- Image by danny.hammontree via Flickr
How to Reduce Abortions
This is important to me. I love babies. I love that I am going to be a grandfatther in June. I love children, both first decade and teen. I love women (as a general rule,) and think men are just great for the most part. In short, I am glad to be human and that our species should continue just as long as possible. So, I am not for murdering babies, but I am pro-choice and pro-life. Those two terms mean something different to me and most people who believe that the right to have abortions is a basic civil right than the political slogans imply. If you wish me to state a position based on the commonly understood meanings of the terms “Pro-Life and Pro-Choice,” then call me “Pro-Choice.”
But, and this is an important “but,” read what I have to say about it before insisting that I am in favor of murdering babies:
Women are going to have abortions. They are going to have them for reasons known often only to themselves and the people in whom they choose to confide. A law or constitutional amendment making abortions illegal is not going to stop that, no matter how draconian the penalties. I am not even going to run through the litany of reasons that women will choose not to carry abortions to term, suffice for the sake of this posting that no matter what the laws try to regulate, women will have abortions.
My goal, and I think that society’s goal, is for the women that have abortions to survive them without seriously endangering their own lives. And this is one of those areas in which science should and can guide ethical and moral decisions.
Prior to Roe V. Wade, there were abortions in the United States. Many people will be shocked, I am sure, but it is true. However, the means and methods of these abortions were variable based on the economic class of the women who had them, and also varied greatly based on other circumstance of the carrier’s social context. Abortions were performed in secret, by practitioners who didn’t have proper facilities to deal with emergencies. Abortions were performed in places that did not meet hospital or clinic standards of cleanliness. Abortionists were often not specifically trained on how to do them safely.
This placed the life of the carrier in great danger for post-procedure infections, and women died. Women were unintentionally sterilized by abortionists who were poorly trained. It was a horrifying situation for women who didn’t have access to clinics, but they would make that decision anyway, aware of the risks.
It is important that law reflect human needs, or it will have unintended consequences (this is where it gets tricky.) There has to be a way to create a hierarchy of needs that is both ethical and moral and in ways that do the greatest good for the whole of society; and in abortion law there needs to be a recognition that no matter what the courts or the legislature decides, women will make the decision to end pregnancies. Law needs to recognize this, and protect the lives and health of the women who make this choice.
In Peru, Abortion is Illegal
Peruvian abortions are performed, despite the law. It hasn’t stopped abortion, it has made it much more dangerous for the women who make this decision. (Canadian Medical Association Journal (2009, February 3). Peru Study Shows Restrictive Law Fails To Limit Number Of Abortions. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from Peru Study Shows Restrictive Laws Fail To Limit Number of Abortions.)
Clandestine induced abortion is a significant public health issue in many countries where access to abortion is severely legally restricted. Abortions are often available only in cases of rape or incest or when a pregnancy threatens the health or life of the woman, causing many women to pursue clandestine abortions, which are often unsafe. Forty percent of women live in countries where abortions are legally restricted.
As comprehensive official statistics are lacking, this study provides valuable public health data.
The researchers conducted a population-based survey of almost 8000 women aged 18-29 years in 20 Peruvian cities. They found that 11.6% of women reported having abortions and 7.5% of sexually experienced 18-year-olds – the youngest age surveyed – reported having had abortions.
The political faction which calls themselves “Pro-Life” seems deliberately blinded to this aspect of the abortion issue. I honestly feel their pain and struggle because I don’t like abortions. I would love to see an ideal society in which every baby was lovingly conceived and carried to term into a welcoming social family structure. It ain’t so, though, despite my wishes. I am also not able to make such a blanket statement that all abortion is immoral and must be proscribed by law. Human pregnancy is a dangerous period in a woman’s life even under the best of circumstances, and far too often the worst of circumstances make a choice necessary. When the choice is made, it can only be made by the woman who is carrying the baby with the counsel she chooses.
August Berkshire points out why such a blanket statement that “Abortion is Murder” is ethically impossible:
Beginning with some premises (#1-6) that few Religious Right anti-choice people would disagree with, we follow with a scientific fact (#7), leading to a couple surprising conclusions (#8-9).
- God is all-powerful.
- God is all-good.
- Everything God does is good.
- God wants humans to be good.
- If humans imitate God, who is all-good, then humans will be good.
- God created the human reproductive system.
- At least 25% of fertilized human eggs are spontaneously aborted.
- This makes God the world’s biggest abortionist.
- Humans should have more abortions.
(January 22, 2009 marks the 36th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion.)
While there may be a bit of snarkiness in this, the point is that one would almost have to consider miscarriage and nature-induced abortions to be suicide by the fetus. I don’t think that we can consider that. Death during pregnancy is far too common, and modern medicine can’t prevent all of these. If failure to prevent a crime is as morally wrong as committing the crime, then there is a serious ethical dilemma.
The far better approach to the issue is to reduce the frequency of abortions by making the incidence of unwanted pregnancy a rare thing. And how do we do this? Sensible birth control policies.
I have a daughter who is about to be 17. She recently found herself in a situation in which a boy tried to take advantage of her using alcohol. She escaped the situation, although she is fuzzy about the details when discussing them with me (she has confided more deeply about it with her mother.) If she had been penetrated sexually, it would have been rape. If she had conceived a child for lack of contraception, it would have been cause for an abortion.
Finally, I went to a Catholic High School for my senior year. There was a much sex among my schoolmates as their had been at the public school at which I had been a student the years prior. We had just as many, if not more, pregnant teens at the Catholic School as we had in the public school. Merely teaching kids that premarital sex is “bad, mkay” doesn’t prevent them from having sex. Access to solid, reliable information about sex and how to prevent pregnancy is important not just for your kids and my kids, it is important for society in order to make abortion “Safe, legal and rare.”
Consider the choices honestly. The “War on Drugs” and the “War on Poverty” and the “War on Terrorism” have been ineffective societal attempts to reduce the incidence of negative social functions. Laws in the United States against abortion would be just as ineffective as they were before Roe v Wade, and just as ineffective as they are in Peru. The added danger to women’s lives would cause far more death and mutilation to women than lives of fetuses a “War on Abortion” would do.
Safe, legal and rare. It’s the humane and sensible path.
Related articles by Zemanta
- The Proposed South Dakota Abortion Ban (gender-equality-law.suite101.com)
- Barack Obama’s Stance on Abortion is Refreshing, Now Let’s See If He Actually Does Anything About It (jossip.com)
- Michealene Cristini Risley: The Solution to Roe vs. Wade (huffingtonpost.com)
- Blog for Choice Day 2009: Happy Birthday, Roe v. Wade (xanga.com)
- Anti-abortion groups jolted by defeats (msnbc.msn.com)
- Why Won’t South Dakota Ban Abortion? (cbsnews.com)
- if he’s going to do it, I hope it’s the first thing he does (schansblog.blogspot.com)
- Sarah’s Social Action Snapshot: Protect Our Choice (takepart.com)
- Today is 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade: What are you doing about it? (themoderatevoice.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_a.png?x-id=6897ae38-5bea-40de-be84-6c3de3881e99)
Cross-posted from Tangled Up in Blue Guy.
[...] Crossposted to Clashing Culture. [...]
Thank you. You’ve captured my feelings on the subject exactly.
What was that about great minds?
First off, nothing in your argument leads me to conclude that “rare” would be a logical outcome. 50 million abortions since Roe v Wade doesn’t sound rare, and that has been during an era of comprehensive sex ed. If your solution makes it no less rare then making it illegal, then I’m not sure why I should trust your solution any more then those of the pro-lifer. Regardless of teaching methods, abstinence IS a fullproof prevention against unwanted pregnancies (barring rape of course, I certainly don’t want to downplay that tragedy).
Secondly, I feel like I can make the same argument for your generic every day murder. Thousands of murders happen every year. They happen in messy, painful, harmful ways that often cause awful negative affects against those involved. Therefore, we should allow the state to make murder safe, legal, sterile, and rare! How that rare comes in, I’m not sure. But neither am I sure with your argument. In other words, your argument for abortion has no better moral grounding then the argument for capitol punishments. If you claim it IS a moral dilemma, then where is your moral grounding?
Berkshire’s argument is incomplete because it assumes a drastically UNchristian assumption, i.e., that all natural acts of creation may be attributed to God. This ignores the critical Christian principal of a fallen world. Nature is fallen, broken, and therefore imperfect. We therefore absolutely should not imitate everything that is NATURAL.
Also (and this is a personal question) why does your teenage daughter becoming pregnant in this situation warrant an abortion? You didn’t give a reasoning for this and I am interested. Are you saying that rape is a morally acceptable cause for an abortion? If so, why? It is personal, so I will certainly understand if I you wish not to answer.
Lastly, I want to make my moral point all the more clear. If we are honestly NOT SURE that it is moral to induce abortions in any given situation, then why do we do it anyway? In other words, why shoot? You have the chance whether or not to pull the trigger. If you are honestly not sure wouldn’t the logical choice, considering that the stakes are murder, be to abstain?
Let’s be intellectually honest here with our moral statements. Are we sure that it is moral? If we are not, why do we do it?
Pregnancy is a divine gift that only women are endowed with and similarly to carry on with the pregnancy or opt for an abortion is the natural and a fundamental right of a woman. We should not indulge any human law with this.
Mike,
This post is a good explanation of the standard arguments for legal abortion. While they do have some rhetorical force, I have trouble appreciating them as thoughtful or even coherent. I love honest dialog, though, and would really appreciate your attempts to show me what I’m missing.
This is what I find so strange about your argument: you never once discuss the moral status of the fetus. This is, to my mind, the primary issue! All of your arguments assume certain things about this moral status that the “pro-life” (in the political sense – though I appreciate your comments about your love of babies) advocate would never grant. That is, you’ve assumed the controversial issue rather than arguing for it. Some examples:
Women are going to have abortions anyway
This kind of argument might be good in certain cases, like “people are going to drink alcohol anyway” or “people are going to smoke pot anyway”, but it is no good if you are arguing that one class of persons will regularly end the lives of another class of persons, so they might as well be able to do it safely. You need to assume some things about the moral status of the fetus in order for this to be persuasive.
The political faction which calls themselves “Pro-Life” seems deliberately blinded to this aspect of the abortion issue
Not true. We simply consider the lives of the mother and the fetus to have equal moral worth. If you ask yourself under what circumstances one adult may take the life of another adult, you’ll have a better idea of where we’re coming from.
While there may be a bit of snarkiness in this, the point is that one would almost have to consider miscarriage and nature-induced abortions to be suicide by the fetus. I don’t think that we can consider that.
Suicide is a silly word. The miscarried fetus dies of natural causes, not an intention to kill itself. And calling a death by natural causes a “crime” is just as silly. “Tragedy” might be better. Surely you aren’t suggesting that it is ethical for humans to do anything that also sometimes happens by natural causes? Or that the frequency of its natural occurrence has anything to do with the morality of intentionally causing it?
The added danger to women’s lives would cause far more death and mutilation to women than lives of fetuses a “War on Abortion” would do.
This is suggesting (I think) that if abortion laws were revoked, more mothers would suffer death/mutilation than fetuses do under legal abortion. I highly doubt this is the case, but at any rate it does something you certainly do not want to do: place the life of the mother and the life of her baby on equal footing. It is a utilitarian argument, and very few people are consistent utilitarians. Is it ethical to murder 5 innocent adults if it will prevent 20 people from placing their own lives in extreme danger?
This is already too long, but I wanted to mention just one more thing. The cases of botched abortions have created bizzare inconsitencies in our laws. A 28-week baby can be aborted, but if it is accidentally born alive then it is a crime to not try to save its life. What change in its moral status has been affected by passage through the birth canal? None, I say. But we can see a baby once it’s been born, and when we see with our own eyes what it means to kill a baby, we can’t do it.
Funny that you should bring up pot. It’s another area in which moralism is an excuse for bad policy.
No. The life of the mother and the life of the fetus do not have equal moral status. It doesn’t even say that in the Bible, does it? My main objection to your position is that the view of morality is based on your religious beliefs, outside of your scripture. It should have no bearing nor weight as special authority in matters that are between someone who doesn’t share your faith and her health care provider, or whoever she chooses to confide in.
Further, I don’t consider heroin addiction to be a good thing but I do consider providing clean needles to addicts to be sound policy. It helps to reduce the incidence of death from AIDS among heroin users.
Was it nature, then, that sinned in the Garden? Was the apple even a sin worth creating all this trouble for all creatures everywhere, including the fetuses in the case of non-medical abortions?
Something smells here of Epicurus’ Dilemma.
No. The life of the mother and the life of the fetus do not have equal moral status.
I was hoping we could have a discussion about why this is or is not the case – what constitutes personhood, when a fetus/baby’s life ought to fall under the protection of the state, etc.
If you think abortion is moral than you must have a compelling reason to think that the baby’s moral status changes when it passes through the birth canal. I’d like to know what this is.
I suspect that any answers you can give to these questions would also allow killing some classes of persons whom you would want to exclude.
And I do wish you would stop mentioning the Bible. Blaming my position on religion does not give you license to not support your own position.
“Was it nature, then, that sinned in the Garden?”
In as much as humans, being both spirit and body, are natural.
“Was the apple even a sin worth creating all this trouble for all creatures everywhere, including the fetuses in the case of non-medical abortions?”
There is no possible way I could do justice to that question in a blog post. If I were to attempt, I would probably just resort to a regurgitation of Romans 5:12-21. But I should ask you, if there ought to have been an action representing the choice of Adam and Eve to sin, what action ought it have been?
“Something smells here of Epicurus’ Dilemma.”
The simplistic Christian answer to Epicurus would be that God can, and has, but has not yet finished.
Well Mike, I know this makes me a Bad Evangelical, but I do agree with your position almost entirely. Specifically, I oppose attempts to make abortion illegal and I hold “pro-life” political goals in very low regard. In my view, those who value unborn human lives should work to reduce abortion, not work to make it illegal, at least because banning the procedure will have little effect on its prevalence, but also because the best way to reduce abortion is to reduce unwanted pregnancy.
But the argument from Berkshire is an embarrassing joke. It’s simply another failure to recognize that the Problem of Evil, no matter how serious it is for believers, is just the Problem of Evil and not some Swiss Army Knife of arguments against everything that Christians believe or value. Brianjwalton is right: the fact that any particular evil exists does not establish God’s sanction of that evil, and one clear argument against that silly proposal is the Fall itself. It was Alexander Pope, not God, who said “Whatever is, is right.”
If you want to show that there’s something seriously wrong with the claim that “abortion is murder,” try this instead. I suggest that there are very few people who really believe that claim. If they did, they would act in far more dramatic ways than voting for Republicans, writing letters to the editor and to their representatives, or holding signs in marches. If I thought that there were places right here in Grand Rapids where children were being murdered, and if I knew when and where these murders took place, I would engage in activities far more extreme than phoning my representative or donating to a PAC. Assuming there were no official efforts to stop the atrocities, I would act to stop them, and I would not hesitate to use violence.
It seems to me that a person who can honestly say that “abortion is murder” is either a pacifist, a hypocrite, or a crusader whose violent opposition to abortion has not yet been discovered by police.
Stephen: I suggest that there are very few people who really believe that claim.
I’m hearing depressingly little (that is, nothing) by way of actual answers for any of the moral issues raised by abortion. What properties of an unborn child make its life of less worth than an infant or a toddler or an adult? What makes it moral to end these particular human lives?
I still can’t believe that this is not the issue we’re discussing. It makes all the difference. If abortion is immoral, wouldn’t you want to know? And how would you know if you never bother to develop or articulate an understanding of what it means to be a human person? Whether or not I’m a hypocrite is tangential to all of this.
I can think of one reason to keep the discussion away from personhood: because you know that it frames the debate in a way that is unfavorable to you. Because, maybe, you wouldn’t want to know if abortion is immoral.
Please, someone, salvage my impression of your intellectual honesty. Take these issues seriously, and acknowledge that they stand at the center of the debate.
Here is the main reason that the status of the fetus is not the moral equivalent to that of the mother, Brian. Moral status is earned to one extent in that it involves the ability to make decisions. It becomes a gradual process, and it is not instantaneous.
Once the baby is born, it has begun that process of living on its own through breathing and before then it is only taking in oxygen and nutrients by the umbilical chord. It is completely passive in this. While I agree that taking a breath in a baby is likely the consequence of being slapped on the butt to cry, it is doing so on its own.
Also, the idea that a fetus is a fully formed person is obviously not viable. Up until it is out and on its own, it is symbiotic with the mother. It is a hoped for life and not yet a full life.
I don’t take these matters lightly, Gabe. I am the father of two children through biological parenting and one through adoption. I am about to become a grandfather, too. I am trying to tell you why I think that the pro-life position is wrong in staking out an absolutist claim that abortion is murder is a fallacious stand.
The primary issue I have with that position is that you take a hard “Is/Isn’t” stand. And you can’t deny that the great majority of pro-lifers use religion as the justification for this. There’s nothing wrong with that, but in a pluralistic society that is governed by law, it can’t be the ruling position.
Life is nuanced, whether you like it or not.
And Stephen, your position doesn’t make you a “bad evangelical.” As you have pointed out many times, evangelical is not the same thing as fundamentalist.
Mike,
Now we’re getting somewhere!
I can’t be sure, but you seem to be using “person” and “life” interchangeably. I’m using them more precisely. In the biological sense, a fetus is “alive” from the moment of conception. It is its own distinct organism, with its own unique DNA. I take it that this is uncontroversial.
What seems to be controversial is whether or not every human life is also a human person – that is, whether or not they are all endowed with the rights normally afforded to human beings. When you use “life” below, I’ll assume you mean something like what I mean by “person”.
Moral status is earned to one extent in that it involves the ability to make decisions. It becomes a gradual process, and it is not instantaneous.
Do you lose your personhood if you’re in a coma? Is a 26-wk preemie any less able to make decisions than a 26-wk old in the womb? Ability to make decisions is a mental property and has nothing to do with one’s location, right?
Also, it sounds like you’re implying that one’s moral status increases as their development does. Why think this process stops at birth? Is an infant less of a person than a toddler? Is a toddler less of a person than an adult? Interestingly, my moral intuition suggests that it is worse to kill an infant than an adult. How would you account for this intuition if one’s moral status increases with their ability to make decisions?
Once the baby is born, it has begun that process of living on its own through breathing and before then it is only taking in oxygen and nutrients by the umbilical chord. It is completely passive in this.
If a baby is born unable to nurse and/or with severe breathing problems, is it still a person? If you are on a ventilator and an IV drip, do you lose your personhood? You are unable to breathe or take in nutrients on your own, and are “completely passive”.
While I agree that taking a breath in a baby is likely the consequence of being slapped on the butt to cry, it is doing so on its own.
Unborn babies do plenty of things on their own – kick, roll, hickup, suck their thumbs. They certainly exercise autonomy.
Also, the idea that a fetus is a fully formed person is obviously not viable. Up until it is out and on its own, it is symbiotic with the mother. It is a hoped for life and not yet a full life.
Here is where your usage of “life” and “person” is most unclear to me. But as I’ve explained above, I think that the “not able to survive on its own” criteria fails by being much too broad.
Also, why is it that the criteria you mention confer personhood? I ask because you claim a religiously-motivated definition of personhood should not be used as the basis for abortion law. What makes your definition of personhood more objective or appropriate?
I don’t take these matters lightly, Gabe. I am the father of two children through biological parenting and one through adoption. I am about to become a grandfather, too. I am trying to tell you why I think that the pro-life position is wrong in staking out an absolutist claim that abortion is murder is a fallacious stand.
I apologize for implying that you take abortion lightly. But I don’t really see how my position that abortion is murder is any more “absolutist” than your position that abortion is not.
From the 1973 Decision of Roe v Wade
Justice Blackmun states:
“Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. ”
It is disturbing to me that the highest court in this country, whose job it is to speculate on these questions, so quickly dismissed it.
But if we don’t know when life begins, whether it was conception, or “quickening”, or birth… then why shoot? Why take the risk of moral culpability if, when backed into a corner, we must honestly admit that we don’t know?
It is a difficult subject. It is not black and white. But making our laws broader to acknowledge that difficulty is not the answer. It is a retreat.
The great irony is that there was a general concensus before 1973, and the majority of dissent centered around the types of punishment allotted to abortions based on the stage of development. And Justice Blackmun acknowledges this. But yet they ruled against the democracy of the past, and the rest is history.
I’m not much for the theological arguments for or against abortion (or anything else). Instead, I find that utilitarianism can be useful in deciding between options.
I’ll start off by saying that unwanted pregnancies can result in a happy child, whether through adoption or in the biological family. However, how often is this the case? How often does an unwanted pregnancy end up with a baby in a dumpster, a baby that is uncared for, a child that is unloved, a child that is hungry, with a family unable or unwilling to care for him or her emotionally or physically? How often does an unwanted pregnancy contribute to the suffering of other family members by diluting resources? If abortions prevent suffering, what is the moral choice? It is a difficult question, but when I look at pictures of starving children (no matter what country they live in), I know the answer.
The best option is to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place (making abortions rare or preferably very rare). I feel very strongly about this. Widely available birth control and education (especially for young women) would do more to reduce the number of abortions than any “pro-life” campaign. Instead, for reasons unknown to me, some members of the pro-life crowd actively spread misinformation about sex ed and birth control, going so far as to change how the US government funds aid overseas.
We can debate all day over whether or not a fetus is a person, but I don’t think that really matters. What matters is that we recognize the fact that people all over the world are having sex and if we want to 1) prevent abortions, hopefully 2) prevent children from suffering, plus 3) slow world population growth – we need to help people help themselves with responsible family planning.
I hold to the legal (and reasonably scientific) definition. When the fetus is able to exist outside the womb, it is a person. Biologically, there is no hard line, but we are reasonably “safe” when saying that a fetus can survive on its own no earlier than 20 weeks (4 months). The majority of abortions do happen earlier than about 22-24 weeks, but I personally beleive that improved education (and less demonization) would result in earlier abortions. Combine this with reduced number of unwanted pregnancies, and the result will cause the least suffering of any other alternative.
I get frustrated, then, when I have to argue against so many sources of morality that are put forth. If I use the Bible then there is fault with my argument, but that is fair because there are so many interpretations of what the Bible says in regards to morality that it is virtually meaningless as a guide.
There are many interpretations of any and all major schools of thought. Parsing what Socrates thought, as compared to his diverse students, interpreters, and commentators, is a worthy task for any doctorate student.
I think a root of your frustration, which I too can entirely sympathize with, is that many of these interpretations are poorly thought it and poorly argued.
Hello,
I just found this site, so please forgive the lateness of my comment.
Brian, I would take issue with the concept of moral culpability. When you mention morality it sounds as if that concept has no existence outside of a religious context. That morality is dictated by religion, or God, is not a premise I’m willing to accept. Morality is a social construct, and I will grant that society(any society) can have what others would consider to be immoral activities. However, since morality is a social construct it can be changed, especially when there is a document behind that society guiding it(i.e. the Constitution).
However, morality is not the main reason I’m pro-choice. Reality leads me to it. I would have to agree with Anastasia on her points about facing reality. While it would be nice if all children could be born into caring families with the resources to raise them, that simply isn’t the case, and if you believe in the fallen concept then you would have to agree.
Even if you go with the adoption not abortion argument, well there are around 500,000 kids in foster care in the U.S. alone. Is it moral to deny them loving families by creating a influx of children given up by mothers that were forced to have a child? (While I grant that not all of these kids are considered adoptable, the point still stands.)
By the way, who will pay for all these children being born? If the baby is tested and found to have a genetic disease that will cause him/her to suffer horribly for a short duration of time before dying, is abortion acceptable then? What about rapes? AIDS? If morality guides you then the answer should be no for murder is murder, right?
I have some other questions as well. Do you support the death penalty(which is basically state-sanctioned murder)? If so why? Thou shall not kill seems pretty straightforward. Do you support war(again basically state-sanctioned murder)? Again, why? Are there really exceptions to the morality of the Bible? Thou shall not kill, unless…(insert reasoning here)?
Mike makes a valid point, education has been shown to decrease unsafe sexual practices that can lead to pregnancy or disease. Ideally children should start learning at younger ages and this whole mystical nonsense we as a nation surround sex with needs to disappear. Abstinence should definitely be taught, but only as the best way to avoid sexually based problems, and only as part of a comprehensive sexual education.
If I offended, I really didn’t mean to. These are just questions that came into my mind as I read the responses to the article. If you do happen to read this, answers clarifying your position would really be appreciated.