RoR: Forum

Some of the details in this account bother me. Abortion was not illegal everywhere in the US in 1967. California, where I lived at the time, got rid of its prohibitions early that year, and at least a few other states had acted earlier. The girl was a minor, so going out of state legally for medical care without parental consent wasn't an option, but still this inaccuracy does the story no good.

I'm also skeptical that the FBI was cracking down on abortion in those days. If they were, I never heard of it in the news. Not only were these prohibitions on the way out, but the country was under a liberal administration (Johnson) and a liberal Attorney General (Clark). Though technically the Mann act made this trip the business of federal law, such a crackdown would in effect have been an enforcement of state laws. The feds sometimes engage in joint ventures where state and federal law overlap (drugs or white-collar crime, for example), but this doesn't look like a case in point. Show me some reputable historical or journalistic evidence and I'll stand corrected. Some statistics on double suicides of young couples would also be welcome.

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 12/04, 4:25pm)

Post 141

Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 4:24pm

Speaking only for myself, since I am ganging up on no one, let's look at what we know.

Adam volunteered that his girlfriend came from the abortion looking pale and in pain, and he then mentioned that she was unable to have sufficient anaesthesis during the proceedure. It seems he thought her state was due to the lack of painkiller, not due to her current state. Did she indicate that she was bleeding then? Did she think she was okay? Did she request to go to the hospital then? Or did she say "No, honey, I'm alright"? We have no way of knowing. But she did get on a plane to fly to Boston. She was able to get into a taxi to go home. She didn't collapse in the airport. We aren't told she was bleeding. Adam didn't drag her to the taxi in a panic or run from the scene.

The simple fact of the matter is that we don't know enough facts to condemn Adam. (This has nothing to do with our opinion of him as a person or a past friend. My mention of my opinion of him was only to show there is some small reason to extend him the benefit of the doubt.) Let us imagine that the procedure had seemingly gone perfectly, and he had let her go home alone. Would we condemn him for not imagining what might go wrong later? Perhaps they had both thought that everything was fine, and that her state was due to the emotional trauma and the lack of painkillers only, not due to any complication.

I am not defending Adam's actions. I am just saying that while it's easy to judge in hindsight, we do not have Adam or his girlfriend here to provide the necessary facts to make any decision of moral guilt or innocence. Where we are not justified in declaring someone guilty or innocent it is proper to maintain the judgement of not guilty.

As to our druthers, yes, I can say that I'd rather Adam had been a bit more concerned for her health than he seems to have been, knowing what he himself has told us in hindsight. But I cannot say that he feared for her health and acted the way he did with a conflict between fear and shame. Rather, he may have thought that, and she (who was the only person who truly knew how she felt) may have assured him that she was okay.

It is only Dr. Alexander's last sentence in her first post that seems unjustified. She calls Adam a criminal and a poor role model for academics. A criminal? Technically, perhaps, to the admitted charge of breaking the abortion law. But criminally negligent in his behavior afterwards? That charge could be brought. But we have not the evidence. It would need to be proven. And until it is he is not guilty.

Dr. Alexander, I think you will indeed find that there might be people here now and definitely in the past who might take sides in arguments based on perceived friendship. I don't think Teresa, who knows me well enough, would second your charge here.

Post 142

Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 5:07pm

Further - consider the context of the times, 40 years ago, a BIG world of difference not realized by many this day and age...

Post 143

Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 5:30pm

I don't think Teresa, who knows me well enough, would second your charge here.

That's true. Ted is scrupulous, if nothing else. A very honest, sincere, thoughtful man.

Post 144

Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 5:40pm

Hi Dr. Alexander. Welcome to the forum.

You mentioned that Reed "...left a young girl unsupervised after an abortion from a source that was unreliable and probably without proper procedure or experience." I'm not sure that Reed had the information as to what would be proper supervision or any way to know of, or to improve on, the procedures or experiences available under the law at that time. I'm horrified that a young girl would have to go through this, but I think the fault is with the laws of the time.

Reed reports that "She was pale and in pain." A doctor might know from these symptoms that she needed further attention. You referred to them, saying, "...that the surgery was clearly not completely successful" but a layman might assume those symptoms are the normal result of an abortion - I'm fairly sharp and I wouldn't know.

He says, "I drove back to the airport, and flew with her back to Boston, in a self-imposed emotional fog. From the airport she took a taxi home." It is easy to imagine both of them being overwhelmed with the emotional situation - one that a compassionate society would never have subjected them to those laws. And our culture's moral condemnations and its discomfort with things sexual, kept this young couple form getting support or help of her parents. She was only 16, which is so young, but then 20 isn't that much older.

Reed says, "She began to hemorrhage in the taxi, and had the driver take her to the emergency room of a hospital on the way." Notice that Reed was with her up until the final taxi ride home, that he had been with her for hours at this point, and at the end of that taxi ride she would be with her parents (she lived with them). And the hemorrage, a symptom obvious to a layman, didn't show up until sometime during that taxi ride.

We don't know what they said to each other or what their understandings were.

I don't see the level of moral culpability that you do. I feel sympathy for both of them and outrage at moral do-gooders that make sex and abortion things that are made illegal and immoral.

[Edit: I didn't know that Ted and others had made replies while I was writing this - otherwise I would feel these points to have been dealt with.]

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 12/04, 5:44pm)

Post 145

Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 7:35pm

Oh, good grief, this thread has arisen again.

I had hoped it would stay dead rather than return like a zombie in a bad movie sequel.

My opinion of the events the article describes has not changed in the four years that have passed since its initial publication.

I consider the choice of the people involved to engage in premarital adolescent intercourse profoundly unwise.

I consider Adam the more culpable of the two as he had more age and experience than his lover and had to have known better, yet he chose to think with the head below his waist rather than the one above his neck.

In simpler terms:

Production before reproduction!

In other words, wait until you become a productive, legal adult before engaging in activities with potential consequences that only a productive, legal adult can handle productively and legally.

I am not a medical professional and will not comment on Dr. Alexander's remarks, but will instead focus on the issue of prevention having much more value than cure.

I did sanction both of her posts in this thread because she dared to make challenging statements I think others need to consider.

Some day I will write my own article fleshing these ideas into much more detail.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/04, 7:44pm)

Post 146

Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 9:27pm

Lisa Alexander:

It would be hard to set the bar lower for debate than you did in your opening rant. It is difficult to believe that you even read Adam's post in it's entirety. Your "accidentally" running across this thread I'm certain had nothing to do with Objectivist philosophy or an interest in Ayn Rand.

Your words: "When I stumbled upon this post, I at first deliberated on whether the merit to reply to it based on the reaction that did in fact play out."

This is pure hypocrisy given the tone and the insults of your opening post, your first on this website I might add. Your words reek of contempt not only for Adam Reed but for those who engaged him in conversation about his story.

Luke:

I agree with your "Production before Reproduction" sentiment. But I think is was a mistake to sanction someone who hurls insults as a self introduction and has no interest in Objectivist philosophy and or Ayn Rand.

Post 147

Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 9:58pm

Mike, I hope Lisa does not consider Adam's article as representative of the best possible application of Objectivism. I certainly do not. I hope this dialogue opens Lisa to take a closer look at Objectivism and its principles which hold the individual as the ultimate value.

I can also understand exactly why Lisa might feel the way she feels. I affirm her right to feel that way just as I affirm anyone's right to feel any way. I do not necessarily agree with her conclusions, but I can appreciate her passion and sense of moral outrage.

Lisa, have you read anything by Ayn Rand? Click the big red "Objectivism" button in the top right corner of this site for more. Many start with The Fountainhead but the Ayn Rand Institute has practically all of her lectures in streaming format such as "Of Living Death" and others. You will have to register for free at the site to enjoy them.

Post 148

Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 10:03pm

I can't possibly imagine that "Of Living Death" is the best of introductions to Rand.

Post 149

Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 10:06pm

Ted, its content bears relevance to this article and so clearly represents a hot button for Lisa.

Post 150

Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 10:50pm

I don't contest its relevance to the abortion debate. But it is a contentious and bitter article that does not serve as the best introduction to Rand. It's like introducing someone to the wonders of modern medicine with ipecac, a spinal tap, and a root canal.

Post 151

Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 11:26pm

Luke, you said, "I am not a medical professional and will not comment on Dr. Alexander's remarks, but will instead focus on the issue of prevention having much more value than cure." Her remarks were NOT focused on medicine but on morality.

We don't know anything about their discussions on getting married or not. Nor do we know whether they could or could not afford to raise a child if they decided, or about any r discussions on leaving school and going to work if that would have been required. I'm amazed at how everyone makes assumptions then bases judgments on them.

Frankly, I'm surprised at the kind of judgments being made, the lack of understanding of what the young couple went through, the failure to condemn the real culprits, and with proposing abstinence as birth control methodology. And, come to think of it, this thread is beginning to feel much like an introduction to ipecac, root canal, and a spinal tap. Oh, good grief, is right.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 12/04, 11:31pm)

Post 152

Friday, December 5, 2008 - 5:19pm

Steve wrote:

... the failure to condemn the real culprits, and with proposing abstinence as birth control methodology.

1. Who are the real culprits?

2. Why is abstinence until the legal age of adulthood (18 to 21) a bad methodology?

3. Why must we grant "understanding" to the young couple but not to the parents, whose point of view we never get to read first hand?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/05, 6:17pm)

Post 153

Friday, December 5, 2008 - 6:40pm

Luke,

The Real Culprits:

I pointed out in an earlier post that real culprits were politicians that made abortion illegal, and a puritanical culture that condemns sexuality as something unnatural and evil. And I'd include the girls parents who were clearly not open to her enough that she could go to them. This young couple was stranded in the middle of a hostile environment - to be condemned from all sides, treated like sinners and criminals, and supported by none.

Why not Abstinence?

Emotional maturity is not always in lockstep with chronological age, nor does it necessarily correspond with legal age limits. I know of people in the 40's that aren't mature enough to be fooling around. And there are many young people who show adequate emotional maturity before age 18 or 21. And abstinence doesn't work as a methodology - if you can figure out how to tame the hormones of young adults with rhetoric let me know and we'll see if we translate your magical persuasive techniques to get people to vote for Free-enterprise candidates.

What is needed are expectations that they act with appropriate personal responsibility - not just in the area of romance, but in all relationships, with family, with school, and with money. We need to teach and expect people to develop and act with character. When they do, we don't need to try to micro-manage (which doesn't work anyway).

Post 154

Friday, December 5, 2008 - 7:18pm

Steve wrote:

We need to teach and expect people to develop and act with character.

Who is "we"?

What is "character"?

Clearly you and I will have answers substantially different from those of the girl's parents.

I still have little sympathy for these two. They knew the risks and took them anyway. They paid a terrible price.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

So let me try to look at this from her parents' point of view.

We have always tried to raise our daughter with solid, proven, Christian values. They served us well throughout our lives and we vowed on our honor and before the altar of God to do our best to transmit them to her. We loved her dearly enough not to send her away to college before we felt she had the maturity to deal with it. After all, there are predatory older men out there just itching to get into the britches of our lovely little girl. We really had every fear that our young one would get seduced and knocked up by an older man. Little did we know just how close to home our fears would be realized.

This senior in college, a Jew named Adam, started seeing our daughter. He seemed like a nice young man, though I could tell by his mannerisms that his values did not jibe with ours. We really had no idea they were engaging in conjugal relations until our beloved daughter had to go to the hospital suffering from uterine bleeding. Only then did we learn what that bastard did to our sweet child. Not only did he violate her with his seductions, ruining her chances for the blessings of a sacred consummation, but he murdered our unborn grandchild and very nearly killed our daughter.

We could have prosecuted him for these criminal acts. But Jesus teaches us to forgive those who trespass against us. So to protect our daughter while forgiving Adam, thus obeying God's law in the best possible way, we simply held man's law above Adam's head like a Sword of Damocles, preventing him from further leading our daughter into sin and putting her life at risk yet again.

We love our daughter and would do anything for her to assure she experiences the best life God has to offer her during her time here on Earth.

Now, does that passage sound like the spiteful words of hateful parents? I know I fabricated that based on sketchy evidence, but I really think the "rush to judgment" against the parents has been far harsher than reality warrants. The Christian parents I know would have exactly this attitude.

So, Steve, if you "figure out how to tame the [religious beliefs] of [older] adults with rhetoric let me know and we'll see if we translate your magical persuasive techniques to get people to vote for Free-enterprise candidates."

Incidentally, my suggestions about minor abstinence do not stem from rhetoric, but simple reason. No sex equals no risk of pregnancy. It's as simple as that. Youngsters who evade pay the price for evasion.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/05, 7:52pm)

Post 155

Friday, December 5, 2008 - 8:22pm

Luke,

"We" is everyone, for the most part, but most particularly parents. Do you disagree that we should expect of others that they act responsibly? And shouldn't parent be teaching that?

You know what "Character" is - honesty, personal responsibility, integrity, respect for others.

My reason for feeling sympathy is because of the laws that violated their rights - the laws that made them into criminals and separated them from any support in a culture. Do you agree that people should be criminals for seeking an abortion? We don't know if they made a mistake - contraception isn't perfect - and, besides, do you expect perfection? Do you believe that Christian beliefs regarding sex as evil and treating their daughter as a sinner is the best practice? If not, then what is this "boo-fucking-hoo" shit?

How about we make up a stupid religious belief that you can't take a crap during the second week of December if your name is Luke (just making sure it is irrational and unfair) - and then make it illegal for you to seek medical help or buy any pharmaceutical aids, even if you get so constipated that you have to walk around in pain (just making sure there are consequences and rights violations). Hey, use abstenince - it won't hurt you to go without food for a week. Gluttony is a sin anyway. Don't like that? Boo-fucking-hoo!

Luke, contraception plus abortion as a backup, have taken us out of the dark ages. We have been freed from the slavery of biology. We can exercise choice. But then there were (and still are) people who belong in the dark ages that made it illegal to have an abortion. Those people were the ones violating rights - which judging strictly from your posts, you don't give a damn about in this area.

In an earlier post you said, "I consider the choice of the people involved to engage in premarital adolescent intercourse profoundly unwise." So being unmarried is a moral consideration for you - is this a religious position? What reason do you have for saying people have to get married before they can have sex? And adolescence is the period when people acquire the maturity - and, exactly when (if at all) differs greatly from person to person, but you are okay with having a legal cut-off age? Should this be a law? Do you want the government involved here? After all, in another sentence you did use the phrase "legal adult."

Post 156

Saturday, December 6, 2008 - 3:52am

Steve, you are making my position far more complicated than needed.

It's quite simple. There are at least two possible paths to follow in losing one's virginity and becoming carnally knowledgeable first hand. The first involves waiting until one becomes a fully functional, legal adult completely independent of parents. The second involves gaining parental consent to consummate while still remaining dependent upon them for basics like food, clothing, shelter, education, etc.

I am not religious but I am telling you, right now, that if I had dependent children, I would certainly feel fully entitled to dictate to them with whom they shall or shall not have sex -- and make sure they pay a dear price for disobedience.

Why?

Simple. Sex is serious business. It is Nature's way of assuring procreation and propogation of the species. Only human reason makes it into something more than that. Nature, not religion, makes it critical to wellness to select sexual partners with care and use all due caution to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Why this has to be so complicated utterly eludes me.

Let me put this another way: A slight rewrite of my Post 154 would lead to similar conclusions with Objectivist parents rather than Christian ones. Let me demonstrate:

We have always tried to raise our daughter with solid, proven, Objectivist values. They served us well throughout our lives and we vowed on our honor and by our life and our love of it to do our best to transmit them to her. We loved her dearly enough not to send her away to college before we felt she had the maturity to deal with it. After all, there are predatory older men out there just itching to get into the britches of our lovely little girl.

We talked frankly about sex and the importance of waiting until the achievement of full independence from us before engaging in it. We explained the use of masturbation as a technique to remain sexually independent until that time. We also discussed contraception and abortion and how that is the proper realm of legal, independent adults. We waited to consummate until financial independence of our parents and expected the same of her. We made it clear to her that we would feel very, very disappointed -- extremely disappointed -- if she came to us telling us she was pregnant unexpectedly, and that she had no business having sex before independence of us. She can do better than that!

Besides, based on our long history with her, we both knew that while she had a brilliant intellect in some ways, her emotional development lagged behind her chronological age. She tended to fall in love easily and had already had her heart broken once when a boyfriend dumped her for not going to bed with him. That was a heart wrenching experience for the whole family and made us even more reluctant to let her leave home at 16.

So even though she had achieved the worthy honor of National Merit Scholar, we opted to send her to a local community college so we could keep a close eye on our minor daughter. We really had every fear that our young one would get seduced and knocked up by an older man. Little did we know just how close to home our fears would be realized.

This senior in college, a Jew named Adam, started seeing our daughter. He seemed like a nice young man, though I could tell by his mannerisms that his interpretations of Objectivism did not jibe with ours. We really had no idea they were engaging in conjugal relations until our beloved daughter had to go to the hospital suffering from uterine bleeding. Only then did we learn what that bastard did to our sweet child. Not only did he violate her with his seductions, ruining her chances for the joys of an initial consummation experienced as an independent adult in a fully committed romance with another independent adult, but he very nearly killed our daughter.

We could have prosecuted him for these criminal acts. But we had a better idea. To protect our daughter while keeping Adam away, we simply held Man's law above Adam's head like a Sword of Damocles, preventing him from further emotionally harming our daughter and putting her life at risk yet again.

In retrospect, we should have made it more clear to our daughter that if she did get into trouble, we would help her. Still, we hold Adam more accountable because he did have the experience needed to know better. Our daughter did not. However, her own willful self-delusions and evasions in the matter that led to this tragedy made it obvious to us that she still had considerable immaturity weighing like a millstone around her neck. She had her own share of moral culpability here and she knew it. So we can only imagine what would have happened had we let her leave home.

We love our daughter and would do anything for her to assure she experiences the best life Nature has to offer her during her time here on Earth.

I do not know what else to say about this right now, Steve. While I am not religious, I am not going to dismiss a rational position simply because religious people happen to share it though for different causes. I think parents have a proper role in making these calls, especially with so much at stake.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/06, 4:06am)

Post 157

Saturday, December 6, 2008 - 5:36am

Now that's 'thinking like an animal'...

Post 158

Saturday, December 6, 2008 - 7:08am

First off, it is absolutely clear that this story was about two immature kids (16 & 20), who acted based upon their limited experience and view of what they could and couldn't do. For those that think that a 20 year old cannot still be a kid, I'd point out there are those even 30 and older who have never, and may never reach a responsible level of maturity. As for the term "legal", in this framework, "legal age" is only a societal contrivance borne out of the need for clear laws to protect our youths. It has very little to do with actual maturity, except as a guesstimate of when a youth should know enough to be fully responsible for themselves. On that score, my personal opinion is that it should be 18 - full 'legal' rights, full 'legal' responsibilities.

I'd agree with Luke as to the the culpability of our young couple. It is a no-brainer to say "no sex, no pregnancy - no problem". Certainly, it is the first thing we should recommend to our children... but only the first thing. I question with Luke's suggestion (channeling both religious and Objectivist parents) that telling their daughter not to have sex should be sufficient. Part of the maturing process is making and learning from mistakes, so responsible parents should educate their children as to the health considerations of following the other paths. After that, the parents role is to stand by, to hope the best, and to help and support.

Also, I note in both parental apologias, they judged the 20 year old "a bastard" for "what he did to our daughter". I trust that Luke was just trying to channel their protective nature - how they would think. However, realistically (and particularly in the original story) this does not truly reflect the facts. Both youths are responsible. It is pretty rare when both parties are not intimately involved in the 'seduction' phase of a relationship. The male is usually the more aggressive, but not exclusively so. A young woman can be just as aggressive.

Immaturity, inexperience, curiosity, new self awareness, self actualization, hormones, pheromones... "thou shalt not" is damned poor advice under the circumstances (just irresponsible). They need to know the whole score.

Going back to the original story, I'd say that Adam's decisions were not terrible or callous, but were only terribly immature. So were the girl's. It seems as though the course of action they chose was mutually decided upon, albeit without the full understanding and knowledge of the pain and doubts they'd later face.

And Steve is absolutely right, neither society, ethnic culture, nor laws should ever be allowed to criminalize such personal decisions.

jt

Post 159

Saturday, December 6, 2008 - 8:23am