home

The Shame Policy

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 03:32:32 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Scott Lemieux writes about Will Saletan and his strange ruminations on the choice issue. After Saletan reasserts his pro-choice view, he then writes:

If you cause an unintended pregnancy and an abortion because you didn't want to wear a condom, you should be ashamed.

Lemieux writes "[Saletan] has argued that shaming people who get abortions is a good pro-choice tactic, which makes no sense at all." It really does not make sense. Suppose you actually believed that Saletan made sense with this shame thing. How precisely does he plan to enact this "policy of shame?" Is he planning on organizing a finger wagging group outside of abortion clinics? Will they stand next to the folks holding "Baby Killer" signs? More . . .

Saletan just does not seem to get it. Once you accept the premise that the issue is one of choice, of privacy, then the public policy part of the discussion is over. I imagine Saletan feels better continually writing these silly pieces, but in terms of forwarding a discussion regarding choice, abortion or contraception policies, he really is just making a fool of himself. As Lemieux notes:

[T]he problem is that Saletan generally frames legal-abortion-while-pushing-contraception is some sort of centrist alternative to the pro-choice position, while it is the pro-choice position. Even those of use who don't think abortion is immoral think that minimizing unwanted pregnancies is a good thing. It's opponents of abortion, not its supporters, who have undermined efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

If Saletan really cares about this issue, then he is screeching at the wrong people. Not surprisingly, Sully finds Saletan's piece important and filled with insights:

Will Saletan is one of the few writers who openly straddles the line on abortion. And that is why he is worth reading

I wonder how Sully would feel if folks stood outside his residence holding up signs about the "shame" of his personal choices.

Speaking for me only

< Cigarette Taxes: Have Another Hit of Fresh Air | On Sen. Webb's Bill Studying Criminal Justice Reform >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Shame Policy | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Forced monitoring of (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 03:52:44 PM EST
    condom sales. Every time someone buys condoms, the purchaser's name and address is recorded in a government database. If a woman gets pregnant unintentionally, and neither she nor the man show up in the database as having purchased condoms within a reasonable time of the 'mishap', then their names are published in a public 'shame' list.

    I think this proposal sensibly straddles the line on abortion and is worth reading, and more!

    Snark tag missing (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 03:53:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I forgot to use (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 03:57:06 PM EST
    the snark tag. Shame on me.

    [ Parent ]
    Straddling (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 03:58:09 PM EST
    I would love to see Sully and Saletan take this suggestion up thinking it would be a sensible straddling. Leaving out the snark tag is perfect in this case, imo.

    [ Parent ]
    Related but true: Putative Father Registry (none / 0) (#17)
    by jerry on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 05:46:46 PM EST
    Actually many states already have a Putative Father Registry.  If you are a man, engaging in sexual intercourse, with or without contraception, AND you wish to maintain any rights you think you might to actually be a father to any product of intercourse, than in these states, you must register each and every act of intercourse.

    States have adopted out babies whose mothers put them up for adoption and lied to the state about who the father actually is, or lied to the state about telling the father of the pregnancy.

    States have been documented on many occasions as having done absolutely no research into identifying and notifying the father of a child before the child is adopted out.

    And courts in those states have decided that fathers that don't register their act of intercourse with the Putative Father Registry have no legal right to actually father their child if it has been adopted (I believe they still can be assessed child support.)

    And it seems that in many states that have Putative Father Registries, there is little to no attempt to explain to men that they exist or how to contact them.

    [ Parent ]

    Saying you should be ashamed is not announcing a (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jerry on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 05:27:21 PM EST
    policy of public shaming.

    I don't care for Saletan or Lemieux, they are literally two sides of the same (bad) coin.  But in the excerpts you quoted above, I don't see Saletan arguing for some public tactic of shaming.

    So I'll go further than Saletan, (and in a non-sexist manner)

    If you cause an unintended pregnancy and an abortion because neither of you insisted on a condom, you should be ashamed, you should understand you are an idiot, a burden to society, and no friend of men, women or of relationships between men and women.

    Now, having read Lemieux before, many times, and in his original Klingon, I suspect Lemieux's real axe is that many modern feminist pro-choicers are upset that shame or regret is associated with any abortion.

    If you read Lemieux, his cohort, Pandagon and its peer blogs, you'll quite commonly see scorn and disdain for Bill Clinton's statement that abortion should be get safe, legal, and rare.

    What Lemieux is striking out against here is not Saletan saying a person should feel ashamed of themselves, what he is talking about is that no one should ever feel bad for any reason for having an abortion.

    If you cause an unwanted pregnancy and an abortion because no one insisted on a condom, or the pill, or or spermicide, or emergency contraception, or an iud, or a diaphragm, or a tubal ligation, or a patch, or norplant, or any other method than you are quite literally a f'n idiot and you should realize you are an idiot and you should be ashamed of yourself and your ignorance and your immaturity.

    But not to Lemieux.  Lemieux et. al., insist that we must never ever mention any reason to regret an abortion and to do so means we hate women.  They can't stand the formulation of "Safe, Legal, Rare."

    Emergency contaception is not generally available (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by DFLer on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 05:47:43 PM EST
    and we've had years of teaching abstinence as the only option to young people, instead of the many choices you point out.

    That's a big part of the problem, of course.

    [ Parent ]

    What's he arguing for then? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 05:30:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Saletan or Lemieux? (none / 0) (#19)
    by jerry on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 05:56:46 PM EST
    Lemieux et. al., hate Saletan, so I don't find reading Lemieux about Saletan to be terribly worthwhile.

    I don't know what Saletan is arguing for, I said that your excerpt of Saletan meets other explanations than the one you and Lemieux went with.

    When I have been told I should be ashamed of myself, it wasn't from someone suggesting there should be some public shaming of me.  Quite the opposite.  They were saying I was smart enough and aware enough of the situation to know my actions were wrong.

    Okay, you made me click on the Saletan link.

    So why do I keep bringing up abortion as a moral problem? Because it is a moral problem. It's the destruction of a developing human being. For that reason, the less we do it, the better. When I say abortion is bad, I'm not saying it's necessarily worse than bringing a child into the world in lousy circumstances. I'm saying it's worse than avoiding unintended pregnancy in the first place. That's why I keep pushing contraception. If you cause an unintended pregnancy and an abortion because you didn't want to wear a condom, you should be ashamed.

    He's not saying there should be any public shaming going on.  He is calling, if anything, for more public outreach about contraception, and saying there enough outreach already that if you get pregnant or get someone pregnant because no one used contraception you are an idiot, and have committed a moral wrong.

    Lemieux dislikes the view that some abortions, any abortion, may be immoral.  All abortions are just fine.  Safe, Legal, and ... Whatever.

    [ Parent ]

    Um (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 06:03:16 PM EST
    then you have no idea what Lemieux is argung for I think.

    Which is, stop me if you have heard this - safe, legal and rare.

    Its called pregnancy prevention.

    Did you even read my post?

    [ Parent ]

    You should be ashamed of yourself.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by jerry on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 06:28:29 PM EST
    You quote Lemieux as writing, "[Saletan] has argued that shaming people who get abortions is a good pro-choice tactic, which makes no sense at all."

    Where did Saletan write that?  Neither you or Lemieux quite Saletan as saying anything more than a person should feel ashamed of themselves.  Saletan's column contains the character string "sham" in just one place:

    "If you cause an unintended pregnancy and an abortion because you didn't want to wear a condom, you should be ashamed."

    Perhaps you and I have differing opinions on what "You should be ashamed of yourself" means.

    I fail to see that it is any call for a public shaming.  I fail to see Saletan saying that that is a good tactic for anything.  He seems to be calling for more contraception.

    I ain't no philosopher, but I had thought we were at a point where people could understand the concept of being self-aware enough to say, understand when they have done something wrong without requiring some sort of public intervention.

    And so I don't understand why you would ask how that public shaming would occur or writing a blog post about that or Saletan.

    (By the way, I think there is an entire world of difference between causing an abortion because you fail at birth control and engaging in homosexual behaviors.  I wonder how Sully would feel if folks stood outside his residence holding up signs about the "shame" of his personal choices.)

    May I ask how you regard "Safe, Legal, and Rare"?  Do you find the and rare clause objectionable?  And if so, why, and if not, why not?

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously you fell required (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 07:00:19 PM EST
    to argue the Saletan brief and your defense seems to be Saletan is just nattering BS for no reason whatsover. Well, it's better than taqking what he wrotes seriously I grant you.

    As for what I think of "safe, legal and rare," I refer you to my writings at daily kos since 2004.

    As for what Amanda Marcotte and others who like her think of me, you really have no clue.

    They have detested me in non-cordial fashion for years. I have no brief for them.  Hell, I am pretty sure Lemieux detests me too.

    That has nothing to do with the fact that Saletan is writing nonsense.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh please, you already said (none / 0) (#30)
    by jerry on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 07:33:46 PM EST
    that you start from the premise that Sully is a despicable person.  Since you start from that premise, it's seems clear how that leads you to attack Saletan.

    I think neither Lemieux, Saletan, nor Sullivan are worth reading, I think two of the three are despicable, and so I guess by that logic of starting from a premise that so and so is a jerk that makes my argument better than yours.  

    I didn't feel compelled to defend Saletan, but that doesn't mean you or Scott can insert statements into his column that he never wrote.  If Saletan wrote that he thinks public shaming is good policy, please cite that.  Otherwise explain how saying "should be ashamed" translates into a call for a public shaming.

    [ Parent ]

    Wait up (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 07:59:43 PM EST
    You have a brief for Sully too? Oh boy.

    It is not a premise that Sully is a despicable person. It is a provable fact.

    Google Sullivan - McCaughey - Fifth Column - Bell Curve for starters.

    If you do not find that despicable, then we have nothing left to say to each other.

    [ Parent ]

    Google fails me, sorry (none / 0) (#31)
    by jerry on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 07:34:57 PM EST
    As for what I think of "safe, legal and rare," I refer you to my writings at daily kos since 2004.

    I did a quick google for armando safe legal rare site:dailykos.com but couldn't find anything.  I did have one eureka moment only to find the post was actually written by kos.  (But even that post and its comments demonstrate that the controversy over rare is real.)

    If you want to provide a link I would certainly be interested in reading it.

    In the meantime, let's all ponder for 10 seconds how otherwise good searches are ruined at sites through blogrolls, credits, and often times, content provided by javascript and ajax.  And also how wonderful it will be when we can google by date range.

    [ Parent ]

    Lemieux is being disingenuous when he writes (none / 0) (#21)
    by jerry on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 06:15:27 PM EST
    [T]he problem is that Saletan generally frames legal-abortion-while-pushing-contraception is some sort of centrist alternative to the pro-choice position, while it is the pro-choice position.. Even those of use who don't think abortion is immoral think that minimizing unwanted pregnancies is a good thing. It's opponents of abortion, not its supporters, who have undermined efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

    Lemieux reads enough (and blogs about) feminist blogs to know of the controversy regarding "Safe, Legal, and Rare".  So when he says it is the pro-choice position, he is being disingenuous.  There are many pro-choice positions that people can take:

    A) Keep the gov't out of our bedrooms.  I may dislike abortion and think it is horribly wrong, but I don't want the gov't intruding into my body, or the conversation between me and my doctor

    B) Abortion should be safe and legal and rare.  I may dislike abortion, but I find it a necessary evil to protect women's lives.

    C) Abortion is just another method of contraception.  It is as neutral as a condom or the pill.  I like abortions.  No one should have any reason to feel shame or regret over having one.  People that do feel this shame or regret have been oppressed by the Patriarchy.

    The (C) people exist and communicate their beliefs quite frequently and in places where Lemieux has seen them.  My observation is that Lemieux is basically a (C) person himself which is why he finds it necessary to take Saletan's position so far afield.

    The (C) position is basically the position of many modern feminists, and you can use the google search I gave above to start some research about that.

    He also writes: It's opponents of abortion, not its supporters, who have undermined efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

    This is his conclusion, and I think questionable.   In the main I agree with him, as I suspect would Saletan.  But when I observe how often modern feminists tell me that each and every coupling of an underage (under 16/18, not prepubescent) female and male is sacred and must be protected and anyone who disagrees is a sexually repressed rightwing religious nutbag and not perhaps, just a concerned (liberal) parent, than I have to wonder.  A personal favorite of mine was a post at Pandagon excoriating people who wanted to let teenagers vote.  When I asked how could Pandagonians say kids shouldn't vote, but that kids shouldn't be required to get a parent or judges consent for an abortion, my comments were scrubbed and I was banned.  Tee hee.

    What's important is that no one is allowed to question these beliefs or state alternatives.  And that was Saletan's crime.

    [ Parent ]

    I strongly disagree (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 06:16:43 PM EST
    There is no such controversy.

    [ Parent ]
    Amanda Marcotte (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 06:17:50 PM EST
    speaks for . . . Amanda Marcotte.

    [ Parent ]
    With all due respect (none / 0) (#25)
    by jerry on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 06:40:53 PM EST
    Absolutely with all due respect, I think you're wrong about there being no controversy over the "and rare" clause.  I am not a scholar of either feminism or abortion, but I've seen it referred to at many many different sites to believe it's real and significant.

    And it's the elephant in the living room.

    Many anti-choice people are fearful/concerned/disgusted/jealous of the women and men who treat abortion casually and as just another method of birth control.  

    When women (and it's not just AM and certainly not all at Pandagon) write at feminist blogs and Broadsheet and Jezebel and RHRealityCheck of how they are offended by Bill Clinton's "and rare", I think that is a real controversy and that Lemieux knows of this.  If you examine the search "safe legal rare" at rhrealitycheck you can see the controversy in action.

    [ Parent ]

    No, really? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 06:22:39 AM EST
    I am not a scholar of either feminism or abortion


    [ Parent ]
    Molly, my screen (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 08:11:04 AM EST
    needed a cleaning, anyway.  So, as always from you, good timing as well as a good laff.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Hardly a mainstream view (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 06:50:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 05:34:23 PM EST
    Why should anyone be ashamed? Do you think it is the proper self inflicted punishment?

    Should someone feel ashamed for not wearing protective goggles when they get an eye injury?

    [ Parent ]

    Unless You Wanna Go Raisin' Kin (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by tokin librul on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 05:30:50 PM EST
    Wear a skin...

    Me? I been to the Vet...

    i don't really care what (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:32:16 AM EST
    anyone thinks about the morality of abortion, because, with respect to government intereference, it's not relevant.

    it isn't the state's job to originate or promulgate "morality", that's the individual's and their church's jobs. the state's only job is to ensure that medicine is practiced safely, and no unreasonable impediments stand in the way of anyone having access to health care. again, it is not the state's job to determine the "morality" of any medical procedure, period.

    that's the essence of the anti-choice crowd: abortion and contraception are immoral, therefore, it is the state's job to enforce prohibitions agains these "immoral" medical choices.

    it isn't.

    Where to even start. . .? (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 04:00:24 PM EST


    I always start from (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 04:01:43 PM EST
    the goal of exposing Sully as a despicable piece of crap.

    [ Parent ]
    He deserves that (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 04:05:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    A friend of mine who worked for PP (none / 0) (#8)
    by hairspray on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 04:14:36 PM EST
    some years back told me the common reason that young girls came into the clinic for an abortion was because their boyfriends "refused to wear a condom."  Of course in the end it was the girl who ended up with the mess (literally).  Shaming women and forcing them to be shamed for needing an abortion is awful. On the other hand,men/boys who refused to wear a condom are another story.  But you make a good point about the condom police.

    its just as much the girls' decisions to have sex (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 05:08:57 PM EST
    as it is the boys' decision not to wear a condom...

    ehhh, not much of a discussion here...

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 05:17:03 PM EST
    No condom no sex, unless there is agreement.

    [ Parent ]
    That is what the PP nurses (none / 0) (#41)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 06:41:59 PM EST
    told the girls, but they said they "couldn't get them to do so."  So what does that tell you?

    [ Parent ]
    That They Were Raped (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 07:10:29 PM EST
    Or they agreed because they wanted to have sex more than willing to forgo it due to no condom. Or they were unaware of the birds and the bees due to having never encountered sexual education.

    If I were feeling guilty about having an abortion I also might want to blame it on someone else, as if I had no choice. Like Flip Wilson's famous:

     "The devil made me do it"

    [ Parent ]

    Have you ever worked with (none / 0) (#44)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 10:10:08 PM EST
    teenagers?  In a health clinic like PP? Inner city?  Nah!  I doubt it. Your ignorance is staggering.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oh really!! (none / 0) (#40)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 06:38:04 PM EST
    These young girls assented to their boyfriends entreaties for sex but were too timid to demand that they wear a condom.  What does that say to you?

    [ Parent ]
    So YOu Agree (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 04:58:48 PM EST
    With Sully and Saletan, as long as the shame is only directed toward the men who won't use condoms?

    [ Parent ]
    Shame on Wall Street then -- it's to blame (none / 0) (#10)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 05:03:46 PM EST
    for the economic debacle, which is causing an increase in abortions (after years of declining numbers).  So let's restate it like this:

    "If you cause an unintended pregnancy and an abortion because you wanted to get rich and didn't care that some people would not be able to afford babies, or even protection, you should be ashamed.

    "That's you, Wall Street -- you should be ashamed."

    Btw, vasectomies are increasing, too.  Feel that tingle up your leg, like Chris Matthews?  It may not be because of man-love.  It may be because you're on a surgical table, and the anesthetist is telling you to count down from 100, and you're getting verrrry sleeeeepy. . . .

    well (none / 0) (#26)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 06:45:28 PM EST
    The people who should be ashamed are the so-called christians who can't find anything more to do for their faith than hold a placard and yell at women who are already have a rough time.

    Real christians could end abortion in five years if they committed to adopting any and all children from pregnant women who didnt want them.  Make an org, pitch to the faithful, get the churches to sell it and they could even get faith-based dollars from the US government.

    But they'd rather be smug and self-righteous for 30 minutes a week rather than put any real effort forth.  Put your money where your mouth is.

    No, this would not end abortion. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 08:05:38 PM EST
    Women choose abortion for many reasons, not just because they don't want to raise a child. For some the pregnancy itself is problematic.

    And are you really suggesting that women should become baby incubators for good, christian families? Seriously?

    The whole point of "choice" is that the woman gets to "choose." She gets to choose not to continue the pregnancy. She gets to choose to continue the pregnancy and raise the child. She gets too choose to continue the pregnancy and place the child up for adoption.

    Massive use of effective contraception is a great idea and goal. Let's all of us commit to that. But even that will not end the need for access to abortion.

    [ Parent ]

    well (none / 0) (#36)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 11:40:35 PM EST
    It would certainly reduce the number of abortions.  

    Im not saying women can't choose but a certain percentage of women are making a choice based on factors that could be mitigated by lining up a good adoption.  If the same charities could make sure that the mother got proper medical care during the pregnancy, all the better.  

    As for women being baby incubators for good christian families, is it better that they get tossed in the garbage? Seriously?  That's your argument? Im an atheist but I wouldnt suggest christians were that low.  I'm just suggesting that they could make more of an effort than just shouting angry slogans.

    I don't believe in magical beings or souls so it's really no skin off my nose.

    [ Parent ]

    I hate shame so much, (none / 0) (#29)
    by Lil on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 07:06:09 PM EST
    I actually hate the word. Seeing men take more responsibility of pregnancies would be nice though.

    I don't even understand why (none / 0) (#34)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 09:26:32 PM EST
    shame is part of this equation; stupid, yes - but not shame.

    Pregnancy can result from unprotected sex; that should be the kind of "duh" moment that encourages people to take the necessary steps to prevent it.  Abortion is but one choice that can be made after pregnancy is confirmed; if shame is the operative emotion, why is it only being reserved for the termination of a pregnancy, and not for (1) getting pregnant to begin with and (2) choosing to have a child whose future and quality of life could be very much in question?

    Shame drives people into the shadows; it may result in more pregnancies carried to term, but it has yet to be proved to me that that is always the better choice, or the better result.

    People should take responsibility, no question; shame is not necessarily going to get them there.

    The Stupid Policy, too, btw. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 10:54:03 PM EST
    Do any of these know-it-alls ever even check the reliability rate of various forms of birth control?  Condom failure rate: 12%.  (No, for those kids listening, that doesn't mean you won't get pregnant the first 88 times -- and won't need an abortion until the 89th time.)

    Picture this:  At a campus of 28,000 students, at today's gendered enrollment rates, 15,000 are female.  Let's guess at older-student numbers and subtract 3,000 past fertility.  Now let's try to keep parents happy and hopeful, and figure that half of the remaining 12,000 are virgins (ha).  

    As for the sexually active half, let's pretend that they only do it once a month (ha ha).  And let's say that a third rely on condoms (because the pill is, by law in many states, no longer covered by student insurance or provided at student health centers).  

    Do the math.  And if you're a parent, take a pill of your own . . . a sleeping pill, or the math will keep you up all night.  Too.  And that's just one campus.

    But shame, shame on them -- even those who do use condoms that fail?

     

    examine your premise (none / 0) (#43)
    by diogenes on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 08:59:24 PM EST
    If abortion is a morally neutral act equivalent to swatting a fly, then of course shame is not a proper concept.  It is possible to view abortion as a bad thing without considering it to be murder or wanting to ban it.  In that case it would be sensible to believe that people who cause needless abortions through carelessness or negligence should feel ashamed.

    Bad math (none / 0) (#45)
    by catmandu on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 12:49:40 PM EST
    Condom failure rate is 2 to 3 % if you practice perfect adherence---use it every time you have sex and put it on correctly.
    It's 12% when you add in the people who use "when I feel like it" method.  
    People should feel ashamed to get pregnant by accident.  Just read the instructions and actually FOLLOW them.  It's not rocket science.
    I only have sympathy for rape/incest, medical, and some poor dope who believes a guy's lies.
    The Shame Policy | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment