“The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids.”

Seems to me that perhaps the only better use for a condom (than protecting from AIDS) would be to put one over the Catholic Church to keep all that unseemly religious goo from destroying the hopes and futures of an entire continent.

Stupid. Religious. Insanity.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Lying Republicans And Their Lying Lies

The debate is over in the House. The resolution opposing the president’s ‘New & Improved Surge Plan’ has passed, with several Republican lawmakers crossing the aisle to join with Democrats in voicing the opinion of their constituents, a majority of whom oppose the Iraq War and the Bush Surge Plan.

In practical terms, this changes very little. It was a non-binding resolution. But it did force each member of congress to state their position vis-a-vis the surge and the war in general. I listened to Republican after Republican take the floor and proclaim that passage of the resolution would send a message of defeat to our enemies and a show of no confidence to our troops. Both of those statements are false, but they are opinions and as such can’t be classified as lies. (Call them delusions, sure, but lies requires a little more proof.)

But one statement repeated in various forms by various congress critters, clearly exposes a lie that republicans have been pushing on the American public since this war began, namely, that if American soldiers leave Iraq, the enemy will follow us home.

Really? They will? And just how in the hell can they do that, since the Republican President, his Republican administration, and 6 years of a Republican controlled congress have done everything possible to make America safe from repeated attacks? We’re told time and again by the president that keeping the homeland safe is job number one, that he’s doing everything possible to protect us at home. If that is true, there really is no threat from terrorists who would “follow us home.”

So the claims coming from the congress idiots are lies. Or the statements from the president et. al. have been lies. Either way, the republicans are lying. But they can’t have it both ways.
If the terrorists can simply pack up and ‘follow us home’ then the president’s (and the Republican party’s) efforts to ‘keep America safe’ over the last 6 years have either been non-existant (port security), just for show (airport shoe screening) or completely incompetant (border security). But if all those things are actually in place and effectively working, then the terrorists simply can’t get into the country.

So which is it republicans? Have you done your job and tightened up our home security or have you just practiced your rhetorical fearmongering skills these last few years?

Racist Rove Reveals Republican Reality

From The National Review, a decidedly conservative magazine:

According to a congressman’s wife who attended a Republican women’s luncheon yesterday, Karl Rove explained the rationale behind the president’s amnesty/open-borders proposal this way: “I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.” (emphasis added)

Gee Karl, that’s real good of you to finally expose the truth behind compassionate conservatism.It seems like the party of Lincoln has really devolved quite a bit. I doubt that if Lincoln were running for office today he would even get past the vetting teams, because by golly, he actually had to work as a youth.

Excuse me for being offended, but I thought that in America we were an egalitarian society, where all honest work was similarly valued, if not in monetary compensation then at least in principal. I thought that the ‘new conservative agenda’ valued hard work and character building. I thought they stood for ‘the common man.” Guess what Herr Karl? The common man’s kids do make beds, and wash dishes, and clean up after others. Yet somehow, all that isn’t good enough for your kid? Guess we better get some more brown people to clean up after your lily-white ass, eh Karl?

When I was a teenager, getting a part time job in a restaurant or on a farm or in a grocery store or a hotel or mowing lawns was looked upon as good experience, character building experience, as a valuable part of moving towards adulthood. My family wasn’t rich by any means, but even my friends who were fairly well off had part time jobs of the kind that the Bush Administration now claims “American’s aren’t willing to do.”

But now we hear from the asses mouth himself the driving force behind the Bush Administration’s desire for more and less regulated immigration.

Again, from the article:
“This is why the president’s “willing worker/willing employer” immigration extravaganza is morally wrong — it’s not just that it will cost taxpayers untold billions, or that it will beggar our own blue-collar workers, or that it will compromise security, or that it will further dissolve our sovereignty. It would do all that, of course, but most importantly it would change the very nature of our society for the worse, creating whole occupations deemed to be unfit for respectable Americans, for which little brown people have to be imported from abroad. In other words, mass immigration, even now, is moving us toward an unequal, master-servant society.”

I don’t think I could have said it any better myself. If this country really needs immigrant labor, then fine. Develop and stick to laws to make it happen. But if the whole push for more immigration is so that Karl’s kid (and presumably the kids of all the neo-conservative/conservative/Republican jackholes) doesn’t have to wait a table or pick a strawberry, then it’s time to shut the borders up until we have 100% employment of Americans, including (especially) the young people who will one day lead this country. As we have tragically seen, kids who never have to work don’t really make good leaders. And they make incredibly poor presidents and presidential advisors.

More Republican Racism

In the second time in as many weeks, a major Republican policy maker has exposed the racist underpinnings of the Bush Administration regarding immigrants who come to America.
On Feb. 8th, Karl Rove addressed a group of Republican women at a luncheon wherein he described the rationale behind the president’s open-borders proposal by saying, “I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.”

Follow that with a statement made by Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff speaking to reporters while visiting in Mexico last Friday where he tries to explain the goals of US immigration policy:
“Every time a Border Patrol officer is transporting a load of future housekeepers and landscapers to someplace to be returned, he’s not looking
for drug dealers or drug loads,” Chertoff said.

So, according to Rove and now Chertoff, and by extension presumably the president, vice-president, their republican allies in Congress and their supporters across the nation, immigrants, and especially those whose skin is brown, are needed to create a servile caste of new citizens. Apparently, according to the Republican party, immigrants, and especially non-white immigrants, are only capable of menial labor oriented tasks like picking crops, washing dishes, changing diapers and cleaning rooms. And further, those who are not coming for low skill labor jobs are either drug dealers or drug lords.

Another classic example of ‘compassionate conservatism’ at work here folks. What year is it again?

Welcome To Tal-Abama!

A law that seems to have come straight from the Taliban is one step closer to becoming a reality in Alabama, this time thanks to a Democrat.

A federal Court of Appeals recently upheld a 1998 Alabama law that was the underpinning of an anti-obscenity law pushed on the people by state Senator Tom Butler, a Democrat. Butler’s law would ban the sale of any device whose main purpose is to stimulate human genitalia- in other words, Butler wants to ban dildos, vibrators, or any other mechanical sexual aid. (the law also includes provisions banning nude dancing and regulation of where adult businesses can operate.)

Since when did personal pleasure seeking become ‘a legitimate state interest’? Is there a state of vibrator injuries in Alabama that are bankrupting the public health system? Are dildo-brandishing burglar’s unleashing havoc in the streats? Or does this guy just have some serious control issues to contend with? Did mommy not treat him right? Does his wife get more stimulation from her battery operated boyfriend than he can provide?

By the way…the anti-obscenity law does exempt condom sales and virility drugs and other sexual devices that have a ‘legitimate medical, scientific, or educational value.’

I bet Alabama doctors are going to be writing a lot of vibrator prescriptions if this law is acted upon.

Thanks for stopping by.

It’s all included in S.49, called the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, aka DOPA Jr. (DOPA was the Deleting Online Predators Act that died in the Senate last session.) While protecting children from online predators is a good and noble goal, this is a bill that goes too far, for not only does it attempt to crack down on internet child pornography (the good part) it also launches a frontal assault on the online community that has emerged in the form of personal websites, chat rooms, even contributer based information sites like Wikipedia.

At issue is Title II of the proposed act which would prohibit schools and public libraries from accessing commercial social networking sites unless used for educational purposes with adult supervision. The law would prevent any school or library receiving federal funding for internet subsidies from allowing ‘social networking’ sites to be accessed from school computers. Such a law would almost certainly require schools to increase their computer filtering capabilities, essentially locking classroom teachers out of any online educational sites that are determined to fall under the ‘social networking’ definition. A definition so broad that it could include just about anything.

Under the bill, a commission (of unelected individuals) would use this criteria to determine whether a website would be defined as a ‘social networking’ site:

-is offered by a commercial entity;
-permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;
-permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
-elicits highly-personalized information from users; and
-enables communication among users.

Buh-bye Wikipedia. Buh-bye online publishing sites. Buh-bye search engines. Think I’m kidding? Here’s a comment from reader Vickey on the PBS article (2nd link in this post):

“In our district the blocking and restrictions have already arrived. This is the message our district puts out as we search on the computers and reach a restricted site:Web based email is not filtered for content and may contain as attachments, inappropriate images or other undesirable content. Search Engines Major search engines (MSN, Yahoo!, Ask, Dogpile, AltaVista, etc…) often cache or proxy inappropriate material, they also link to inappropriate sites. We do not block Google, feel free to use Google to search the internet. Unknown Sites These fall under the “better safe than sorry” category. Streaming Media With the exception of purposed “education” sites, streaming media (audio and video) is blocked for two reasons, inappropriate content and severe bandwidth limitations Social Networking Unmoderated social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook are blocked because there is no “responsible” party involved in what content is displayed Lyrics, Music, Poetry, etc… Sites that offer content for free are typically in violation of the intellectual property holder’s copright, and as such need to be blocked.”

So far, the bill is in the early stages, so we don’t need to get too worked up quite yet. But we do need to watch and see where this goes. Anything deemed ‘for the children’ can gain popularity, especially in the run up to presidential elections.

But is this really about protecting children or about regulating and limiting the effectiveness of the online community? After all, the world of ‘social interactive’ websites has been very vocal in protecting free speech as well as highlighting the excesses, abuses, and mistakes of the government and their corporate benefactors.

This bill can do nothing to prevent child pornography on the internet- much of it comes from abroad. It will do nothing to prevent predators from gaining access to children either. It will not regulate private schools that don’t take federal funds for internet programs, leaving wealthier districts (and by caveat, wealthier families and children) with an advantage to access information and educational materials. And by extending the law into public libraries, places widely used by adults and children, this law would unnecessarily limit access to information and social networking by adults too.

There ia a better way to protect children than to decrease their exposure to information. It’s called parental guidance.

And there are better ways to eliminate child predators. They’re called law enforcement and stiff prison terms.

Of course, if the goal is to silence free speech and stifle the flow of information between people, this bill looks great!

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

A group calling itself Global Orgasm is promoting December 22 as the first Synchronized Global Orgasm for Peace.

From their website:

“The goal is to add so much concentrated and high-energy positive input into the energy field of the Earth that it will reduce the current dangerous levels of aggression and violence throughout the world.”

Well, I’m not so sure about that, but I promise to do my part in making the world a more peaceful place. I might even start sooner!

So c’mon friends and neighbors…get a piece for Peace! Join the Global Orgasm Movement today!

Through my own comments to their posts, and in essays of my own, I have stood firmly behind these women and their right to have dominion over their own bodies. I have done so because I believe firmly in their freedom as much as I value my own. But in all honesty, there is more to it than that. Abortion, as a medical procedure will never affect me as a man. But it has played a role in my own life, and were it not for the availability of legal abortions, my life would not be as it is today.

She was my first real love, and we’d been going out together for over a year. The relationship was the kind that every first young love is, full of passion and entanglement and silly arguments that grew into volcanoes. It was a time of infatuation with each other, of learning how to be more than just a date, but a partner with another person in ways that went beyond a quick hop in the sack. But of course, there was plenty of that too.

Like many teen lovers, sex was an exciting part of our relationship. With the abandon known only to young lovers, we would find time for sex several times a week. But though we were young and horny and full of passion, we were also intelligent kids who knew all about the dangers of sexual intercourse. We knew about disease, but that was not an issue as we both had had only one other sexual encounter before. Pregnancy was the thing to avoid, and we took the precautions available to us. First, she tried the pill, but as is the case for many women, especially younger women, the pill made her feel sick and why take something that makes you feel sick? Next option, condoms. Easy to use, no side effects, everyone’s happy. So that’s what we went with, and we were smart enough to always have one handy. Well, always except that one time. And it really was only that one time.

It is ironic that two people can take precautions against pregnancy every time they have sexual relations, but on the single occasion that they do not, they wind up with a pregnancy anyhow. This is an even more cruel twist of fate when even on that one time, best efforts were made to prevent a commingling of sperm and ova by using the time honored ‘early withdrawal’ method. But there it was. Strike one, you’re out. And there we were, two kids, aged 16 and 17, faced with a life altering decision.
Instinctually, I knew that my opinion would carry some weight, but that ultimately, the decision about what to do about this pregnancy would not be mine. I have never been the type of man who needed to dominate his female companions, to force my will to become theirs. Whether that is an unusual trait or not is of no relevance to me, it is who I am. I had no familial religious followings to guide me in my actions. I had no other person’s morality floating through my head. My concerns were focused on my girlfriend first, our own futures second, and the possible future of the baby, if it were to become one, third. No doubt these were the same thoughts as hers, albeit from a completely different perspective.

So we talked. And I told her that the most important thing for her to know was that I would stand by any decision she wanted to make. I would support her and the baby to the best of my ability if she wanted to continue the pregnancy and try to make a go of things. I would support her if she chose to carry the baby to term and then place it for adoption. I would support her if she chose to end the pregnancy with an abortion. I would not judge her decision or try to make her change her mind. Whatever she chose would be the way it would be.

Neither of us wanted to be parents. We had neither the experience nor the financial ability to offer a child a decent life. Hell, we still hadn’t finished high school. We talked about how choosing to keep the baby would not only put severe restrictions on the future life of a child, it would effectively end our own growth and progress towards adulthood before it had even begun. Instead of creating a new life, we would be destroying three.

At the same point, my girlfriend was terrified of the prospect of being a 16 year old pregnant schoolgirl. Not just because of the social stigma she would be branded with, or because of the eventual ire of her parents, but because she knew that her own body was not ready for the kind of havoc pregnancy and delivery brings to woman’s body. She was still growing and maturing and not ready for this kind of thing either physically or mentally. In realizing this, she knew that she could not carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption.

That left us with the final choice. In our small town, there were no abortion clinics, but there was a very good, very discreet, women’s health clinic. My girlfriend went there for advice. We were directed to a clinic in the large city, some 2 ½ hours away. I had a job and could afford the costs. I had a car and could get us there. We could handle this on our own. She made the appointment, we made our necessary alibis without giving away our real plan, and we waited for the day to arrive.

The sun was shining, the summer was coming, and we were making the first real adult decision of our lives. It was a terrible day, all the way around. A small amount of melancholy cheer arrived in the form of her sister and one of my good friends, who happened to be dating her at the time. My girlfriend had told her sister, who was my age; she needed someone else to talk to. They were going to meet us up in the city before the abortion, and stay with us until the end. It was what we both needed, because even though I was there for her, and she knew it, I wouldn’t be able to go in the clinic with her. Her sister could, and we were happy she would not be alone. As a consequence, now neither would I, although even with my friend outside to keep my company, I felt as if I was in another world, such was my concern for my girlfriend. I knew she would be uncomfortable, scared, and alone with strangers when the time came.

In the end, as we drove back home alone that evening, we spoke few words. Each of us was thinking our own thoughts about the events of the day, and how we handled them. We knew that the right choice had been made. For her, for us, for the baby whose time had not come. I can’t tell you how she ultimately felt that night, but I don’t think it was good. I know it wasn’t for me. She had just gone through something no one wishes on another person, no one wants to have happen to them. But I think she also felt a great sense of relief in knowing that she had been able to have the chance to make that decision, the best decision in a bad situation.

We went on to enjoy another wonderful year and a half together after that night, but as things tend to go, we eventually broke up and moved on. Teen love seldom lasts a lifetime, although it is often one of the strongest kind of love we know. We went through our own individual ups and downs through our 20’s keeping in contact and staying friends, though rarely ‘hanging out.’ Ev
entually, we didn’t even live in the same town anymore. Today, we are both married and living life on our own terms. Had she made a different choice all those years ago, we would be in a very different place.

Men talk about not having a choice when it comes to abortion, that a woman has all the power and why can’t men have their say in the matter. Well brothers, that isn’t true. You do have a choice. Your choice is to stand behind your woman no matter what she decides. You can choose to be a man or to be a tyrant, forcing your will, your needs on her. You can choose to recognize that your role beyond being a sperm donor is limited to that of support staff until or if a baby is actually born. You can choose to honor the rights you demand for yourself when your woman asserts them for herself. You have a choice. And that choice is important. Your can choose to support her. But brothers, you do not have a right to a woman’s body. You do not have a right to her mind. And you do not have a right to a mass of cells, growing in her body, using her nutrients, and changing her life.

I said earlier that I stand behind a woman’s right to choose. Behind, instead of beside, because they have the uterus and the matter affects them directly and not me. Behind so that I can beat back those who break through the front line, who manage to tear a hole in the wall that women have created to protect their rights. Behind, because that is where support is needed.

Every tale about abortion is personal, and I have never really talked about this part of my life in this detail. I don’t really think about it often, although the recent furor over abortion has forced this back to my mind, especially the current discussion here at this site. But when I do think about what happened all those years ago, I know that the choice we made, that she made, was the best choice at that time. Instead of ending one life, she saved three. And she was able to do so because the law said she could. It is a law to preserve the life of the living. It touches the foundations of freedom. And men, we should all fall in line behind our women and fight to make sure it remains that way.

(Cross posted at Bring It On)

What arguments exist that makes this segregation seem reasonable? Those who condemn the gay lifestyle typically use one of several justifications for discriminating against homosexuals: religion, nature, or family values. One of the oldest, yet still quite popular, justifications used is that of religion. Early religious doctrines outlawed homosexual behavior as abominations in the eyes of god, a concept based in part on the assertions that sex is bad, and though sex is bad, it’s okay if it makes more babies who will grow up and worship god. The corollary being that god only allows sex to make babies, and since homosexual activity will never result in offspring it is wrong. But more than just wrong, it is an affront to god to abuse his method for perpetual glorification by using the gift of life for mere pleasure. From this logic comes the dictum that homosexual behavior is a sin and should be outlawed.

The obvious flaw with this argument lays not so much in the description of how babies are made, but the idea that sex equals babies is universally held and therefore deserves legal status. But this is often the mistake with arguments based solely on theological reasoning, because the nature of our religious institutions prevent them from admitting any fault with their religious doctrine, keeping them from recognizing the contradictions within their own holy texts regarding the treatment of people as free individuals while insisting that their actions are free only if god doesn’t object, which he pretty much always does. Since the religious argument’s only justification is to please god, which is highly subjective, this argument is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

In a similar vein, those who would argue that homosexuality “just isn’t natural” have a hard time making that claim stick. Their main premise is identical to the religious premise, only without the god part. Basically, the argument relies on the notion that sex is basically a procreative behavior, and that sexual encounters that can’t possibly produce offspring are therefore against the natural design that clearly gave male/female opposites the complimentary parts for achieving this end. Though less judgmental regarding the pleasurable effects of sex, this only applies to heterosexual behavior, being fringe benefits for helping nature run her course.

The problem with this argument is that when it is examined further along the lines of “natural design,” it could be argued that homosexuality in itself is of natural design too. After all, if humans are creatures of nature, then our variations are natural as well. If among these variations one results in homosexual behavior, then isn’t that by natural design also? As it must be so, then homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality or bisexuality or even asexuality. The mere fact that homosexuality constitutes a minority of the population is irrelevant in this context, since the percentages are also set by natural design. If we know anything about the natural world, it is that in all species, variation abounds. This argument actually proves itself wrong when allowed to run a logical course, so it is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

That leaves us with the last ditch effort to find a reason for justifying the segregation of homosexuals and equal recognition under the law. The “family values” argument. This argument begins with the premise that for children to be raised to become productive citizens, the family unit should contain a man and a woman. This is the most important facet of the family values argument. As long as there is a man and a woman together as parents, the family values requirement has been satisfied. Since homosexual couples can’t meet this requirement, the can’t become a “real family.” Since a “real family” is the only way to properly raise children, for the good of society, all legally recognized families must be of this basic design.

The family values argument pretends to preserve the family unit, but makes no other real efforts towards solving the actual problems in today’s families. What is more harmful to the cohesion of family units: divorce or two parents who love each other and want to stay together, but happen to be the same sex? Which is more damaging: the lack of parental participation or having two moms’ at the mother/daughter tea? Which is more debilitating for a child: an abusive natural parent or seeing his two dads’s kissing? The family values argument makes no real effort to encourage heterosexual families to create and maintain secure, stable, emotionally supportive families for children, which would better reflect the concept of valuing the family. Instead, they only seek to prevent homosexuals from participating in one of life’s great joys and endeavors, the task of parenthood. Because the real truth about the family values argument, the dirty little secret, is that this argument is based on plain old bigotry, dressed up in its finest clothes. It’s discrimination in its purest form and when it’s hypocrisy is revealed, it proves to be the least sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

As this leaves us with no other arguments that can justify the unequal legal status homosexuals currently endure, it is the duty of this government to remove any barriers that prevent homosexual couples from enjoying the same legal status heterosexuals have with regards to marriage, adoption, taxes, work benefits, and on and on. Science seems to support the assertion that homosexuality is a natural occurrence, something hardwired into a person’ genetic code. Religion and bigotry (not always the same, mind you) insist that it is simply a behavioral issue that can easily be repressed or reformed or outlawed into extinction. The scientific view has more going for it, in terms of common sense, and it has the added benefit of not legislating religious morality by proxy.

As with other issues discussed recently, removing the barriers for homosexual couples has no effect on individual couples’ relationships. How many people do you know that would throw away their hetero relationships the minute gays could get married because now their own marriage was worthless? Allowing gay people the chance to share their life with someone they love does not weaken the bonds of monogamy and child rearing. It only adds to the number of people finding individual happiness together and passing that happiness to future generations. And it strengthens the bonds of society through the continued affirmation in the belief for freedom and equality for all citizens.

As with many touchy moral questions, the debate regarding abortion has been framed in mostly religious terms. While that is understandable to a degree (because of the theological implications of pregnancy held by most religions), it has the unfortunate aspect of ignoring the historical, medical, and societal impacts, and reduces the freedoms and responsibilities of individuals. But as with many moral choices, the reasons behind abortions can’t be summed up in a few catchy phrases like Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. These words are ridiculous when the implications of the conversation are considered in full. Let’s be real for a minute…isn’t the whole idea of freedom about being “pro-choice?” Isn’t the whole concept of happiness “pro-life?” As with many ideas in today’s political/social/religious arena, these phrases smack of politically correct nonsense, their only purpose to divide and demonize.

So if we agree that no one likes abortion, we can probably agree on a few other points as well. From a medical standpoint, let’s accept the notion that it is better to not have an abortion than to have one, if only because internal medical procedures are inherently harmful to the body. (FOR THE RECORD: I am not referring to any studies from any institution or any study results that purport any physical findings related to abortive procedures. This is just a general statement regarding invasive procedures.) We must also agree to accept scientific evidence regarding the viability of human life when considering public policy. And we must agree that any legislation should have the intended goal of reducing then number abortions.

The first major hurdle to overcome in the abortion debate is still the religious one. As with many religious doctrines, the table is split on this issue as well. But while most Christians (and we will use Christianity as our religious example since it is the predominant religion in America) hold the creation of new life as a gift from god, there is no consensus as to whether this belief is largely metaphorical or strictly factual. This division among the main group of opponents, when coupled with the non-religious opinions of other citizens, necessitates the reliance upon a judgment from the secular social structure to ensure that religious dogma does not become public policy, thus foisting its ideals on a non-believing citizen. At its heart, the issue of abortion is a personal one, made by a woman and her heart and her mind. It is among the most individual choices a woman will ever have to make in her life, and it should be left to her, and those she is close to, and whatever religious beliefs she may or may not have. Society does not have to condone the act of abortion, but it does have the obligation to allow women the option.

This does not mean that abortions should be unregulated, because as we earlier agreed, abortions are not really desirable. So the questions left to us are: what restrictions, if any, should be placed on abortions; how can we reduce the number of abortions; why should we reduce the numbers of abortions; and, how can we deal with the religious concerns of those who oppose abortions?

First, abortion, even though it should be allowed, should have some national legal restrictions in place. The reason for this necessity is simple: abortion should be an option of near last resort, not a regular form of birth control. As such, legal abortions should follow these common sense guidelines:
1) Scientific evidence should determine the stage at which a human embryo is capable of sustaining life outside of the mother’s womb. This evidence should take into account such factors as physiological viability, structural integrity, and neural development. Religious conceptions of when humanity begins are not applicable in this determination due to their widely varying estimate.
2) Once the time frame is established, abortions should be not be allowed for an embryo that has passed that stage, except in the case of possible fatality or severe mental incapacitation of the woman.
3) Abortions performed in cases of rape or incest should be reported to the authorities under conditions of anonymity.
4) Abortions performed due to deformities of the embryo detected in utero should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
5) Women seeking abortion should have the right to privacy, regardless of age, with the exception that legal authorities be notified in cases of minor pregnancy resulting from unlawful sexual behavior under conditions of anonymity.
6) Abortive methods should be as benign as possible, encouraging natural methods for abortion before clinical methods are considered.
7) Women seeking abortion should be educated fully regarding the medical consequences of the procedure, if any. They should also be counseled on the other options regarding unwanted pregnancy without interjected religious morality.
8) Women seeking abortion should be counseled regarding methods to prevent pregnancy and should be limited to the number of abortions they can legally obtain in a given time span.
No other legal guidelines should be placed upon women seeking to obtain an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. The law’s purpose is to clarify how abortions can be done legally. But it does nothing to reduce the number of abortions. For that part of the equation, we need to rely on education.

While it is true that an outright ban on abortion would also reduce the number of abortions, it would also have the effect of increasing the number of needless deaths caused by underground abortionists and an increase in the amount of unwanted or uncared for children thrust upon society. So education becomes the key…specifically, education regarding the cause of pregnancy and the ways to avoid pregnancy. This is not necessarily an education in all sexual topics, rather a factual account that sexual activity is the only cause of naturally occurring pregnancy, and that there are many ways of preventing unwanted pregnancy, including abstinence and contraception. The curriculum should also include the responsibilities associated with having a child and the commitment necessary to raise that child to live within society. These lessons should be taught to our children, beginning at an age just before pregnancy becomes physically possible. Our schools should be responsible for teaching the factual information and some of the practical information. The parents should teach their children about the practical information too, and also impart upon them their family’s religious feeling on the matter. Then, test the hell out of these kids to make sure they got the message. Don’t expect that this education will keep kids from having sexual relations sooner or later. Just expect that they will make informed choices that will prevent pregnancy in the first place, or if pregnancy does occur, that they have they tools to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

Another way to reduce pregnancy is the restriction regarding the number of abortions a woman can receive in a given time period. Enforcement of this type of policy could range from mandated counseling all the way to mandatory sterilization. There is no reason why a woman, once educated to the factual nature and preventative measure of pregnancy, should have the need for multiple abortions. It can be said that everyone makes a mistake once, and maybe
even a second time, but the third time isn’t a mistake anymore, it’s just plain carelessness or callousness. Women who abuse the abortion system should be made to carry future babies to term and then place them in adoption centers or agree to get sterilized. When faced with this choice, some women may try to be more careful. But we must realize that pregnancy is not just a female issue. It takes a man to make a baby too. For that reason, we should institute a system for identifying the man responsible for impregnating any woman who gets an abortion. With that information, we could mandate the same counseling, plus financial obligations, and finally sterilization for men who callously get women pregnant. This would cause men to stop and take notice to their responsibility as well.

If we are to allow abortions, why should we care about reducing the number of abortions? From a strictly non-religious standpoint, the reduction in abortions is desirable because we still all agree that we don’t like abortions. But on a more practical level, abortions and unwanted pregnancies are disruptive to the development of young women’s lives and can steer them away from becoming productive contributors to society. Also, the excess of abortions offer too easy a way for men to shed their responsibilities as a potential father, and encourages them towards selfish behavior. This becomes a pattern that follows them into eventual fatherhood, and perpetuates itself ad naseum. An ever-growing population of irresponsible men and half-fulfilled women does not serve society. Reducing the number of abortions logically means that fewer unwanted pregnancies have occurred, pointing to a more responsible class of individuals and thus are more likely to be better citizens.

As for the religious objections regarding abortion, like other issues, simply legalizing an action does not mean that you have to do it. There is no reason for you to fear the ability of others to get an abortion. Remember, you are responsible for teaching your kids your religious beliefs regarding pregnancy and abortion. You will be the one who really molds the choices they will make when they become sexual beings. Your religion is not encroached upon the legalization of abortion. Your values are not lessened by factual information. Your beliefs and your faith are surely stronger than that.

This is not to say that sexual behavior should not have some restrictions that become codified into social laws. But it is important to remember that sexual norms are a constantly shifting paradigm, varying from one culture to the next and from one era to another. While certain prohibitions regarding sexual behavior are necessary for the well being of society, these taboos should reflect a sense of social safety needs, rather than religious values. Criminal sexual behaviors such as rape, child molestation and non-consensual sexual acts are abhorrent forms of expressing ones sexual desires because they deny the rights of the individual or take advantage of one who is not in a position to make an informed choice regarding the contact. These acts are, and should remain illegal, carrying serious consequences to those who violate the legal codes and inflict their sexual desires on unwilling victims.

Any other regulation of sexual behavior should not rise to the level of illegality simply because one or another religious group feels that it should be. To do so inflicts the moral values of one upon another and denies people the freedom of choice to experience sexuality as they see fit. For most people, sexual behavior does not remain static throughout their lives, since as their own goals for finding sexual partners changes, so too do their views on appropriate sexual behavior. As such, society has no right to dictate what constitutes acceptable sexual activity beyond those acts mentioned above.

In that vein, it seems ridiculous to have laws prohibiting acts like prostitution, adultery, consensual sodomy, oral copulation, homosexuality, and even displays of nudity when in the privacy of your own property or the property of like-minded individuals. Indeed, most sexually related laws stem from a puritanical religious morality rather than from any actual threat to society at large. Furthermore, such laws, many of which are wholly unenforceable, only serve to congest the legal codes and processes, waste precious public funds for spurious enforcement, and detract the public from issues that more appropriately belong in the public realm.

It’s not surprising that our most popular forms of entertainment- movies, music, television, and literature- are filled with sexual innuendo. After all, sexual behavior has many positive benefits, such as the ones listed at the beginning of this essay. What is surprising is the double speak with which society addresses the disparity between what we show and what we allow. It seems as if society is saying on one hand that sexuality and sexual behavior is okay to display in fictional or commercial terms, but not in actual, practical, real life situations. This dichotomy leads to confusion among the young who are experiencing their own sexuality for the first time as well as creating an environment for harmful sexual behaviors among the adult population.

A better solution would be to repeal all sexual laws except for those directly addressing rape, molestation of children, and other non-consensual sexual acts that actually infringe on a persons physical security. Society may have the right to create restrictions regarding appropriate locations for sexual activity and perhaps the authority to mandate age restrictions for consensual sexual activity, but not much else. I can hear the moralists begin to stammer now, with protestations about the impropriety of certain acts that, if legalized (or at least de-stigmatized), would likely lead to wide-spread orgies in the street, dehumanization of women in general, and random acts of sexual mayhem. But such statements are, of course, ridiculous. Simply making an act legal does not ensure that all public decency would be thrown out the window. The moral guidelines for sex should be passed down within our homes and churches, not in our legal codes, thus allowing people to choose what is acceptable to them without restricting the actions of others. And, comprehensive, factual education should be implemented regarding the physical and mental consequences of engaging in sexual activity before one is emotionally able to accept the results of sexual practices

So what are the benefits to society if sexual laws are repealed? For starters, the decriminalization of prostitution would allow for its practitioners to join the public workforce in a constructive manner, leading to an increase of taxable employment and a decrease in enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration costs. These funds could be funneled back into the public coffers to help pay for social programs and governmental obligations. The relief upon law enforcement would allow them to better spend their time protecting society from violent criminals instead of harassing sex workers. It would also protect those in the sex industry from the unscrupulous practice of sexual slavery by removing them from the dominion of pimps. Eliminating the stigma attached to the world’s oldest profession and requiring sex workers to engage in mandatory physical check-ups could improve public health issues. This might also reduce the instances of forced sexual activity by providing people a legal option for obtaining casual sex.

The elimination of adultery laws, admittedly rarely enforced already, would allow single people to enjoy and experiment with sex without having to commit to a serious relationship before they were ready, leading to a decrease in failed relationships borne from social pressure to “get hitched before getting it on.” The removal of taboos on certain sexual practices would free people to enjoy their sexual preferences without being ostracized. Relaxing the bans on public nudity, in appropriate locations, would negate the feelings of shame that many wrongly associate with evil but instead is the natural state of the human body. And proper education could limit the instances of teen pregnancy, which in itself contributes to a multitude of societal upheaval.

We should leave it to parents and pastors to impart sexual morality to their children and let society provide the educational material necessary to make good sexual choices. Leave it to individuals to discover what sexual behavior best suits their needs at a given point in their lives. Reduce the social stigmas attached to sexual activity and you increase the odds of couples engaging in healthy sexual behavior that is conducive to the creation of stronger intimacy and personal ties. And attach certain social and legal obligations to any sexual behavior that results in the creation of new life, ensuring that with sexual activity comes the responsibility to properly take care of that new life.

Much like the laws against drugs, laws against sexual behavior only assure that more people will attempt to push the envelope of healthy behavior and act in ways that are more harmful to themselves and to society in general. Only through their elimination coupled with comprehensive education can we guarantee that people are able to experience individual freedom without draining the public resources or encroaching on the most personal behaviors of us all.