I’ll bet Ariel Castro would have loved to have had Plan B available

A sexually abusive man's best friend.

A sexually abusive man’s best friend.

Regardless of who decided what and why, the Plan B pill is now available for girls of any age to buy at the nearby drug store along with their bubble gum, a bottle of pop, nail polish, and teeny bopper magazine.

Joshua Bowman goes through a whole host of reasons why this was a bad, terrible, no good thing to have happen, but there is one very important one he missed.

Captors, sexually abusive fathers, uncles, brothers, or adult “boyfriends” of young girls (i.e., pedophiles and/or those committing consensual statutory rape).

Ariel Castro impregnated at least two of the three women he held captive for a decade, one of them five times. Another gave birth in captivity. The one who had five pregnancies claimed he punched her in the belly until she miscarried every time.

I’ll bet he would have liked being able to buy the Plan B pill to take care of the “problem” quickly and simply every time he raped one of those girls. It would have been much easier for him (he clearly didn’t care much about the women) to just force the Plan B one-pill down her throat rather than restrain her and beat her so severely that she miscarried.

While the Ariel Castro kidnapping and captivity story is a sensational extreme case, how many sexually abusive fathers, much older boyfriends, uncles, coaches, teachers, etc., will keep a supply of this stuff on hand so they can have their fun with the young girl they can control and eliminate the evidence? This way they don’t even have to have the bother of a condom!

The girl? Meh. Who cares about her?

Congratulations, feminists and “reproductive rights” folks: you’ve empowered this sort of thing.

14 thoughts on “I’ll bet Ariel Castro would have loved to have had Plan B available

  1. Larry says:

    That’ a good one Tom. So sexual preditors will come out of the closet because now they can rape and abuse and hide the evidence. I’m sure there’s many fathers, uncles, brothers out there who would be molesting were it not for the fact that the abused might get pregnant. What’s next on your agenda? Proving how the 10 Commandments keeps abusers from abusing? Good luck.

  2. SLCMLC says:

    Obviously everything you say can be debated in a separate post till the cows come home. Do you really think that men hit women more since 1973 or perhaps because of the growth of feminism women feel more empowered to report men for it? Very complex and separate topic. As for gun control, I was just pointing out that you sound like one of those liberals arguing for gun control. Clearly that hit close to home for you :-) .

    I think your argument would have a lot more merit if you actually provided an example of sex traffickers or Castro using these drugs (instead of some high school kid having his condom break). Do you have any evidence that sex traffickers use these morning after pills? Or Castro? Your article uses Castro in the headline and how he would have loved the Plan B pill. I don’t know, he sounds completely insane. I think you’re assigning a level of rationality to this monster that’s not there.

    Usually when people argue a link between two things they provide statistics. Or even anecdotal evidence (which is of course not as compelling). Then we can argue causation/correlation and if the positives of something outweigh the costs (like the gun debate or even contraception).

    You have not really provided evidence here. You have provided a hypothetical scenario where in theory some very bad people could use plan B pills. You have not actually shown that they use these pills. And you explicitly stated that feminists have “empowered this sort of thing”. If you don’t think that crosses some kind of line of decency, I’m not sure what to tell you. This isn’t because I disagree with you…in fact I AGREE that letting plan B pills be available to minors is stupid. It just seems like an incredibly hurtful and mean thing to say to feminists and you could have made your original point without resorting to that type of language.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Now you’re just getting sloppy. You cannot refute my logic so you hang your hat on an unnecessary level of “proof.” But if proof is so important to you, can you *prove* that the only reason abuse has gone up since Roe v. Wade is because more women feel empowered to report it? No? Okay, then I assume you’ll retract that line of argumentation.

      Castro was rational enough to devise ways to conceal three women and a child for many years, entirely unbeknownst to his neighbors and most who knew him. That sounds like a rational-enough actor to figure out that something like Plan B would assist him mightily.

      Hurtful? Abortions kill. That’s hurtful. Feminists support abortion and drugs that hurt women and empower men to abuse them. That’s insane.

      1. SLCMLC says:

        You’re right, I really don’t have proof for the comment about why spousal abuse has gone up since 1973, that’s why I wrote “Very complex and separate topic”. I was just throwing that idea out there, I could very well be wrong. On the other hand, you continue to make the argument that the morning after pill “empowers” sex traffickers based largely on a hypothetical and not on actual statistics or even anecdotal evidence.

        Here’s the bottom line: you could have simply wrote an article saying “an unintended consequence of legitimizing the morning after pill” and mention the idea of how it cheapens sex and has the *potential* to be abused by bad people. I actually would have read that article and maybe thought you were jumping to conclusions but at least found it to be an interesting opinion.

        But you didn’t…you wrote an article that to me was extremely negative in tone and mocked the other side for having the gall to believe in something other than you. The line “The girl? Meh. Who cares about her?” was just demeaning and implies that people who don’t agree with your political beliefs on this issue don’t care about abused girls.

        I just found this article extremely disappointing in light of your other one that did a nice job pointing out how hateful and negative our discourse can be.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          You really want to make my post say a whole lot more than what I wrote, it seems.

          For instance: “The girl? Meh. Who cares about her?” was in reference to the “sexually abusive fathers, much older boyfriends, uncles, coaches, teachers, etc.,” in the previous paragraph. I think (hope) you would agree such persons clearly don’t care about the girl whom they are abusing horribly. The structure of the paragraphs indicates this connection, sorry you missed it.

          That thing you said I “could have” done? That’s what I did, but I used an example and pointed out an additional conclusion that makes you obviously uncomfortable. That’s not a problem with my writing, that’s a problem with your own cognitive dissonance. It means you have a conscience that does not want to accept a horrid conclusion that follows on a belief you hold. That’s laudable: don’t quash it.

          My “hypotheticals” are not outlandish, far-fetched, or in any way, sense, or form unthinkable. In fact, they are eminently reasonable, perfectly in line with how such people think and act, and are, frankly, probable. Your attempt to downplay that conclusion notwithstanding.

          Peace.

          1. SLCMLC says:

            Fair points all around.

            Although one thing I just can’t let slide…I’m not really a gun control guy at all, I hate the idea of taking away a right because a small minority abuse it. But knives don’t kill more people in the US than guns (unless I’m missing something here, like accidental deaths, not murders?).

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

            Peace to you as well.

  3. JackB says:

    We all should be sensitive to the raped young women at the hands of Castro. I’m struggling with the connection to Plan B. If you say that the pill gives fathers, brothers and yes priests the freedom to rape with impunity, I suggest that social issue needs studying by professional Psychiatrists..

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      I used him as an example of the abuse that Plan B enables. There is a rampant sex slave human trafficking market in this country, let alone other countries. This makes it much easier to conduct that trade.

  4. SLCMLC says:

    Come on Tom, I was JUST complimenting you on such a positive article and you go ahead and write “Congratulations, feminists and “reproductive rights” folks: you’ve empowered this sort of thing.”.

    Sigh. This is a very negative comment. Explicitly associating people who believe in “reproductive rights” and feminism with what this monster did is very uncalled for.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Okay, please explain how the point I made, using him as an example—and not that extreme an example, considering the rampant human sex slave trade on earth—is invalid.

      1. SLCMLC says:

        I think your point is invalid because you don’t provide an example of a sex trafficker or monster like Castro actually using the Plan B pill. Also, from what I understand the sex trade is rampant in Thailand where abortion is basically illegal. You’re making some really, really enormous leaps here man.

        I’m not really interested in debating contraception and Plan B and everything. I commented on the Bowman article I actually agree it makes NO sense to make it readily available to minors.

        Still though, I don’t know. You’re equating support for feminism and reproductive rights with an awful monster and the human sex trade. I mean, that’s really a leap. To steal a line from your other article, a bit of a “middle finger” to feminists.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Okay, I’ll ratchet it back a few notches to make the same point. A guy in my high school class got his next door neighbor’s daughter to have sex with him while her parents were away with some regularity. One time his condom broke. He was freaked out for a few days that she might have conceived. He stopped dipping in that well after that. He didn’t care about her at all, he was using her for sex and only stopped when he realized his actions might have what he considered to be negative ramifications for himself. Had the Plan B pill been available he would have been able to keep on keepin’ on, just feed her one of those pills should his condom break again, or stop using a condom entirely.

          He was using her for sex, nothing more. She was an object to him, not a human person, which existed in his mind only to give him sexual pleasure. This pill enables that behavior more than even a condom does.

          Extrapolate that scenario by a million, and that same logic applies to the people who do. not. care. about the young girls they abuse, whether because the girl is their daughter, niece, pupil, athlete, etc., including and up to their captive. The logic applies.

          I do not have to provide an example of it happening to make it abundantly clear that it is the sort of thing they would do.

          1. SLCMLC says:

            The example you provide of the high schooler is part of a complex debate about the role of contraception and how some use abortion as birth control. And as I said, I do not understand why this judge (who was appointed by Ronald Reagan) feels the need to make these pills readily accessible to minors who can’t drive a car. Insane to me. And it was insane to Obama, that’s why he tried to overturn the judge’s decision for years.

            I just don’t see how you are drawing such a clear link between “feminism” and the sex trade. I mean, this is REALLY a leap. Because people in the sex trade MIGHT like to use the same pills that some feminists support being legal? There are plenty of tools that evil people like Castro or sex traffickers might use for their own self interest. That doesn’t mean that these tools are necessarily evil or people who want these tools to be legal (but regulated) are contributing to the problem. Sex traffickers probably use cell phones, I don’t think people who want cell phones to be legal are responsible for this.

            You know who you sound like? A liberal who blames guns for a school shooting. Except we KNOW murderers love to use guns. We really have no evidence that psychopathic people like Castro have any desire to use the plan B pill. And as my Thailand example points out, I’m not even sure that there’s a correlation (much less causation) between places that have restrictive reproductive laws and a decrease in the abuse of women.

            And even IF all of your points are true, your explicit linking of feminists with truly evil people crossed the line, especially in light of such a positive article you wrote earlier today.

          2. Tom Crowe says:

            Wait, “complex debate”? Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of a human person, it is not contraception. It cannot be “used” as contraception. They are very different things, regardless of what some may think. If someone uses contraception but got pregnant anyhow, the abortion does not become contraception, it remains an abortion. (All that said, contraception is illicit also, so there’s no complexity to the debate at all: don’t contracept, and don’t have an abortion. Simple.)

            Sex traffickers probably drink water, too, but it doesn’t as directly and uniquely facilitate their trade as would this pill. Nor do cell phones. This pill makes it easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy to have a girl stay in action instead of having to arrange a much more complicated abortion procedure. A cell phone could be used to call for pizza or emergency assistance for an auto accident. So going down that road doesn’t help your or harm me.

            You know what has gone up considerably since Roe v. Wade? Spousal abuse and child abuse. Say what you will about Thailand, the U.S. has seen an increase in those areas since abortion became legal across the board.

            You’re right, the logic is similar to those who blame guns for gun violence, but guns have use apart from school shootings, these pills have no laudable use at all, and actually cause significantly awful side effects in more than 10 percent of users. Also, more people are killed with knives than with guns every year. Wanna go down that road?

            My exact sentence implies that this “victory” by feminists and reproductive rights people “enables” the sex trade, not that feminists are directly responsible for the sex trade. I crossed no line, I pointed out an unintended but eminently forseeable consequence of this “victory.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.