The Conservative War On Women

Mormech wrote:

despite the fact that I've never seen a study indicating that sex increases among teens who have been through sex ed classes.

The closest I've seen is that abstinence only sex education reduces teenage sex for 6 months. After half a year the chilling effect is gone, they start having sex at the same rate as everyone else, and, predictably, start getting STDs and pregnancies at a higher than normal rate.

Putting on my "conservative Christian" hat I see one set of winners, teenagers that died in car accidents within that six months with their hymens and virtue intact.

I can not think of anyone else who is better off regardless of the stance I approach it from. Maybe any teenage boys and girls that really prefer anal sex over vaginal?

Yonder wrote:
Mormech wrote:

despite the fact that I've never seen a study indicating that sex increases among teens who have been through sex ed classes.

The closest I've seen is that abstinence only sex education reduces teenage sex for 6 months. After half a year the chilling effect is gone, they start having sex at the same rate as everyone else, and, predictably, start getting STDs and pregnancies at a higher than normal rate.

Putting on my "conservative Christian" hat I see one set of winners, teenagers that died in car accidents within that six months with their hymens and virtue intact.

I can not think of anyone else who is better off regardless of the stance I approach it from. Maybe any teenage boys and girls that really prefer anal sex over vaginal?

^ (NSFW)

Stengah wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I agree with the general reasoning behind that, but it does kind of lend credence to the charge that a significant number of abortions function as emergency birth control.

I'm not sure that was ever really contested, was it? That's why pro-choice people find it so baffling that so many anti-abortion people are also against having actual* sex education in schools.

* more than "Abstinence is the only birth control you need!"

That is actually completely consistent. If your position is against artificial contraception and it's been shown that abortion is used that way for a significant number of cases, then it's consistent that you should combat that as well.

And, of course, being against contraception is really being against sex.

Malor wrote:

And, of course, being against contraception is really being against sex.

It may be in your locale, but it's not, universally. You can easily be for sex within a specified social expression (and really, everyone is - it's just that everyone's social ideal is different), and yet be against artificial contraception.

The rabid puritanical mindset appears to be uniquely American, but feel free to correct me on that. I believe JP2's most lengthy theological treatises were all about how awesome sex was.

I think it's more accurate to say that being against contraception is really about being against recreational sex. JP2's letters were not unique in celebrating sex as an expression of love and creation. They (and others in a similar vein) would comment now and again about how a good sex life helps strengthen a healthy marriage, but then would quickly veer right back into "but it's about God and making chirruns" territory.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I think it's more accurate to say that being against contraception is really about being against recreational sex. JP2's letters were not unique in celebrating sex as an expression of love and creation. They (and others in a similar vein) would comment now and again about how a good sex life helps strengthen a healthy marriage, but then would quickly veer right back into "but it's about God and making chirruns" territory.

That's a more or less accurate summation, with the caveat that they're not against recreational sex, but purely recreational sex, because the perspective from which they operate necessarily casts that sort of activity as cheapening a holy rite. Like, it would be inappropriate to just have Mass for the fun of it.

LarryC wrote:

have Mass for the fun of it.

Dirty.

Bloo Driver wrote:
LarryC wrote:

have Mass for the fun of it.

Dirty.

Man, there goes all my Higgs Boson pornography.

Holly crap Edwin

with the caveat that they're not against recreational sex, but purely recreational sex,

In other words, yet again, they want to punish sluts, by making recreational sex as dangerous as possible. This is, directly and exactly, why things that make sex safer (like the HPV vaccine) are never acceptable.

Believe what you want, but putting other people in active danger because you don't like their "moral" choices is pretty damn immoral, in my view.

The part about contraception and abortion doesn't work out like that. Basically, it allows sex to be purely recreational, which is an opposed situation in the first place. It doesn't get to thw punishing part, really. Once again, with the exception of your American culture. You guys seem to be big on punishing so I can believe that.

It's been said repeatedly by conservative pundits and religious leaders that contraception is bad because it allows women to avoid the "consequences" of sex. Consequences, of course, mean getting pregnant or catching a disease.

LarryC wrote:

The part about contraception and abortion doesn't work out like that. Basically, it allows sex to be purely recreational, which is an opposed situation in the first place. It doesn't get to thw punishing part, really. Once again, with the exception of your American culture. You guys seem to be big on punishing so I can believe that.

I know you like thinking you have a much broader worldview than any American and you have to enlighten us, but there is article after article, quote after quote, showing that this attitude is not uniquely American.

OG_slinger wrote:

It's been said repeatedly by conservative pundits and religious leaders that contraception is bad because it allows women to avoid the "consequences" of sex. Consequences, of course, mean getting pregnant or catching a disease.

That's the real point, isn't it? The idea that being opposed to contraception somehow removes recreational sex is simply not true. What is DOES do is increase the amount of recreational sex that leads to undesirable situations.

LarryC wrote:

The part about contraception and abortion doesn't work out like that. Basically, it allows sex to be purely recreational, which is an opposed situation in the first place. It doesn't get to thw punishing part, really.

Practically speaking there is no difference between punishing people for recreational sex and legally putting up barriers to things that are beneficial for them.

My biggest problem in this specific area is that there *should* be two separate sets of teachings/rules.
One whatever your family wants to say based on their religion, phase the moon, position of Andromeda, what the electrical outlet said last night.
and
Secondly, Government lead public health initiatives, including mandatory sex ed with varying details as children grow older.

Teaching people about relationships, STDs, sexual assault, birth control, etc. is just good public policy. It can save the country millions and has other longer term harder to monetize positive effects.

The statistics from study after study are clear. It is massively in the best interest of the society to require comprehensive sex ed. inducing contraception and make contraception legal and easy to obtain.

The facts take a very clear side in this 'debate'.

Bloo Driver wrote:
LarryC wrote:

The part about contraception and abortion doesn't work out like that. Basically, it allows sex to be purely recreational, which is an opposed situation in the first place. It doesn't get to thw punishing part, really. Once again, with the exception of your American culture. You guys seem to be big on punishing so I can believe that.

I know you like thinking you have a much broader worldview than any American and you have to enlighten us, but there is article after article, quote after quote, showing that this attitude is not uniquely American.

I'll be willing to cop to a view of pregnancy as punishment from any cultural viewpoint that you can show has this view as a strongly prevailing viewpoint. The point I was making there isn't that I have a broader worldview - just a different one. I was carefully saying that I know that this may not apply to the US since I've often been attacked for that presumption.

Eleima wrote:

I've been mulling over the last couple of posts, particularly the ones discussing when life begins. That's rally the crux of the issue, isn't it?... Does it begin at conception? When a fetus is viable? When the heart starts beating? When the embryo starts having spontaneous movement?
I'm afraid I have no definite answer, now that would satisfy all. (And wouldn't that be something, if little old me actually had an answer to such an important and crucial issue)
What the state of Texas is doing, however, is unacceptable.

Based on the first part of your post, I don't really see why. Basically, my argument is that since even the definition of humanity is super-subjective, we should be applying rights in a more liberal (in the literal sense) way, not a more conservative one. I can't think of any case in the past where taking some group and saying "you are a person with basic rights" has ever been the wrong move.

LarryC wrote:

Despite my religious allegiances, I think it is best to have abortion be a legal option. The deciding factor for me here is that making it illegal doesn't make it go away; it just drives it underground. If you were truly pro-life, the tragic loss of life from this inevitability should matter quite heavily as well.

I don't agree and I think this is a pretty weak argument. Rape and drunk driving aren't going away either, that's not a reason to legalize those things.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Despite my religious allegiances, I think it is best to have abortion be a legal option. The deciding factor for me here is that making it illegal doesn't make it go away; it just drives it underground. If you were truly pro-life, the tragic loss of life from this inevitability should matter quite heavily as well.

I don't agree and I think this is a pretty weak argument. Rape and drunk driving aren't going away either, that's not a reason to legalize those things.

Bad comparison. The effects of making those legal or not don't line up at all with abortion.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Based on the first part of your post, I don't really see why. Basically, my argument is that since even the definition of humanity is super-subjective, we should be applying rights in a more liberal (in the literal sense) way, not a more conservative one. I can't think of any case in the past where taking some group and saying "you are a person with basic rights" has ever been the wrong move.

But some want to grant those basic rights to an ovum mere seconds after it has been fertilized. If we want to go down that road, then you have to accept all of the consequences that go with it including back alley abortions. Additionally, if the fertilized egg's rights are violated, then punishment must be metered out. If a woman who doesn't know she is pregnant decides to do something that ultimately causes a miscarriage, then we have to be ready to expand prisons and start incarcerating women on manslaughter charges.

Perhaps that's the kind of public policy some want, but I doubt Americans would be supportive of such things.

Rape and drunk driving aren't going away either, that's not a reason to legalize those things.

If you had fewer rapes and incidences of drunk driving by legalizing them, however, then that would be every reason to legalize them.

If you want the fewest possible abortions, easy access to birth control and reproductive healthcare, including abortions, is empirically the correct approach.

But that's not what conservatives want.

Something that surprised me about living in Japan, abortion clinics and abortions are common. There is still a social stigma attached but that didn't get in the way of making abortions available. Birth control, however, is not common. There also seems to be propaganda about how it will great increase risk of developing cancer.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Eleima wrote:

I've been mulling over the last couple of posts, particularly the ones discussing when life begins. That's rally the crux of the issue, isn't it?... Does it begin at conception? When a fetus is viable? When the heart starts beating? When the embryo starts having spontaneous movement?
I'm afraid I have no definite answer, now that would satisfy all. (And wouldn't that be something, if little old me actually had an answer to such an important and crucial issue)
What the state of Texas is doing, however, is unacceptable.

Based on the first part of your post, I don't really see why. Basically, my argument is that since even the definition of humanity is super-subjective, we should be applying rights in a more liberal (in the literal sense) way, not a more conservative one. I can't think of any case in the past where taking some group and saying "you are a person with basic rights" has ever been the wrong move.

I get what you're saying, and I agree that the definition of humanity is really subjective. My own musings are really moot, and limited to my own personal musings and potential behavior faced with the possibility of an abortion. In essence, what I'm saying is that having felt the impact of carrying another life within me, I don't know if I, personnally, would be capable of going through with it.
Again, that's pretty much irrelevant. I grew up in a culture in which abortion is a right. Women (and men!) fought for it, and it was legalized in France in 1975 thanks to the efforts of brilliant and absolutely amazing politician Simone Veil. Like Vector said about Japan, there are abortion clinics, and they happen a lot, even though some people still cast a stone, it's widely accepted. So even though I grew up in the States, I have difficulty imagining that what Texas is doing is even possible. Like others have said, it's really all about punishing the women who have the gall to have sex.
What is really needed, and what has been said more eloquently before, is proper sex education that goes beyond "sex is bad, you get STDs and babies so just abstain." Every doctor knows their basic ABCs! Abstinence, Be faithful (and/or Birth control, depending on the versions) and use a Condom. Abstinence alone just doesn't work.

Demosthenes wrote:
Maq wrote:

Because it's not about protecting the children, it's about punishing the sluts. If it was about the children you'd have sex education and adequate state child support infrastructure.

This a million times over. How they can not suffer crippling cognitive dissonance at the idea of "every child MUST BE BOOOOOOOOOORN!" being followed by "what? You need help raising that child we made you have no choice on... F that!" is something that nearly caused the same in me until it was explained to me here.

While I admit there's a ton of hypocrisy on my side and we absolutely need to do better in the areas you've outlined, both of you are sidestepping the issue and not really making a pro-choice argument. Someone can defensibly be (for example) anti-slavery but also be against socialism - "BUT YOU DONT CARE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM AFTERWARDS" isn't strictly relevant when you have a case where someone's most basic rights are being discounted.

Malor wrote:
Rape and drunk driving aren't going away either, that's not a reason to legalize those things.

If you had fewer rapes and incidences of drunk driving by legalizing them, however, then that would be every reason to legalize them.

If you want the fewest possible abortions, easy access to birth control and reproductive healthcare

I'm with you so far

, including abortions, is empirically the correct approach.

Just completely lost you. In a hypothetical world where unwanted pregnancies are already minimized through education and easy access to birth control, how does legalized abortion cut down on the number of abortions?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Maq wrote:

Because it's not about protecting the children, it's about punishing the sluts. If it was about the children you'd have sex education and adequate state child support infrastructure.

This a million times over. How they can not suffer crippling cognitive dissonance at the idea of "every child MUST BE BOOOOOOOOOORN!" being followed by "what? You need help raising that child we made you have no choice on... F that!" is something that nearly caused the same in me until it was explained to me here.

While I admit there's a ton of hypocrisy on my side and we absolutely need to do better in the areas you've outlined, both of you are sidestepping the issue and not really making a pro-choice argument. Someone can defensibly be (for example) anti-slavery but also be against socialism - "BUT YOU DONT CARE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM AFTERWARDS" isn't strictly relevant when you have a case where someone's most basic rights are being discounted.

Foetuses aren't "someones" so they can't have rights.