin simply because I thought it was ironic (or whatever the correct word is) that she is the “religious candidate” yet she chooses to have and then run for a position that I assume requires quite a bit of time outside of the home while having young children at home, including a pregnant teenager.

While there are a lot of pregnant teenagers in this country, I would venture to guess that there are very few, percentage-wise, from affluent families. 

No one else finds it the least bit ironic that Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter?

Again, that is not the worst thing in the world, nor is a working mother.  But if you are affluent, yet choose to work with young kids at home, AND you choose to work at a time consuming job, AND you have a pregnant teenage daughter, I really think that the least you can do is shut up about family values.  Or at least admit that maybe you made some mistakes and that you don’t want others to make the same ones.  Of course, she can’t admit that one her mistakes might be not being at home with her kids and then run for V.P.

If an intelligent, affluent parent, especially a mother, has a teenage daughter get knocked up, there is no one else her but me that thinks it would be appropriate for that parent to at least consider something like, “Maybe if I had been home and spend more time with my family rather than ‘at the office...?’”

Do you wonder if you made a mistake in building UZR every time it spits out a result that everyone on earth considers wrong?

Of course not.  You shrug, say that life is unpredictable, and that the results of one data point don’t mean that the process taken to get there was wrong. 

That Sarah Palin’s teenager daughter got pregnant does not mean that Sarah Palin has made poor parenting choices.

That Sarah Palin’s teenager daughter got pregnant does not mean that Sarah Palin has made poor parenting choices.

Of course not. Never said that it did.  Never will.

But if a player has a -3 UZR in 100 games, while that does not mean that he is a bad defender or even that he played bad defense for those 100 games, it is still more likely than not that he is worse and that he played worse than a player with a UZR of +3 in 100 games.

Ditto for Palin.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, if I have a job (Governor of a State) that clearly takes a lot of my time, and one of my kids gets pregnant (or is heavily into drugs, or is depressed and suicidal, or gets caught stealing, etc.), maybe, just maybe, I need to take a look at my priorities.

I don’t know how to state it any clearer than that.

Sticking with the baseball analogy:

If someone from an affluent family (and I don’t even know that Palin qualifies, but say it does) who has a large family support system (which I will guess she does), and both parents decide to spend alot of time away from home, and they have a horny teenage kid, as horny as both parents possibly were, then the chance of early pregnancy compared to a situation where one of the parents had stayed at home is equivalent to an average fielder putting up a -1 in 150 Games.

I think this seems to be the consensus.  While it may be more likely that it has a negative effect, it is an extremely benign effect, notwithstanding scientific evidence to the contrary.

And I don’t know that “family values” necessarily means no baby before marriage.  “Family values” is some b.s. term being used to say that the speaker is better than the listener.  Indeed, one can preach family values while being a single parent with a teenage mother, who has shot their abusive spouse, being the anti-thesis of “church values” while preaching “family values”.  It’s just so much rhetorical b.s.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, if I have a job (Governor of a State) that clearly takes a lot of my time, and one of my kids gets pregnant (or is heavily into drugs, or is depressed and suicidal, or gets caught stealing, etc.), maybe, just maybe, I need to take a look at my priorities.

I sort of agree with that statement, MGL, except that a teenage pregnancy is not the same thing as a teenager engaging in destructive behavior like taking heavy drugs or stealing.  My worry about the pregnant teenager would be giving her the support she needs after she gets pregnant, not worrying whether I shouldn’t have been so busy at the Governor’s mansion.

And, yes, I also find it ironic that a candidate from the “family values” party is running for office despite having a pregnant teenager and just giving birth to a Down’s Syndrome baby.  I agree with you on that point, too.

However, I don’t criticize her for running for VP, nor do I find it hypocritical.  If you’re ambitious and cherish family values AND you’re given an extraordinary opportunity, you have to make a difficult choice.  On some level, virtually all parents deal with issues like that frequently.

If her husband becomes a “Mr. Mom,” she finds a strong support system for her kids and she gives them the love she can when she has a chance, I don’t see hypocrisy.

First of I would like to say that I think the fact that she has an infant is a much stronger reason to “stay at home” than her 17-year old daughter beeing pregnant.

Also I think you have to weigh what you can do for your family vs what you can do for the people in your state or country. Quiting (or not accepting) a job where you can hopefully make a difference for a lot of people because it is not strictly optimal for your family is in my opinion selfish and immoral.

Plus I am not that convinced that having a stay at home parent is that beneficial in the first place. Just anecdotaly from the countries I know about I see no indication that there is a strong correlation between “teenage troubles” (for lack of a better term) and the frequency of stay at home parents.

But I might be somewhat biased given that stay at home parents are very rare (unles you’re rich) for anything but very young children here and considered slightly socialy ostrasising.

I don’t know that having a 17 yo daughter who is pregnant out of wedlock points to a failure of her parents to properly prioritize their lives, but I do think it points to a failure of abstinence-only educational programs. In this day and age there is simply no reason for an unwanted pregnancy to occur between two consenting individuals. None. Zilch. Zero.

Listen, the real issue with Palin is that her choice as McCain’s running mate has coincided with a dramatic and purposeful decrease in the quality of political discussion in this country. Frankly, in this election cycle, it’s the GOP that is largely responsible. Palin is a strategic pick whose value is more derived from her use as a deflector shield than as an agent to enhance the communication of an intellectually honest argument.

I find that odious beyond belief.

"None. Zilch. Zero. “

Actually, it’s equal to (one minus the success rate of birth control pills) times (one minus the success rate of condoms), and presuming that the intercourse occurs using the rhythm method (which further presumes that the woman has a constant cycle).

Under those conditions, I will guess (pure guess) the chance of pregnancy to still be around one in a million.

Almost none.  Nearly zilch.  Approaching zero.

I wouldn’t have said anything, but you repeated the zero three times for emphasis!  If you had said “none”, I would have let it go.

If you’re going to be precise, you also have to account for the side effects of birth control pills and how that will be a significant incentive for a subset of the population to not use them.

The WHO reports that perfect use of condoms reduces pregnancy rate to 3%. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/ Typical use is 10%-14%, including improper use and occasionly failing to use. Let say they are always used, but occasionaly improperly, so I’ll go with 5%.

From my own experiebce in genealogy, regular sex when contraception was not available will result in pregnancy about every 2 years. 5% of that is every 40 years, maybe even every 50 years. Say 30 years of fertility, ages 15-45, so there’s somewhere like a 50%-70% chance that a woman who has regular sex during her fertile years and always uses a condom will still get pregnant at least once.

1. In response to the original question, would we choose to subject our own daughter to the media scrutiny? - It’s a difficuly call. Palin was laready governor, so even then would attract some attention, probably more from the national press if she became a national figure, even without running for national office (such as with Bobby Jindal). Would it be the fault of the family for being public figures, or is it the fault of the media for trying to invent some disqualifying scandals, instead of focusing on the issues.

2. I guess one aswer to my last comment above is trying to prove hypocrisy. And to Terry #37 - I know abstinence worked for me, I never became a father until after I lost my virginity, and both of those occurred after saying “I do”. Yes, I know you said “abstinence-only education”, meaning that, what are the consequences when it’s not used. Well, tell me that the availability of contraception, and knowledge of them, has lessened the pregnancy rate. I should look it up, but I believe that the pregnancy ratees for teens has gone up since birth control became widely available. When I was young, I wanted to have sex as much as anybody, but I was also terrified of the consequences of getting a girl pregnant. That, and being a shy nerd, kept me pure until marriage. With birth control, there’s misperceptions of effectiveness, and thus little or no fear of consequences, so the activity is engaged in much more frequently. Terry thinks there’s a one in a million chance of getting pregnant. It’s more like 1 in 3 or 4 that a woman would become pregnant sometime in her life, if she had regular sex while always using a condom.

3. My wife and I are Christians, go to church all the time, my wife was the church secretary and is now the children’s ministry leader, but our teenage daughter still got pregnant - twice. Of course I’m not happy about her behavior, but we have two beautiful grandchildren. I’ve never heard an unloving word from any in our Pentecostal congregation.

ps to my post above - Population Reference Bureau lists Yemen as the country which today has the highest fertility rate - 8.2 live births per woman in her lifetime. Multiply that times .03 for perfect condom use gives .25 birth per lifetime - certainly higher than one in a million

Brian, there’s another factor that you’re not considering: 17-year-olds have no clue how to use a condom.  I’ve done some (actual real life!) statistical consulting work with an AIDS treatment study and talked to some of the doctors that work with teenagers with HIV.  The estimates are that among teenagers, the failure rates of condoms climb into the 20% range.

When has Palin said she is the “religious candidate?” Besides the standard political “God Bless America” etc., I haven’t really seen or heard her talking about religion, abortion, etc. or any of the Pat Robertson-type religious/political bunk.  Yes, she is religious, but other than the fact that she had a baby that she knew was going to be a Down’s Syndrome baby and her daughter is having an out of wedlock baby rather than choosing an abortion, I don’t really see her walking around talking about overturning Rowe v Wade, burning gays, etc. that so many people are afraid that the Religious Right would do.  Yes, the Religious Right is rallying behind her b/c they never really trusted McCain & the fact that she had her son Trig knowing that he was going to be handicapped (which only 20% of people do under those circumstances) certainly qualifies her as pro-life in their minds.  And, yes The Left has gone after her hard because the fact that a woman would willing have a handicapped child & her teenage daughter would have an out-of-wedlock child (I’m guessing these are two of the more common situations where an abortion occurs) is quite the dilemma for liberals who usually attack the white Republican men in suits trying to interfere with their personal bodies.  And on the other side, I’m sure Pat Robertson and the like would be attacking a Democrat candidate who was in the same situation as Palin as being a “bad” mother and “selfish” because she wanted to pursue her career when she had a handicapped child at home and her daughter had an out of wedlock child.  As an aside, where is the questioning of Joe Biden’s fatherhood rating when he decided to go to the Senate right after his wife and daughter died and he had a two and a three year old sons at home?  The Palin pick should force both the Left and Right to face their contradictions, but unfortunately it seems it has only hardened the bitterness and narrow-mindness of both sides.

You guys are forgetting about birth control pills in your calculations.

Pizza, I was trying to use the numbers least favorable to my position, to avoid potential charges of bias or cherry picking. So that in giving the opposite viewpoint every possible break, the results still come out factors different from perception.

Abstinence ed - “You have sec, you’re gonna get pregnant, and you will have to deal with it the rest of your life”

sex ed - “Your gonna do it anyway, so here’s a condom”

So who’s telling the truth here?

We can try to teach our kids many things, but when the media, pop culture, the schools, their peers, etc, tell them the opposite, it’s really hard.

http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html
The pill, when properly used, can have rates below 1%, but typical rate is still about 5%, as people forget to take it. Looks like best choice is long term shots or implants, because there is no forgetting (until it wears off and you don’t re-up in time).

Going back to something I said earlier, my wife is the children’s ministry leader at our church. No one has ever said she shouldn’t have the job because she has two out-of-wedlock grandchildren. In fact, they’ve asked her to do another term. The cries of hypocrisy, abstinence doesn’t work, etc, are contrived by the media and those with a political axe to grid to create controversy.

That said, and again back to the original question, knowing that the media is corrupt, do you put your children in the spotlight? It’s a difficult decision. But do you want your child thinking they were the reason you turned the job down?

"The following table provides estimates of the percent of women likely to become pregnant while using a particular contraceptive method for one year.”

So, a very conscientious couple, using the pill (0.001 failure rate OVER ONE YEAR not per use) times using condom (0.050 failure rate OVER ONE YEAR not per use) is one in 20,000.

If you presume sex once a week, you multiply that by 52, and that gets you one in a million.

If you time it with rhythm, that makes it even more of a longshot.

So, doing it “right” the whole time, the chance of pregnancy, per act, is a one in a million+ shot.

Exactly tango. There simply is no reason for a consenting couple to face an unwanted pregnancy.

And Brian, birth control is a highly effective yet complicated tool. Telling individuals to pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they choose a form other than abstinence is seriously silly.

Palin gets defacto support from the religious right because she didn’t counsel her daughter to have an abortion!? My wife and I are about as pro life as it’s possible to get. The fact that Palin doesn’t believe it’s kosher to counsel teenagers how not to get pregnant in the first place really has to call her judgment into serious question (this is coming from a father of 3 daughters and 1 son).

Want to trim the size of entitlements in the US in half during the next eight years? A major part of that effort should be making it a national priority to do everything in the government’s power to significantly decrease the number of children born out of wedlock to parents 25 and under. Abstinence-only education won’t get that done.

And you know what? It’s a policy that would be completely consistent with a anti-abortion stance-in fact, its a policy that should stem from such a stance.

Assuming that Sarah Palin did not talk with her daughter about not getting pregnant because she does not think that it is appropriate for government schools to do so seems pretty short-sighted to me.

Seeing that we’re all having a fairly reasonable adult discussion, let me give you considerations for pro-lifers.  If you can’t keep the discussion at a respectful level, please don’t participate.  I’ll just ban you.

***

Do we agree that once we’ve determined when human life begins, that we don’t have two classes of human life?  That is, let’s say that you personally have determined that life begins
- at conception, or
- at the first sign of the brainwave, or
- at the third trimester, or
- at first breath out of the womb, or
- whenever it is that you have personally determined that life begins,
that at that moment in time, we now have a full-class human being, and not a second-class subhuman.

This therefore means that this human being inherits all rights of human beings.

If one second after you have established this entity as having human rights, you cannot then say that if this human being was conceived of rape or incest that it has less rights than an otherwise conceived human being, correct?

What I admire about the “true” pro-lifers is that they make no exception to the circumstances of conception, because they treat all human life as equal. 

The “kinda-pro-lifers” have exceptions to circumstances, thereby relegating such entities as second-class humans.  That makes no sense.

The “pro-choicers” allow each individual the right to determine when human life begins.

So, the kinda-pro-lifers need to become either true pro-lifers, or pro-choicers.  The kinda-pro-lifers are like the ones who like the DH in one league and like not having it in a second league.

***

The only one exception allowed is the life-and-death exception for the mother (not just a health exception).  If it’s a question of her or the baby, then this is a moral question that goes beyond abortion.

I agree with Patriot that we can’t presume what discussions did or did not take place.  Or if we can, we can only do so by presuming that it keeps the participants in the best possible light.

***

If it is a one in a million shot per act, then if you have 1000 such acts over a period of years, then the chance of an unwanted pregnancy is a very real 1%.

For you math-lovers, that’s:
1-(1-1/1000000)^1000

Tango/49 - I think there’s a legitimate reason for a pro-lifer to make an exception in the case of rape.

Even if you believe the fetus has full human rights, the issue isn’t necessarily decided. There’s the separate issue about the woman’s right to not have to have their body used as an incubator for nine months. This might be a flawed analogy, but what would you do in the case of an adult human who is going to die (100% chance) without a kidney transplant - if you have a kidney that can save him and donating it won’t affect your future health (this is a hypothetical)other than the inconvenience of having to go through the surgery and a recovery period of a few weeks, should you be legally obligated to donate it? What if you’re a relative? Or what if you’re somehow the only person that has a matching kidney, should it be a criminal act for you not to donate it?

What somewhat colors many pro-lifers’ opinions is that the pregnancy is the result of choices made by the woman (unlike the guy on the street who just happens to have a matching kidney), so they should have to bear the burden of carrying the fetus in their womb for nine months. But, if someone was raped, the pregnancy is not a result of their choices, so it seems unfair to legally force them to carry the fetus (also, it’s particularly haunting to them because it’s a constant reminder of the rape).

Pronk, that is the pro-choice argument.

Once the entity has reached full human rights, then the woman has no rights with respect to her body caring for the now-human.  She has been conscripted as a guardian to the now-human whether she wants it or not. It is no longer her choice.  Indeed, once a pro-choicer or pro-lifer has decided the moment in time that an entity attains full human-rights, then her body becomes a vessel for that now-human.

Otherwise, you are arguing that the now-human, having been resulted from rape, is a second-class human.

I see your position as a total copout among pro-lifers.  If that is indeed the position of someone, that person is a pro-choicer, not a pro-lifer.

Patriot:

I can only speak for my comments, but I’m not assuming that Palin did not talk to her daughter about not getting pregnant. In fact I think she most likely had such a conversation many times given her abstinence-only political stance. 

What I am assuming is that Palin did not talk to her daughter about the myriad of alternative birth control methods and their proper uses etc.

As an aside, the error rates for various forms of birth control due to improper usage has been mentioned in this thread, presumably as an attack on the position that alternative forms of birth control are effective. Rather than invalidating alternative forms of birth control, the error rates due to misuse support the argument that users need to be better educated about these forms....

Tango/52 - While I probably framed the general debate from a pro-choice viewpoint (I’m pro-choice), I still think it’s a valid distinction. I’m not saying that the rape-baby (sorry for the crude terminology) has less rights than other babies, I’m saying that the woman pregnant with the rape-baby has more rights than other pregnant woman. In other words, someone could be pro-life and still think that pregnant women have rights, but also think that by engaging in intercourse, the woman has waived the right. Rape victims would be the only pregnant people who didn’t waive that right.

Again, I’m not pro-life and I’m not claiming this is how most pro-lifers see it, but I’m arguing that there is a coherent argument to allow abortions for rape victims without seeing the baby/fetus itself as having less rights.

There is a line in Rob Roy, where Jessica Tandy’s character is essentially apologizing to Rob for not attempting to abort her pregnancy given that she does not know who the father is (following Cunningham’s despicable act).

Rob responds, “It’s not the child that needs killing, Mary.”

Then near the end of the movie, there is a scene where an injured Rob is preparing to leave his family in order to fight Cunningham in a final duel what surely will result in the over matched Rob’s death. Once again, Mary’s thoughts turn to her unborn and we are treated to this dialog:

Mary: Robert… Robert, what if you don’t… -

Robert: Wheesht. (lovingly quieting her)

Mary: No, I cannot. What if…

Robert: Shh.

Mary: I cannot.  What if you do not return to us?

Robert: If it’s a boy, call him Robert. If a lass, name her for my love… Mary McGregor.

To me that line made the movie. What an inspiration.

Terry, I maintain that it is unfair to confuse Palin’s political policy as it relates to sex education in public schools with her personal, private mother-daughter conversations. 

This is one of my pet peeves as a conservative/libertarian--that often a conservative/libertarian position about what the government should do is assumed to be the same as what the c/l individual will choose to do voluntarily.  Palin can oppose teaching about birth control in a government school while still having that conversation with her daughter, privately.  Maybe she did and maybe she didn’t, but we cannot know.

I’m saying that the woman pregnant with the rape-baby has more rights than other pregnant woman.

Which is the same thing as saying that the baby-resultant-of-rape has less rights than one conceived otherwise.

Your argument, as playing advocate for the pro-lifers, is that two fetuses conceived at the same time, will have different human rights depending on the circumstances of conception.  That the fetus only attains human rights once a woman implicitly gives it the potential for human rights by willingly agreeing to conceive or explicitly gives it the potential for human rights by waiving the circumstances of rape.

Sorry, but that sounds like legalese b.s. to me.

===

Once the entity attains human rights, the woman’s body has been conscripted (with or without her consent) and it now becomes a vessel.  This should be the stance of both pro-choicers and pro-lifers.

The pro-choicer just needs to argue that human rights begins at whatever point in time in the entity’s life that the woman chooses.

The only difference between the pro-lifer and the pro-choicer is that the pro-choicer wants free will to determine when the entity attains human rights, while the pro-lifer (man or woman) wants to impose the timeline upon all women.

===

As far as I can see, if you are a pro-lifer and you have come across a woman who has aborted a baby, you need to treat that person as you would treat any m-rderer because they’ve taken a human life as you’ve determined it.  That may include compassion, but you must have compassion for a m-rderer who k-lls a 1yr old baby as much as you have compassion for a woman who aborts a fetus after the point-in-time that you’ve determined the entity attained human rights.

Seeing that most pro-lifers will not take that basic position, it seems inadvisable to force the government to do it.  If you as a human being can’t muster the hatred toward the pro-lifer who aborts a baby as much as you have hatred for a man who k-lls a baby, then I don’t think you can expect the government to now create an environment where abortion is illegal.

The pro-lifer must have the strength of his or her conviction.  And, the non-activists simply don’t.  (Some of the activists do.)

In any case, overturning Roe v Wade would simply get the federal government out of the situation, and make this a state issue, with each state deciding on the abortion issue.

My post was being flagged.  Apparently m-rder and k-ll are not good words to use with this software.

Do we agree that once we’ve determined when human life begins, that we don’t have two classes of human life?

I don’t agree with that statement.  It seems to me that a fetus is definitely a different “class” of human life, in that it is inside another human being and dependent on that one specific person for life.  If that’s not an acceptable point of view to some, then my position would be that I don’t believe human life begins until a body is physically independent of another body.

And I find the entire “when human life begins” line of questioning frustrating.  Is it a spiritual question or a legal question, or what?  To me, it’s the sort of question that people ask to put the discussion on their terms.

I don’t think it’s “legalese b.s.” to acknowledge that both the woman and the fetus have rights and that there may be factors that change the way we balance those rights, even if the practical effect is that only one of the two can have their rights enforced.

I think the “choosing to have sex” issue is a big part of why many pro-lifers think a pregnant woman should lose the right to control her body for nine months.

My name above links to a blog post at The Atlantic magazine about a hypothetical issue in the future if technology reached the point where a pregnant woman could have her fetus removed and placed in an incubator for the rest of the “pregnancy.” That would separate the rights - the woman would have the freedom to remove the fetus from her body, but it would remain alive. I think a lot of people who are currently pro-choice would support criminalization of abortion if such an alternative existed (assuming it was just as safe a procedure, etc).

And just to reiterate the pro-life position I’m trying to explain:

1. Fetus has a right to life, but
2. Woman has right to control her body and such right supersedes the right of the Fetus, but
3. Woman waives that right if she has chooses to have sex and gets pregnant as a result.

I am perfectly fine with your position.  You have decided that yes there are two classes of humans, and therefore, they each require their own rights.

From that perspective, then one cannot claim that human rights will apply equally to independent humans as they are to those with dependency.

And the question I ask is not to put it on my terms, but to put it on the front burner, since everyone is dancing around that basic question.

The first question to ask is: once human life has been established (whenever it is that you wish to define that point in time), do we have a single class of human, or two classes?

If you agree that there is only one class of human, then you must treat all humans with the same dignity.

If you believe that there are two classes of humans, then each deserves its own separate rights.

It seems that others are willing to concede that the separation of human classes is dependent on whether there is consent in the conception, or if the woman was a willing participant in the conception (even if she used the pill, forced the guy to use a condom, timed it with rhythm, and still managed to get pregnant).

I don’t see how a pro-lifer can believe in different classes of humans.

61 was in response to Studes.

Back to birth control -

I have told my children that the best choice is to not have sex, and the worst choice is to have unprotected sex. Birth control falls in between.

They were already well aware of the existence of birth control. I did not explain the proper use of a condom, I’ve only worn one once. I did arrange, after the birth of her first child, for my daughter to have the 3 month shot. After it wore off, she became pregnant again.

Howeve, promiscuous sex is about more than pregnancy. There’s STDs and AIDS, and what method of birth control will protect from the emotional scarring of sharing oneself intimately to so many others in brief relationships? Birth control can give a false sense of security, and thus a license to be promiscuous.

One the number crunching, I used yearly rates to try to keep things on the same standard. Of course, any one time that two people have unprotected intercourse there’s somewhere like 1 in 700 to 1 in 1000 chance of pregnancy. And, 1% of that is 1 in a million. For any one time. But this is an activity that tends to be repeated. I was assuming around 250 times a year. I still stand by that a woman who has sex 250 times a year for 30 years, and properly uses a condom every time, still has a 25-35% chance of at least one pregnancy during that time.

Also, if a condom, properly used, is 97% effective at preventing pregnancy, would that be 97% of 1 trail, and also 97% of 250 trials?

We know that a ss made 200 errors last year. He wasn’t wearing a glove. We don’t have any play by play, or good scorekeeping available, so we don’t know how many opportunities he had. We give him a fiedling glove, which is said to prevent 95% of errors, so now we expect him to still make 10 errors this year, and ten next year, etc until he gets too old to play. It’s still a 95% reduction this year and for his career.

I quoted sources to people wouldn’t think I was pulling numbers out of my a**. Highest current fertility is 8.2 births lifetime per woman, times .03 that a properly used condom would not prevent is .25 - 1 of 4 women would still get pregnant at least once in their lifetime. Maybe 20 years from now, maybe when they’re 17.

""""""I still stand by that a woman who has sex 250 times a year for 30 years, and properly uses a condom every time, still has a 25-35% chance of at least one pregnancy during that time.""""""

There are essentially two populations who “might” have to worry about that..... extremely successful porn stars and prostitutes lucky enough to survive long enough to fit that criteria.

I still contend that a woman who uses at east one form of contraception properly on herself and only has partners who properly use condoms (following ALL of the rules) will find it virtually impossible to get pregnant.

In fact, she may find it extremely difficult to get pregnant purposefully after she quits using birth control depending upon the form that she used.

Terry, I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt and not assume stupidity, but if your contentions are correct, then I’d be forced to conclude that we must have a bunch of stupid people out there, who despite the “safe sex” messages in the schools, media and some homes, still stubbornly go out and do it unprotected.

I think that Palin’s opponents in politics and the MSM thought that this issue would drive a wedge between her and the conservative base, following the well used hypocrite criticism. From my own anecdotal observations, as a grandfather and memer of two different Pentecostal congregations (we moved), Christians know from experience that we all fail, and that we can tell our kids until we are blue in the face, and they will do what they want. The parents of the pregnant girl are not blamed. My wife is still offered positions of authority over children in the church. One of the other Sunday School teachers is also a grandmother in that situation. Although each of our daughters attend church, at least occasionly, they have not and probably won’t be offered positions, as they wer the ones who made the choices, but since church is a place for sinners (all of us) to be redeemed, they are always welcomed to the pew.

So I think those who do not come from that culture do not understand it, and I believe there will be a backlash of negative opinion towards those who engage in this type of character attack.

As per Patriot’s comments, I agree that there are some things, which include birth control, where there is a difference of opinion between different parts of the population. As a conservative, I feel that instruction in those things is best left to the parents, not the schools, so that each family may teach in the way that they see fit. You teach your children your way, I’ll teach my children my way. However, the common refrain from the left is that there’s always some parents who are too evil or stupid to raise their own children, therefor the government and/or the schools must step in an instruct everyone’s children in these matters. But doesn’t this end up as the left legislating their morality? Let the schools teach kids, reading, writing, math, critical thinking, and I’ll take care of social issues.

However, the common refrain from the left is that there’s always some parents who are too evil or stupid to raise their own children, therefore the government and/or the schools must step in an instruct everyone’s children in these matters.

This is the worst part of these political and philosophical debates.  I can’t stand how one side always points fingers at the other and claims that they think the public is stupid or evil or what-have-you.

Tango and MGL tried to keep it clean, but I guess that’s impossible.

Studes, I did not intend to offend.

So many times I have heard the reponse to “I can raise my own children” as “yes, that’s fine for you, but what about...” and give an example of the fringe who can’t as justification for insisting that everyone’s children be taught something controversial.

Same thing for parental notification for abortions - the most common argument used against notification is that there are some fathers out there who might beat their daughters up, so therefor no parents should be notified.

I’m for having parents involved and notified, and letting the schools, for example, stick to academics and not social policy.

I don’t think the “left” approaches issues from the premise that parents are defacto incapable.

I think generally the spectrum of the democratic perspective believes there is a tangible role for government in people’s lives and it should seek policies that lift as many people up as possible (i.e. be as inclusive with it’s policies as possible). For instance, the ideal of a small government is eclipsed by the greater principle that no baby should starve to death or be robbed of it’s intellectual potential due to malnourishment during key developmental stages. Generally a democratic perspective suggests that it’s worth putting up with the small percentage of those who take advantage of the system so that babies don’t needlessly suffer.

I think generally the spectrum of the republican perspective believes the more limited the role of government in the people’s lives, the better. As a practical result, a smaller proportion of people tend to have the quality of their lives significantly enhanced. True conservative economic policy, if allowed to be carried to it’s logical fruition, not only is seriously flawed (frankly it doesn’t work), it couldn’t be sold to a majority of the electorate on it’s merits. That’s why we get to debate the damage done to the sanctity of my marriage by two lesbians legally saying their nuptials (as if any event outside of the behaviors of my wife and I had any efficacy in that arena).

The true struggle is a mostly hidden battle over taxes because it’s the government’s food. Everything else is pretty much ancillary. However, the political debate leading up to elections nowadays has nothing to do with these very central issues that actually effect people’s lives. Instead, we get to wax poetic about platitudes like “family values"-empty undefined buzz words meant to strike cords with those hearing them as they define them for themselves. All too cheaply bought political nobility if you ask me (and BOTH spectrums are guilty).

Back on point-no one is calling anyone stupid. One side sees what everyone would likely argue is an untenable amount of abortions and teen pregnancies and concludes that the best way to address the issue is to ensure that all teens have access to information that really is vital to make qualified decisions about their reproductive behavior.  The other side sees the same problem and concludes that parents need to talk to their children about abstinence (never mind that a great majority of teen pregnancies occur within the auspices of broken homes). Curiously the same side thinks contracting out education is a great idea. I guess equal protection only applies to hanging chads. In all other arenas, it’s natural selection baby!

Mix in political agendas on both sides and whoola....yet another election cycle where a once promising political debate degrades into a week long discussion about the meaning of “putting lipstick on pigs”.

We’re witnessing the much anticipated match up between two potential cy young winners in a one-game playoff become a battle of the bullpens in the second inning.

This could’ve been the greatest political debate/discussion by our nation in my lifetime. How disappointing so far..... We get left with a small consolation prize----very funny material from Jon Stewart.

I’d also like to point out that I am unaware of any study that concludes sex education increases sexual activity or leads to teens having sex earlier (certainly a there is a preponderance of studies that fail to establish such a causation). In fact growing evidence suggests that sex education beyond abstinence-only curriculum actually leads to more teens waiting longer to have sex.

Public schools teach students about the dangers of drugs and alcohol and that they should brush their teeth after eating appropriate portions of items on different levels of a pyramid. Why shouldn’t they also teach them vital information about their reproductive health especially given the life changing consequences associated with decisions teens face daily in this arena? Teaching teens about the risks involved with sexual activity and how to avoid them in no way encroaches upon the moral values that parents have instilled in their child (especially since I have yet to see a sex ed program that didn’t begin by stating that abstinence is the only absolutely effective behavior).

Finally, it is a rare thing indeed to find someone who argues against sex ed on the basis that public schools have no right to teach “morality” and also against the notion that it’s ok for school functions to begin with a prayer....

Thanks for the follow up, Brian.  Speaking for myself, I don’t hear the same rebuttals you hear.  For instance, the argument I most often hear against the father being notified of a possible abortion is the woman’s right to privacy.

I think he’s talking about the father of an underaged girl.  If the father is the legal guardian, the argument goes that any medical procedure on the girl would at least require notification, if not consent, on the part of the guardian.

I would prefer that laws that directly affect woman to have been drawn up and debated mostly by women.  Men have a horrible perspective on this issue, and there’s plenty of very intelligent women who can debate this better than any of us could.

If you can find 100 women as smart as Sandra Day O’Connor, do you really need John Roberts to add his voice to the process?

Excellent point Tango,

“I would prefer that laws that directly affect woman to have been drawn up and debated mostly by women. Men have a horrible perspective on this issue...”

This is the main point I always stick to when discussing the topic.

Or any topic for that matter.  That’s why my voice carries more weight when discussing the run value of a strikeout with runner on 3B and less than 2 outs, than it does about foreign policy. Then again, seeing that George Bush knows that Halladay is the best pitcher in baseball, the same may apply to him.

Hehehe… the CAPTCHA image for me says “nuclear”.

I think he’s talking about the father of an underaged girl.

Ah, never mind.

I don’t agree with you that only women should debate and influence abortion laws.  The unborn are the children of both men and women.

I agree with studes. That is the silliest thing Tango has ever posted.

I dunno. He’s tried to argue that we should care about professional hockey a few times.....

While I agree that Tango’s opinion on women and abortion laws and issues is debatable, I always find it amusing and somewhat troubling that even smart, reasonable, and generally intellectually honest people often end up twisting the truth and the facts when they disagree with someone or have an agenda.

Tango said, I would prefer that laws that directly affect woman to have been drawn up and debated mostly by women.

And then Studes says, I don’t agree with you that only women should debate and influence abortion laws.

I don’t think he did it intentionally, but I really wish that when someone disagrees with someone else and they want to debate or argue something or someone that they don’t lie about what that person said.  I used a harsh term ("lie", rather than accidentally misrepresent or misquote, or whatever) because it is one of my pet peeves and really gets my dander up.  People do that all the time to me on the internet and I hate it.  When you debate something with someone, make sure that you at least get their position correct.  There is a huge difference between “only” and “mostly.” In this case, I am pretty sure that Studes and others would disagree with the “mostly” position as well, but still, one should quote another person correctly when debating an issue with them.

Right, I don’t see the issue.  I did say mostly.

Women go through an actual physical and emotional transformation when pregnant, with an even greater weight when considering termination of pregnancy.  A woman feels a life within her for several months.  To a guy, all of that is foreign.  He feels the anticipation of birth, of being a father.

The point I was trying to make is this: if you take the 1000 smartest, most learned, most introspective, most whatever women in the country, and do the same for the 1000 brilliant minds among men, what are you going to find in a debate on pregnancy?  Whatever perspective the men will bring will be a virtual subset of the women’s. 

If the 1000 men started the debate, and then you invited the 1000 women, those women would add substantial value to the discussion.  On the other hand, had the 1000 women started the debate, what value added will those 1000 men have?  Seriously.  How much more value could those men add once you have the debate of the 1000 women?  If John Roberts is the smartest guy in the country, and walks into a room being debated by the smartest women in the country, do we actually expect he might have anything of significance?  Maybe just a smidge. 

The value of men in an abortion debate is as valuable as Willie Bloomquist to a MLB baseball team.  Once you’ve got 24 MLB players, WFB gives you barely anything value-added.

Given that position Tango, wouldn’t the debate need to draw from the 1000 smartest, most learned, most introspective, most whatever women in the country who have given birth?

BTW, I disagree that one needs ovaries (presumably functional ones?)to have a qualified opinion on the value of the fetus.

Again, I said MOSTLY, not ONLY.  I cannot believe that after MGL highlighted that part, that someone agains says the same thing!  We ALL have qualified opinions.  Some are more qualified than others.  Please, if you can’t quote me specifically, do NOT infer anything I have said.

And not the 1000 smartest women who have given birth.  But, the 1000 smartest women who have been pregnant.

Again, we ALL have qualified opinions.  Which opinions qualify for more?  Which have more value?  NO ONE is precluded from anything.

As one black comedian said, “What I have a problem with is old white men telling young black girls what to do with their bodies.”

Anyway, if you have the 1000 most brilliant women in the country who have never been pregnant, how much more value do the 1000 brilliant women who have been pregnant?  A bit, to a lot.  Maybe substantial.  But 1000 brilliant men would be even below those 1000 unpregnant women.

Again, we ALL qualify.  ALL.  Some qualify more than others.

You have to remember that the population deciding on the issue is neither a representative sample of the population, nor a representative sample of the population most affected.  While in most cases, this doesn’t matter, since a learned opinion can still be construed with alot of effort, when it comes to pregnancy, we have such an enormous knowledge of wealth among pregnant women that the men simply have so little value added.

The thing that got me from Tangos post is that earlier he wrote that after the woman is pregnant, she is merely an incubator for the baby. IOW, the woman has no rights of her own. And then he comes back and says that women should be the ones that “mostly” draw up the laws on abortion.

And while we’re at it, let’s have the laws on sex with children drawn up and debated mostly by pedophiles, and so on and so forth.

No one again said the same thing as far as I can tell.

BTW, it’s much more a question of ethics than one of biology IMHO.

Terry, you said this:
“BTW, I disagree that one needs ovaries (presumably functional ones?)to have a qualified opinion on the value of the fetus. “

Who is it that you are disagreeing with, because it’s not me.

***

David, you said this:
“The thing that got me from Tangos post is that earlier he wrote that after the woman is pregnant, she is merely an incubator for the baby.”

In fact, I said this:
“Indeed, once a pro-choicer or pro-lifer has decided the moment in time that an entity attains full human-rights, then her body becomes a vessel for that now-human. “

So, I NEVER said “after she is pregnant”.  I said after the entity attains full human rights.  That is not at all the same thing as what you are purporting.

And I went on and said that an individual can decide that full human-rights occurs at the first breath (meaning 40 weeks after impregnantion).  Or it could occur at conception.

I thank you for making your declaration, though.  With so much being said, and with so many qualifications being made on my part, a quick read can lead people down the wrong path as to my argument.  If you are saying it, probably 10x or 100x as many people are thinking of what I may have said, when in fact I said something completely different.

My entire argument wrests on understanding and appreciating the qualifications of my statements.

I don’t think he did it intentionally, but I really wish that when someone disagrees with someone else and they want to debate or argue something or someone that they don’t lie about what that person said.

Good catch, MGL.  You’re right that I “overread” Tango’s post.  To my credit, that’s why I was careful to specifically post my position.  I added the “only” as a way of clarifying what I thought.

OTOH, I do disagree with the “mostly” qualifier, too.

Tango, to further clarify my points, you specifically said this:

“I would prefer that laws that directly affect woman to have been drawn up and debated mostly by women. Men have a horrible perspective on this issue...”

I don’t agree that laws about what to do with an unborn fetus directly affect women more than men (which seems to be an implication of what you’re saying).  Men don’t have a “horrible” perspective on this issue at all.  You and I have a deep and profound perspective on fatherhood.  I believe that perspective should have an equal “voice” in the abortion debate.

"And while we’re at it, let’s have the laws on sex with children drawn up and debated mostly by pedophiles, and so on and so forth. “

The laws on sex with children would need to be debated mostly by the legal guardians of the children, since it is the children most affected, and it is the guardians that protect them.

The predators would also need to have some voice in the debate (by themselves or their advocates), at least in the form of retribution or rehabilition for their acts.

I don’t see David’s example as a “so on and so forth” extension of my argument in terms of making my argument look less than optimal.

***

It happens all the time in these debates.  The white male makes these rules that are simply biased.  Chris Rock had another great line.  Paraphrasing, he said:
“There’s no white man that would ever trade places with a black man.  There’s not a white guy right here that would trade places with my black ass… and I’m rich!”

Until a person has learned and appreciated the position and the issues as well as those most affected, the quality of that opinion will