The Conservative War On Women

On the whole, agreed, but this puts men in a subservient position to women, as they can choose to keep the child or not, and the man is held responsible for raising the child without having any input into the decision to keep it. I'd argue that the 'but he should have just kept it in his pants' is the SAME ARGUMENT as punishing women for having sex, it's just pointed at men instead.

I think it's this fundamental dynamic that causes a lot of the upset in conservative circles; they think women should be subservient, and suddenly they're in charge.

Personally, I'd like to see us move to some middle way there somewhere, where the guy isn't automatically responsible for raising the child unless he wants to be, as long as the sex was consensual. It's not right to chain women's bodies, and it's not right to chain men's work output.

I thought this article was really good in highlighting the good contraceptives have done and talking about why it can be such an issue for some people:
http://www.alternet.org/visions/1541...

It's a difficult problem. If we assume there is a universe where everyone has 100% reproductive freedom (as in, both genders can safely choose in all circumstances whether or not pregnancy occurs, and women can safely choose in all circumstances whether to bring that pregnancy to birth) and there is a high degree of gender equality (equitable job opportunities/income, equitable rights and privileges, etc...), what exactly is the nature of the father's legal relationship to the child? (Or the mother's, or some other gender combination?)

Presumably there is a set of rights and responsibilities associated with being a child's guardian: You get guaranteed access to the kid, but must also provide some amount of support. One possible solution is that the mother must inform the father of pregnancy (one she desires to bring to term) within some reasonable timeframe, and the father must (also within a reasonable timeframe) inform the mother whether he chooses to assume these rights/responsibilities; if he chooses not to, she may decide either to have the kid or not knowing this information beforehand. Should the mother fail to inform the father of pregnancy he has no obligations, and should the father fail to inform the mother of his choice then she gets to make it for him.

After this period has expired the choice is binding, but can still be reversed either by consent of the sole legal guardian or the mutual consent of both guardians; a father could for example petition the mother either to gain rights/responsibilities or forfeit them, and she may decide whether he is successful (or vice versa). Non-biological parents could enter the contract in this manner also.

This model would essentially detach all penalties from sex and levy them instead upon birth, which is obviously not acceptable to pro-lifers (for legitimate ethical reasons though) and wouldn't work in the present day since our medical procedures aren't good enough to allow people that fabled 100% reproductive freedom.

I don't really see the issue with a woman having more of a choice here. It's a choice that results from her having control over her own body. I don't see the problem with telling a man to keep it in his pants because that's exactly what's going on when a woman gets an abortion: her uterus is in her pants.

I also don't think anything the father and mother do can result in the other parent getting out of his/her obligations to the child: it's not the relationship between the parents that creates the duty, it's the child's rights that create the duty in the parents.

(edit: with the exception of sperm/egg/etc. donors--in that case it's like an adoption)

I do think there is room in there for "Men's Rights", I think a separate thread is probably best for that discussion though.

There was a case in PA where it was proved that the child the guy was raising wasn't his, but the courts determined that he still had to pay, because, well, someone had to pay to raise the kid.

NathanialG wrote:

I thought this article was really good in highlighting the good contraceptives have done and talking about why it can be such an issue for some people:
http://www.alternet.org/visions/1541...

Thanks for posting this. Some really good insights here; I had not considered contraception the species changing revolution Robinson did here, but her logic is pretty sound. And by keeping it specifically to birth control, she sidesteps the (imo) much messier discussion on abortion...

This just in:

birth control causes prostate cancer!

Wait. What?!?

This woman is anti-hormone? To be fair, that WOULD solve a lot of problems...

Hypatian wrote:

This just in:

birth control causes prostate cancer!

Wait. What?!?

It shrinks a woman's prostate until it completely disappears.

I would love to see all of the medicines that this "anti-chemical" woman takes. Also love to see the food she eats.

Also how are the men "eating it up"?

Richard

Bernstein

I don't see any such article on his page as of yet, but given that his "articles" include things like CHOLESTEROL THEORY WIPES OUT HUMAN RACE . . .

Not exactly peer reviewed stuff here, you may want to check your sources Rep. Notter.

*edit: Seems she may have said Brownstein , http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/dr_brownstein/Prostate_Cancer_The_Pill/2012/02/06/432113.html.

Link to the study Dr. Brownstein is referencing.
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/1/2/e...

Research leader Dr David Margel wrote:

The research is speculative and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn.

EDIT: Full disclosure... the quote may be a paraphrase, but the wording was attributed to him in some of the discussions I've reviewed while tracking this study.

So no experiment has actually been performed? Just a statistical analysis on rates of each? That is definitely speculative and doesn't allow for definitive conclusions.

gregrampage wrote:

So no experiment has actually been performed? Just a statistical analysis on rates of each? That is definitely speculative and doesn't allow for definitive conclusions.

A lot of info on what causes cancer today is based on statistics from studies. We may not have proof, but given a large enough sample, you can come up with conclusions.

kazar wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

So no experiment has actually been performed? Just a statistical analysis on rates of each? That is definitely speculative and doesn't allow for definitive conclusions.

A lot of info on what causes cancer today is based on statistics from studies. We may not have proof, but given a large enough sample, you can come up with conclusions.

At the same time, the use of birth control is so prevalent that just because these men have had sex with women on the pill it could be meaningless.

NathanialG wrote:
kazar wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

So no experiment has actually been performed? Just a statistical analysis on rates of each? That is definitely speculative and doesn't allow for definitive conclusions.

A lot of info on what causes cancer today is based on statistics from studies. We may not have proof, but given a large enough sample, you can come up with conclusions.

At the same time, the use of birth control is so prevalent that just because these men have had sex with women on the pill it could be meaningless.

Usually a study like this would have to look at both sides. You can't just look at one group of people and make conclusions, you need to look at both. If you get 20k men, 10k who had sex with with women on the pill and 10k who didn't, you would get findings (while not definititive, still findings). Now the point that it might be hard to find 10k men who never had sex with a woman on the pill might be harder to do.

kazar wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
kazar wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

So no experiment has actually been performed? Just a statistical analysis on rates of each? That is definitely speculative and doesn't allow for definitive conclusions.

A lot of info on what causes cancer today is based on statistics from studies. We may not have proof, but given a large enough sample, you can come up with conclusions.

At the same time, the use of birth control is so prevalent that just because these men have had sex with women on the pill it could be meaningless.

Usually a study like this would have to look at both sides. You can't just look at one group of people and make conclusions, you need to look at both. If you get 20k men, 10k who had sex with with women on the pill and 10k who didn't, you would get findings (while not definititive, still findings). Now the point that it might be hard to find 10k men who never had sex with a woman on the pill might be harder to do.

The context wasn't sex with women on the pill, it was environmental contamination resulting in increased estrogen levels.

What you're describing is an experiment. What happened was rates of 2 different things were compared, a correlation was discovered, and a hypothesis to explain the correlation was suggested. I have no problem with this approach, it's a great place to start, but it is not a conclusion by any means.

dejanzie wrote:

he should be promoting alternatives to detergents and plastics as well.

You're just a socialist anti-business commie that wants jobs to be destroyed!

I've seen a couple of documentaries (in Dutch, sorry) in which scientists argue that the oestrogens in the pill, which end up in tap water, reduce fertility among our male population and that of animals. It's also the reason why women have bigger oogaba on average since the nineties. Obama can counter Santorum on the oogaba platform, he would win by a landslide

Other causes of increased environmental presence of oestrogens are the omnipresence of plastics (plastic water bottles for instance), detergents and Barbie Horse Adventures. Ok, maybe not the latter. But if oestrogens are a real issue according to Santorum, he should be promoting alternatives to detergents and plastics as well. Environmental regulation perhaps?

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
dejanzie wrote:

he should be promoting alternatives to detergents and plastics as well.

You're just a socialist anti-business commie that wants jobs to be destroyed! ;)

And good wholesome polluting jobs, not those disgusting and deviant pharmacists.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Also how are the men "eating it up"?

Too easy?

With how we use it, I am fairly certain the pill is helping prevent prostate cancer in me.

Illinois Agriculture Committee passes anti-abortion measures.

Women's bodies being regulated by the same people who regulate livestock and feed. Who better, right?

Funkenpants wrote:

Illinois Agriculture Committee passes anti-abortion measures.

Women's bodies being regulated by the same people who regulate livestock and feed. Who better, right?

That is never going to pass the general assembly. Too many Chicago reps will vote against it. I hope.

The Democratic Speaker of the House was the one that assigned the abortion bill to the Agriculture committee. Women in his district, I suggest you vote that f*cker out.

Also note that they have a regulation requiring abortion clinics to have corridors that are eight feet wide. Nobody else has that kind of a requirement, only abortion clinics. You could never find a building built that way. It is, in other words, an attempted ban on abortions by refusing to allow an abortion clinic to use anything but a purpose-built structure.

I saw Megan McCain on Maddow last night and she was hammering the Republican's on this issue. She kept mentioning "vaginal probing" which I hadn't heard before but she said as a single young women it appears that the Republican's are trying to drive them away. She also said that she was pro-life and pro-contraception and there are millions of women like her.

Apparently she's now writing for the Daily Beast.

Malor wrote:

The Democratic Speaker of the House was the one that assigned the abortion bill to the Agriculture committee. Women in his district, I suggest you vote that f*cker out.

Also note that they have a regulation requiring abortion clinics to have corridors that are eight feet wide. Nobody else has that kind of a requirement, only abortion clinics. You could never find a building built that way. It is, in other words, an attempted ban on abortions by refusing to allow an abortion clinic to use anything but a purpose-built structure.

It's creative, I'll give them that. If only they'd use that creativity on things that matter.

Bear wrote:

I saw Megan McCain on Maddow last night and she was hammering the Republican's on this issue.

She's just telling Republicans what the polls say. They are basically telling women that to get an abortion, a doctor has to stick something in their vaginas and wriggle it around. Surprisingly, women are not thrilled.

Imagine what a republican man would say if the government required you to get a deep and extensive rectal probe in order to buy a handgun.

Funkenpants wrote:

Imagine what a republican man would say if the government required you to get a deep and extensive rectal probe in order to buy a handgun.

I can imagine two things: A: "Where do I sign up?!" and B: "Don't tell my wife."

Ted Haggard / Larry Craig jokes aside, I'm getting a good chuckle about some of the legislation that is being proposed to highlight how ridiculous some of the anti-birth control legislation is:

Georgia Legislation wrote:

HB 1116, which would prevent men from vasectomies unless needed to avert serious injury or death. The bill reads: "It is patently unfair that men avoid the rewards of unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly. ... It is the purpose of the General Assembly to assert an invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men in this state and substitute the will of the government over the will of adult men."

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21...

The same article references an Oklahoma rider that was added and later withdrawn:

Oklahoma wrote:

"any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman's vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child."

Oso wrote:

The same article references an Oklahoma rider that was added and later withdrawn:

Oklahoma wrote:

"any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman's vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child."

Now, is that one infraction per sperm, or what?