There could well be polls or research about the frequency of different reasons for "why" an unwanted pregnancy occurs, so we don't have to just guess, as you appeared to be doing.
Some hypothetical examples:
Not using birth control at all due to intoxication (mistake by both parties)
Not using birth control at all due to other reasons (m…
There could well be polls or research about the frequency of different reasons for "why" an unwanted pregnancy occurs, so we don't have to just guess, as you appeared to be doing.
Some hypothetical examples:
Not using birth control at all due to intoxication (mistake by both parties)
Not using birth control at all due to other reasons (mistake by either or both)
Failure of "rhythm" as birth control (mistake by either party)
Failure of "withdrawal" as birth control (mistake by male)
Misusing birth control devices though ignorance of either party
Malfunctioning of birth control outside the knowledge or control of participants (eg: an IUD) Deception: Male intentionally sabotaging condoms to generate pregnancy
Deception: Female deliberately wanting to become pregnant to force marriage, unsuccessfully
Both parties initially want pregnancy, but female changes mind
ETC
Any of those (and others) are plausible and likely happen at times, and lead to a desire for abortion. But I have no clue how frequent any of them are, and it seems fruitless for the two of us to discuss how similar or different our evidence-free guesses are.
---
In terms of not imputing beliefs to me, that wasn't addressed to you or to any specific person. Since I was questioning some of the reasoning used by pro-abortion people, it's common for some readers to assume that I must be anti-abortion. I've encountered similar dynamics from strong partisans many times, so when I know I'm discussing a hot button topic I sometimes try to head off a misunderstanding.
I'm kind of odd in that, within an appropriate discussion venue, I can question the strength or validity of specific arguments EVEN IF I support the overall conclusion (for other reasons). I don't believe "any argument which supposedly leads to my own conclusion is automatically valid". So we can all help refine our arguments or drop the less valid ones. (I really do believe in trying to argue in good faith, which includes omitting weak sub-points).
---
I confess that I'm puzzled as well, that there seem to be a lot of misunderstanding between us. I have great respect for you and have often found your writing very insightful. I have good will towards you, and have been completely arguing in good faith, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Both of us can in general write fairly clearly much of the time, we both tend to think things through. And yet there seems to recently be a spate of unintentional (and seemingly unnecessary) miscommunications. It *feels* almost as if you are looking for some way to disagree, or assuming the worst interpretation of my words (and it might feel similarly to you). This is NOT my intention. Even when I disagree, my underlying goal is not trying to "best you" verbally, or show that I'm right and you are wrong - I see myself on a path of collaboratively seeking truth with a respected partner, initially sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing (often on just a sub-point). I prefer more illumination and less heat. It's honestly puzzling to me. Do you have any ideas?
"There could well be polls or research about the frequency of different reasons for "why" an unwanted pregnancy occurs, so we don't have to just guess, as you appeared to be doing."
I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't see how one could poll with any accuracy for this. It would be 100% anecdotal (and guesswork), with no means of verifying the respondent's claims, it would also require the couple to guess which sex act resulted in the pregnancy (they presumably wouldn't find out about the pregnancy until at least a few weeks later). Am I missing something?
And again, I'm not guessing, I'm just talking about the mechanics of women getting pregnant when neither the man nor the woman wants to, and excluding cases of contraceptive failure. The man has to ejaculate inside the woman. The woman can't prevent this except by refusing to have sex at all. But the man, if he can control himself, *can* prevent it.
Four of your examples mention contraceptive failure or misuse, two involve not using it at all, which is unlikely if neither party wants a child, one involves both partners initially wanting to get pregnant when we've already stipulated that neither want to get pregnant, and two involve deception designed to result in pregnancy, which wouldn't occur if neither party wanted to get pregnant.
There are lots of scenarios that could lead to pregnancy. But far fewer that could lead to pregnancy when neither party wants to get pregnant and the contraception doesn't fail.
I've been silly enough to have unprotected sex a few times over the years. I don't want children, so it's always been in my mind that I might get the woman pregnant, so on those occasions I've always made sure I knew whether she was using any protection. If she wasn't, I'd either stop immediately (I only had the willpower to do this once), or stopped long before I thought I might orgasm.
This is obviously irresponsible of both of us, but given that my orgasm is under my control alone, I'd consider it my fault if she got pregnant.
Maybe this allocation of blame is where we're disagreeing. Maybe you're saying that because the woman consented to sex without a condom, she's equally responsible for me orgasming inside her if that happens. If so, I can understand that point of view even if I don't quite agree.
-----------
As for the "heat" that seems to be popping up in our conversations, yeah, I must say, I'm as baffled as you are. I'm certainly not *feeling* or trying to inject any heat. I wouldn't waste anybody's time, mine most especially, by arguing in bad-faith.
As you say, usually we're disagreeing about minor points. I was willing to drop the conversation about slavery's brutality from the first reply. We agreed on the invalidity of comparing different forms of slavery immediately. I couldn't (and still can't) see any meaningful implications of a belief that one form of slavery was "the most brutal," but I'm not even slightly invested in the idea. Yet that's what the whole conversation seemed to hinge on. I was honestly baffled at why you were so invested, which is why I took that line of inquiry.
I was especially surprised by your response to me asking you about your rational objection to murder vs abortion. I asked a question about my honest interpretation of what you wrote. You do this kind of clarity seeking quite regularly in your responses to me and other people. I've never thought you were assuming the worst interpretation when I saw you do it.
I don't feel like you're disagreeing just to disagree, but it does sometimes feel as if you're expecting the conversation to take place only on your terms. There have been a few occasions where you've unilaterally decided that a topic that I was interested in exploring was irrelevant and we should drop it. Or that we should clear up a point of your choosing before addressing the rest of the reply (which then doesn't get addressed). Of course, you're fully within your rights to drop any point you choose. But I sometimes feel as if I haven't gotten any close to understanding your thought process. I just get to see your conclusions. Which isn't very satisfying when I disagree with your conclusions.
Conversation, to my mind, is a way of polishing our ideas by rubbing them against each other. The weak ones will crack, the strong ones will shine, and everybody benefits. You're an amazing contributor to this community. You're smart, you're insightful, you're engaged. I'm grateful you're here. In no world do I want to bicker with you. Especially given that we agree far more often than not.
If there's something about my style of writing that comes off as hostile to you, please do give me a couple of examples so I can bear that in mind in future. If you'd rather I didn't reply to you when you're in conversation with somebody else, just let me know, no hard feelings. I'm not trying to intrude.
As I said, text is a much less nuanced form of communication and it's easy to come across in a way we don't intend. But please, rest assured, I've not been trying to "win" or "best you." I try hard to be mindful of how I come across online, but I guess I wouldn't be very well suited to this job if I wasn't at least little argumentative.😄
The instances I've suggesting just dropping the conversation have been when it seemed to me that we were starting to repeat ourselves without making progress in further refining the ideas. If you were feeling that there was more value to be had in continuing, I apologize; I was not trying to cut off a productive conversation.
I think that both of us have a similar, um, quirk, which may hook each other occassionally. I'm trying to put my finger on it, but it's sorta like being very meticulous about points of argument (using "argument" in the sense of a making coherent presentation, not in the sense of conflict). A negative framing could be about being picky, a positive framing could be about a flavor of intellectual integrity.
For example, you may make a point which I agree with, and most people would just consider it done. But if it seems to me that one of your sub-arguments is not valid, I might nevertheless push back on that sub-point. That reaction is probably not very typical in today's world. And it seems as if you have some related proclivities, prolonging a discussion about some detail beyond where most people would move on, just to "get it right". I likely go into more iterations of that with you than usual because I sense you do want to "get it right" too (rather than just trying to "win"), and because I generally respect your insights. Nevertheless, it may sometimes cause us to spend more time on a minor point than is justified; there are so many other discussions and essays about more major points to be written in the finite time than we have.
I'll be keeping all this in mind and see how that awareness can manifest in better writing. In the meanwhile, if I suggest terminating a thread (as described above), but you feel there is value in continuing (ie: that we are making some progress), speak up. I might be making the judgement call for termination too soon.
Peace. And looking forward to fruitful future discussions. By the way, where do you live?
There could well be polls or research about the frequency of different reasons for "why" an unwanted pregnancy occurs, so we don't have to just guess, as you appeared to be doing.
Some hypothetical examples:
Not using birth control at all due to intoxication (mistake by both parties)
Not using birth control at all due to other reasons (mistake by either or both)
Failure of "rhythm" as birth control (mistake by either party)
Failure of "withdrawal" as birth control (mistake by male)
Misusing birth control devices though ignorance of either party
Malfunctioning of birth control outside the knowledge or control of participants (eg: an IUD) Deception: Male intentionally sabotaging condoms to generate pregnancy
Deception: Female deliberately wanting to become pregnant to force marriage, unsuccessfully
Both parties initially want pregnancy, but female changes mind
ETC
Any of those (and others) are plausible and likely happen at times, and lead to a desire for abortion. But I have no clue how frequent any of them are, and it seems fruitless for the two of us to discuss how similar or different our evidence-free guesses are.
---
In terms of not imputing beliefs to me, that wasn't addressed to you or to any specific person. Since I was questioning some of the reasoning used by pro-abortion people, it's common for some readers to assume that I must be anti-abortion. I've encountered similar dynamics from strong partisans many times, so when I know I'm discussing a hot button topic I sometimes try to head off a misunderstanding.
I'm kind of odd in that, within an appropriate discussion venue, I can question the strength or validity of specific arguments EVEN IF I support the overall conclusion (for other reasons). I don't believe "any argument which supposedly leads to my own conclusion is automatically valid". So we can all help refine our arguments or drop the less valid ones. (I really do believe in trying to argue in good faith, which includes omitting weak sub-points).
---
I confess that I'm puzzled as well, that there seem to be a lot of misunderstanding between us. I have great respect for you and have often found your writing very insightful. I have good will towards you, and have been completely arguing in good faith, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Both of us can in general write fairly clearly much of the time, we both tend to think things through. And yet there seems to recently be a spate of unintentional (and seemingly unnecessary) miscommunications. It *feels* almost as if you are looking for some way to disagree, or assuming the worst interpretation of my words (and it might feel similarly to you). This is NOT my intention. Even when I disagree, my underlying goal is not trying to "best you" verbally, or show that I'm right and you are wrong - I see myself on a path of collaboratively seeking truth with a respected partner, initially sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing (often on just a sub-point). I prefer more illumination and less heat. It's honestly puzzling to me. Do you have any ideas?
"There could well be polls or research about the frequency of different reasons for "why" an unwanted pregnancy occurs, so we don't have to just guess, as you appeared to be doing."
I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't see how one could poll with any accuracy for this. It would be 100% anecdotal (and guesswork), with no means of verifying the respondent's claims, it would also require the couple to guess which sex act resulted in the pregnancy (they presumably wouldn't find out about the pregnancy until at least a few weeks later). Am I missing something?
And again, I'm not guessing, I'm just talking about the mechanics of women getting pregnant when neither the man nor the woman wants to, and excluding cases of contraceptive failure. The man has to ejaculate inside the woman. The woman can't prevent this except by refusing to have sex at all. But the man, if he can control himself, *can* prevent it.
Four of your examples mention contraceptive failure or misuse, two involve not using it at all, which is unlikely if neither party wants a child, one involves both partners initially wanting to get pregnant when we've already stipulated that neither want to get pregnant, and two involve deception designed to result in pregnancy, which wouldn't occur if neither party wanted to get pregnant.
There are lots of scenarios that could lead to pregnancy. But far fewer that could lead to pregnancy when neither party wants to get pregnant and the contraception doesn't fail.
I've been silly enough to have unprotected sex a few times over the years. I don't want children, so it's always been in my mind that I might get the woman pregnant, so on those occasions I've always made sure I knew whether she was using any protection. If she wasn't, I'd either stop immediately (I only had the willpower to do this once), or stopped long before I thought I might orgasm.
This is obviously irresponsible of both of us, but given that my orgasm is under my control alone, I'd consider it my fault if she got pregnant.
Maybe this allocation of blame is where we're disagreeing. Maybe you're saying that because the woman consented to sex without a condom, she's equally responsible for me orgasming inside her if that happens. If so, I can understand that point of view even if I don't quite agree.
-----------
As for the "heat" that seems to be popping up in our conversations, yeah, I must say, I'm as baffled as you are. I'm certainly not *feeling* or trying to inject any heat. I wouldn't waste anybody's time, mine most especially, by arguing in bad-faith.
As you say, usually we're disagreeing about minor points. I was willing to drop the conversation about slavery's brutality from the first reply. We agreed on the invalidity of comparing different forms of slavery immediately. I couldn't (and still can't) see any meaningful implications of a belief that one form of slavery was "the most brutal," but I'm not even slightly invested in the idea. Yet that's what the whole conversation seemed to hinge on. I was honestly baffled at why you were so invested, which is why I took that line of inquiry.
I was especially surprised by your response to me asking you about your rational objection to murder vs abortion. I asked a question about my honest interpretation of what you wrote. You do this kind of clarity seeking quite regularly in your responses to me and other people. I've never thought you were assuming the worst interpretation when I saw you do it.
I don't feel like you're disagreeing just to disagree, but it does sometimes feel as if you're expecting the conversation to take place only on your terms. There have been a few occasions where you've unilaterally decided that a topic that I was interested in exploring was irrelevant and we should drop it. Or that we should clear up a point of your choosing before addressing the rest of the reply (which then doesn't get addressed). Of course, you're fully within your rights to drop any point you choose. But I sometimes feel as if I haven't gotten any close to understanding your thought process. I just get to see your conclusions. Which isn't very satisfying when I disagree with your conclusions.
Conversation, to my mind, is a way of polishing our ideas by rubbing them against each other. The weak ones will crack, the strong ones will shine, and everybody benefits. You're an amazing contributor to this community. You're smart, you're insightful, you're engaged. I'm grateful you're here. In no world do I want to bicker with you. Especially given that we agree far more often than not.
If there's something about my style of writing that comes off as hostile to you, please do give me a couple of examples so I can bear that in mind in future. If you'd rather I didn't reply to you when you're in conversation with somebody else, just let me know, no hard feelings. I'm not trying to intrude.
As I said, text is a much less nuanced form of communication and it's easy to come across in a way we don't intend. But please, rest assured, I've not been trying to "win" or "best you." I try hard to be mindful of how I come across online, but I guess I wouldn't be very well suited to this job if I wasn't at least little argumentative.😄
About the baffling miscommunication.
The instances I've suggesting just dropping the conversation have been when it seemed to me that we were starting to repeat ourselves without making progress in further refining the ideas. If you were feeling that there was more value to be had in continuing, I apologize; I was not trying to cut off a productive conversation.
I think that both of us have a similar, um, quirk, which may hook each other occassionally. I'm trying to put my finger on it, but it's sorta like being very meticulous about points of argument (using "argument" in the sense of a making coherent presentation, not in the sense of conflict). A negative framing could be about being picky, a positive framing could be about a flavor of intellectual integrity.
For example, you may make a point which I agree with, and most people would just consider it done. But if it seems to me that one of your sub-arguments is not valid, I might nevertheless push back on that sub-point. That reaction is probably not very typical in today's world. And it seems as if you have some related proclivities, prolonging a discussion about some detail beyond where most people would move on, just to "get it right". I likely go into more iterations of that with you than usual because I sense you do want to "get it right" too (rather than just trying to "win"), and because I generally respect your insights. Nevertheless, it may sometimes cause us to spend more time on a minor point than is justified; there are so many other discussions and essays about more major points to be written in the finite time than we have.
I'll be keeping all this in mind and see how that awareness can manifest in better writing. In the meanwhile, if I suggest terminating a thread (as described above), but you feel there is value in continuing (ie: that we are making some progress), speak up. I might be making the judgement call for termination too soon.
Peace. And looking forward to fruitful future discussions. By the way, where do you live?