The abortion debate carries a very large number of complex and difficult questions and controversies, but it very frequently revolves around the notion (from the pro-life side, mainly) that people women and infants should have to live with any negative consequences of an unintended pregnancy - if they (the women, that is) should wish to avoid those consequences, then they should choose not to have sex. Of course, some pro-lifers back down from that position when the negative consequence is death (not lifelong disability, or any of the myriad other possible "natural consequences" of pregnancy) for the woman. It is acceptable, apparently, to some pro-lifers for a woman to choose to have sex, but then avoid the consequence of that choice if it happens to be death. That position seems at odds with their philosophy that "personal responsibility" is the foundational value, to which all other values must be subordinate, but there you have it.

But that's beside the point... The point is that from one perspective, including Digby's, the "personal responsibility" gig boils down to this: don't want to impoverish your family, or leave your offspring to the tender mercies of the state foster care system? Then close your legs.

Now, to me, telling adult human beings to "not have sex" is just ridiculous on its face. It's like telling songbirds not to sing. But the notion that sex is a luxury commodity like chocolate, that can and should be avoided unless you the woman is fully prepared to deal with the natural consequences of it - up to, but not necessarily including, death - remains pervasive... And while one cannot settle the abortion debate as easily as convincing people that your view on "not having sex" is the right one... it doesn't hurt to get your message out. So, for those of you who think sex is chocolate, here are two perspectives on what the rest of us think... The first is a pragmatist one.

Amanda: Sex is like the gruel served at the nursing home... that is, you had better eat it!

* Abstain until marriage * Start having children straightaway when you marry * If you have a job, quit it to raise your children like a good mommy * When you’ve had as many children as you can handle, tell your husband that you won’t be having sex with him anymore. * Nothing will happen to you when you do this. We swear. Certainly nothing like finding yourself trying to get a job for the first time in 20 years while your ex-husband tells his new girlfriend that you wouldn’t even have sex with him anymore.

I imagine that most women reading this who still want sex to be chocolate are middle class or better ladies with an internet connection, 2.5 children, and a physician who can extract even the most difficult pregnancy with a minimum of risk and discomfort... In other words, I imagine that they are unconcerned enough about the possibility of an additional pregnancy, that - with the aid of a contraceptive patch provided by their high-dollar insurance plan - they feel no need to stop having sex, and are comfortable enough about "suffering the consequence" of a 3.5th child in the family that the notion that stopping sex for the remainder of their lives seems foreign... They cannot walk a mile in the shoes of a woman to whom the above applies.

So, I've engineered another analogy for what sex/abstention amounts to, which turns away from the expectations our society does, could, or should hold toward women, and brings a different view... There is another activity that can, and does have apparently unavoidable negative consequences. But we can no more ask people to avoid it or be forced personally clean up those consequences than we can with sex. Religion. I know I put myself at odds with the more hard-line anti-religious folk (with whom I once identifed more strongly), by saying that we can't expect people to give up religion merely because it is the right thing to do... But the fact is that many or most people need (in the psychological sense) religion every bit as much as many or most people need sex. And, just as I think people who have sex should maintain as much responsibility as possible in the practice - use protection, avoid multiple partners, arrange for the care of offspring where possible - I don't think they should be forced to take individual responsibility for every negative consequence when there are legitimate options for avoiding those consequences. Likewise, I think preachers, disciples, and evangelists should take responsibility for cleaning up the messes that religion causes... but that doesn't mean they should be forced to fight the religious wars against their will should they arise... I don't think they should be forced to travel to Africa and personally rescue the abandoned, abused, or murdered children that result when they send their missionaries there to prosyletize to a culture they do not understand. You get the idea? Just call this perspective "sex is like religion"... and if you don't want Richard Dawkins telling you that you have to give up religion, then maybe don't tell the women of this country that they have to keep their legs closed. Does that make sense to you?