Hmm.

80 years ago, some people did something.

Pop watched the attack from the hills at Eva.

Yawn, huh?

80 years ago, some people did something. ~ Radwaste at December 7, 2021 6:41 AM

There was a Marine Corps Air Station at Ewa that took a pretty good beating that day.

Day of Infamy by Walter Lord is a good ground-level book about that day.

The Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions by Alan Zimm is a good 30,000-foot level book on that day; explains why the entire Japanese strategy was flawed and why the aborted third attack would not have shut down the naval base, as is often presented as a flaw in the Japanese operation that day.

I never read Prange or Toland's books, so I cannot comment on them.

Former Arizona nurse, Nathan Sutherland, was sentenced to 10 years in prison, last week.

About time. (He was arrested in Jan. 2019. Given the evidence, I don't know how it could have taken so long to convict him.)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nathan-sutherland-nurse-sentenced-sexual-assault-incapacitated-woman-birth/

As many will have heard, Amy Coney Barrett recently asked, in effect, why safe haven laws and adoption in general can't substitute for abortion.

First, even girls raised in anti-abortion communities do not, as a rule, choose adoption over single motherhood (for reasons that should be obvious after all the decades of tragic stories of birth mothers forced into "choosing" adoption).

More on that:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/barrett-is-wrong-adoption-doesnt-take-care-of-the-burden-of-motherhood/2021/12/03/e5bd2f86-53d3-11ec-9267-17ae3bde2f26_story.html

Quote:

"...Abortion has always been more common than adoption. This pattern held before Roe, when abortion was largely illegal and adoption was at its peak. Though it’s difficult to ascertain exact figures from the time, my colleague Carole Joffe, who has studied the history of providing abortion pre-Roe, has identified annual abortion estimates developed throughout the 1950s and 60s that range from 200,000 to 1.3 million; in contrast, the U.S. Children's Bureau estimated that there were about 175,000 private domestic adoptions in 1970, its highest point. That disparity persists today: Every year, there are about 18,000 domestic infant adoptions and about 900,000 abortions. Over the course of their reproductive lives, less than 1 percent of American women will ever relinquish an infant for adoption, whereas around 25 percent will have an abortion. Abortion is, and always has been, a common experience; relinquishment is a rare one..."

A comment from Pennylane:

"I also thought about Thomas' take that women should be punished alongside Barrett's. He's saying women are charged for using drugs harmful to the baby during pregnancy so why not for abortion and she's saying pregnancy is no big deal because just drop off the baby. So...what if a young pregnant women in a red state, unable to get a desired abortion decided to take Barrett's advice and just soldier thru and then give up the baby. No prenatal visits because of missing work, no thought to care about the health of the fetus because you're giving the baby up anyway, etc. So, see the problem? Thomas thinks the woman should be legally responsible for the result of the pregnancy and Barrett thinks the woman can just live her life and then give up the baby."

But incredibly, none of the media so far (that I could find) is pointing out the obvious. Namely, 60% of women who seek abortions already HAVE children. So. Can you imagine being a mother who gives birth again, and then has to tell her children: "of course I love you and will never give you up for adoption just because of a lack of money, but I still have to drop THIS baby off at the fire station - and you'll likely never get to know him/her in the future."

Isn't it obvious why a woman with kids who's facing an unwanted pregnancy tends to choose abortion instead?

Besides, even a career woman with kids (and much-needed income) can't necessarily keep her job with another baby.

Contraceptives fail, even when one is using two at a time.

And, from an amicus brief from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology:

“The overwhelming weight of medical evidence conclusively demonstrates that abortion is a very safe medical procedure. Complication rates from abortion are extremely low, averaging around 2%, and most complications are minor and easily treatable...In contrast, the risk of death associated with childbirth [is] approximately 14 times higher.”

Oh, and THIS should be no surprise to anyone who read what I posted above:

"Pregnancy is no temporary burden:
Despite the arguments of Amy Coney Barrett and other anti-abortion advocates, the physical and financial impacts of pregnancy and childbirth can be permanent regardless of adoption—especially for black women"

https://prismreports.org/2021/12/03/pregnancy-is-no-temporary-burden/

Quote:

Pregnancy is right up there with aging on the list of human experiences that will permanently change a person’s body. Scars and complications from C-section surgery, lasting pain and sexual dysfunction after some vaginal births, urinary incontinence and other pelvic floor problems, separation of the abdominal muscles, lingering high blood pressure, increased risk of heart problems, and more can await those who experience pregnancy and childbirth, to say nothing of the more “cosmetic” but no less lasting changes in bone structure, breast shape, and even shoe size.

And that’s just for those of us who survive...

Contraceptives fail, even when one is using two at a time.

lenona at December 7, 2021 10:05 AM

Way more rarely than you think. I would venture to guess most unwanted pregnancies are fueled by alcohol, drugs, and pure stupidity.

I know what the failure rates are, thank you. Both in theory and in practice.

My question is, just how often do sex ed teachers emphasize that even married heterosexual couples should NOT rely on the Pill alone, if they're serious? Or on any other reversible contraceptive?

Well, Lenona, men who complain about child support obligations (which can be financially life-destroying) are blithely told that they should just "keep it in their pants." Contraceptive failure is no excuse.

So, goose meet gander, right? Not having sex is a sure-fire way to avoid the possibility of pregnancy resulting from contraceptive failure.

Oh, and while it shouldn't surprise anyone that couples (especially teens) who fail to use BC on any one occasion are more likely to be the ones seeking abortion services, the statistic I keep hearing is that ONLY half of all women seeking abortions weren't using contraception.

Of course, even couples who do use it aren't necessarily using it properly, whether we're talking about couples who don't realize that the Pill has to be used for a whole month(?) before having sex, or couples who don't know anything about the dos and don'ts of condom use.

Which is why I like to say that for young heterosexual couples, there's no such thing as purely spontaneous, romantic sex, and it's time for everyone to accept that. This is because even those who save sex for marriage AND who plan to start their families right away have to make appointments with their doctors beforehand and talk about all sorts of unromantic matters. Even then, couples have to ask themselves "do we really want a baby every year" and then plan ahead, according to the answer, with their doctors.

And, Jay R, I think you know that once a baby is born, most people firmly believe that baby should be supported, preferably by both parents instead of by taxpayers.

Also, "keep it in their pants" is hardly the only suggestion made to men, as I think you know.

Men can use condoms.
Men can make sure two contraceptives are being used every time, since that is the responsibility of every person, male or female, who doesn't WANT a pregnancy, and you can't ever be sure your partner will feel the same way over time, since people aren't robots.
Men can freeze their sperm and get vasectomies.
Men can campaign - and fundraise - for better male birth control.

If they really care about preventing unwanted fatherhood, that is. (Many would argue that most adult males don't, really.)

Legal paternal surrender (aka "paper abortion," "choice for men," etc.) has been discussed here a few times. It's been pointed out that if it became legal, any man could claim his girlfriend lied about being on the Pill when she didn't lie. Also, it would only be a matter of time before married men also started demanding to stop supporting their unwanted in-wedlock children. Clearly, that can't be allowed.

Here's what I said in 2013 (edited):

I can't see "paper abortions" happening.

Why? Because no politician who wants to stay in office is going to support or even allow a law that would cause the real abortion rate to skyrocket - even if that were only temporary. You don't want THAT on your political record.

Not to mention that if the male barrier contraceptive Vasalgel really does make it to the U.S. AND becomes truly popular, "Roe vs. Wade For Men" is truly doomed. The family court judges will see to that. (Of course, Vasalgel also has the potential to cut WAY down on paternity fraud, unwanted abortions, unwanted adoptions, etc. Makes you wonder why there isn't a little more support for it among men. Some men's rights activists think it will restore the patriarchy, but other MRAs resent it in part because they believe men in long term relationships shouldn't have to deal with contraception at all - that it's "women's work.")

And, when it comes to "fairness" in child support:

If a man's only post-birth option is to sue for custody and then demand child support, well, no man has to go through the DIRECT ordeal of abortion or childbirth/adoption either. Seems like a pretty fair trade to me.

It's interesting; I don't remember ever hearing of an MRA who was truly opposed to legal abortion, though MRAs are not monolithic on the subject. What they ARE near-monolithic about is their anger at women who have or don't have abortions according to the men's mercurial wishes - like robots.

Correction - that should be "women who have or don't have abortions INSTEAD OF according to the men's mercurial wishes - like robots."

Jay R at December 7, 2021 4:35 PM

And, assuming you were trying to say that abortion should be outlawed - or at least stigmatized a lot more - somehow, I doubt that even a husband who is anti-abortion would want anyone to tell his wife to use abstinence instead of artificial birth control.

(If NFP worked even 95% of the time, I think we'd know by now. Whereas the real-life success rate of the Pill is 94%. Also, the rhythm method, per se, reportedly works only 80% of the time - and it STILL means abstaining for about 3 weeks every month. Why would any adult couple want to use that method?)