A very interesting piece on incest by Margaret Somerville:

Some people propose that just as laws criminalizing homosexual acts or limiting marriage to monogamous heterosexual unions have been changed, the law against incest should be repealed. They argue this law is outdated, does not reflect current social mores and is nothing more than imposing one view of morality on others in a context where personal privacy should take priority.

Underlying their approach is the belief that personal preference is the guiding principle regarding one’s sexual activity and that what one does, as long as it is among consenting adults, causes no harm to anyone else.

Their definition of harm is very narrow. Any concern about harm to children who might be conceived as a result of incest or the harm it does to family structure, relations and functioning, and thereby to society and its values, is not on the radar screen. So, if a grandfather wants to have sex with his 18-year-old granddaughter and she consents, it is no one else’s business but their own.

Those making the case for legalization reject the idea that incestuous conduct might be inherently morally wrong. Rather, moral relativism governs – that is, the decisions of the persons involved as to the ethics of their conduct are conclusive. Ethics becomes nothing more than personal preferences.

I used to be a libertarian. I used to think that as long as one didn’t hurt anyone else, one was allowed to do anything one wanted. That what consenting adults got up to was their business and no one else’s. Part of me still believes that. But I also realized, somewhere along the way, that I was probably guilty of having a definition of harm that was too narrow. And that when in doubt, one should always make sure children (who are inherently more vulnerable than adults) are reasonably well-protected from harm. I have never been able properly to explain why gay marriage made me uneasy, especially because homosexuality, and homosexual behaviour, do not have the same effect on me. But part of is certainly has to do with a very strong instinct to reject ethics as “nothing more than personal preferences.”

It’s astounding the number of women who consider abortion in favour of their romantic relationship.  A woman is often put in a position where she feels she must choose between her boyfriend or her baby.  Some men may even be heard uttering, “What?  You’re choosing this baby over me?”

This recent — and very relevant — study published by the peer-reviewed journal Public Health suggests:

When a woman gets an abortion, the couple is more than twice as likely to argue when discussing future children, and nearly three times as likely to experience domestic violence, compared with women who carry the pregnancy to term and raise the child.

So, dude, it turns out that, if she’s choosing the baby, she is choosing you, too.  Suck it up.  You’ll make a great dad.

Apparently, that nasty Afghan “marital-rape” law is a giant misunderstanding.

A new Afghan law that has drawn Western condemnation for restricting women’s rights does not allow marital rape as critics claim, but lets men refuse to feed wives who deny them sex, the cleric behind it says.

The Shiite personal status law advocated by Ayatollah Mohammed Asef Mohseni has sparked controversy abroad because of a provision that states “a wife is obliged to fulfil the sexual desires of her husband.” This was read by some as an open door to marital rape, and with clauses restricting women’s freedom of movement denounced as reminiscent of Taliban-era rules.

But the cleric said the law — which applies only to the 15% of Afghans who are Shiite — has been misinterpreted. Its sexual clauses are aimed to ensure men’s sexual needs were met within marriage, because Islam prohibits them seeking satisfaction with other women.

OK. Let’s play with language, too. This law, as I understand it, does not so much “restrict women’s rights” as enslave women pure and simple. But that’s a minor issue. What I really don’t like about that article is that little bit I highlighted: “This was read by some as an open door to marital rape”. Really? And we’re obviously wrong since the law does not specifically say men are allowed to rape their wives. It just says women aren’t allowed to refuse sex unless they have a very good reason (what are they meant to do, explain themselves to the local constabulary?) and their husbands are allowed to starve them if their (obviously unquestionably valid) sexual desires are not fulfilled to their satisfaction.

And that’s supposed to be better?

It’s not easy being pro-women (or just not completely crazy) in Afghanistan:

Hundreds of Afghan women were pelted by stones as they staged a protest against a new law that critics say legalises marital rape.

The 300-strong group braved crowds of bearded men, screaming ‘dogs’ and ‘Slaves of the Christians!’ as they held their demonstration in Kabul.

So, um, where to start?

___________________

Andrea adds: That’s an interesting epithet to hurl–“slaves of the Christians”–however, it highlights the reality rather well: that Christianity brings women rights in this world. It’s just too bad that the last time I heard that slur it was here in Canada. (Actually I think it was directed at my boss. As in you crazy social conservatives are religious zealots who want to enslave everyone.)

___________________

Tanya notices (again): how the media loves bad news. The article’s title stars out: “Afghan men hurl stones at 300 women…”

Maybe I’m too much of a glass-half-full kinda gal, but I think the big news story here is that ‘300 Afghan women protest Shiite law.’ How I would love to rewrite the whole article. This is great news! I particularly like that “a line of female police officers locked hands to keep the groups apart.”

Bet you thought the post title was an attempt to be provocative. Well, I’m just citing the latest German condom ad, as it turns out. Phewf?

The message: Use a condom, and be sure you’re not bringing the next Osama bin Laden, Adolf Hitler or Mao Zedong into the world. Of course, you’d have to sleep with one of those three to risk that—and I imagine most would abstain, especially in the case of Hitler, since he’s been dead for almost 65 years.

This could be the one condom campaign that actually works–because after thinking about producing a dictator like Hitler, people will simply stop having sex.

(h/t Sobering Thoughts)

____________________

Tanya adds: I don’t know. If people stop having sex, wouldn’t that be bad for the condom industry?

___________________

Andrea adds: Counterintuitive, Tanya, I know. But “let’s avoid making another Mao” isn’t exactly what I’d call a turn on.

I knew adopting a newborn in North America was not for the impatient.  But I had no idea:

The latest federal data show about 6,800 babies a year are relinquished at birth for adoption, a minuscule number out of nearly 3 million unwed pregnancies. Moreover, only white women place their babies for adoption. Since 1989, the number of black babies relinquished at birth has been statistically zero…

Why is “Juno”-style adoption — an unwed mother places her newborn with a unrelated couple — so rare?

Legal abortion is part of the answer. Some 50 million pregnancies have been erased since the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling…

Adoption, meanwhile, has become unthinkable.

Infant adoption is a “barbaric” practice, said one of many anti-adoption Web sites. “With abortion, grief has closure. With adoption, the grief intensifies over time,” is a common warning.

Closure?  According to Webster’s dictionary, closure is “an often comforting or satisfying sense of finality; something (as a satisfying ending) that provides such a sense.”  I’ve heard abortion described in many ways over the last few years, but words like ‘comforting’ and ‘satisfying’ never made the cut until now.

It is not my intention to deny the full range of emotions associated with adoption.  Rather, I’d like to shout through a bullhorn (preferably while standing on a soap box) that there is no closure involved in the act of abortion.  It is disturbing to think that there are anti-adoption organizations out there that preach:

Adoption…is “an industry” in which “young, unwed (and thus powerless) parents are persuaded, through force, coercion or outright lies, to transfer parental rights of their children to older, more affluent couples.”

You know, feminist abortion advocates swear to us up and down that abortion is empowering, and that the idea of coercion is ferociously exaggerated.  But when faced with the option of adoption, suddenly women are weak, powerless victims who’s babies are being ripped from their arms.

Am I alone in sensing the cock-eyed perspective here?

____________________

Andrea adds: I have heard pro-life advocates express concern about coercion in adoption, actually. I think coercion certainly exists in abortion, so I don’t think it goes entirely absent in adoption. The pro-life advocate I knew wanted to advocate for girls who are pregnant to become mothers, I think. (I should add that she is not a “barefoot and pregnant” type of woman–you’ll have to take my word on that…) These are tricky questions. I would again default to the notion that we don’t kill to solve our problems, and therefore the anquish of adoption is a lesser burden than the anguish of taking your child’s life.