The Conservative War On Women

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'll make a "Liberal war on religious freedom" thread where we can discuss that, sound good? :)

I assure you, many of us would love to understand exactly what kind of war we're waging on religious freedom.

Yeah, it should be a "Liberal war FOR religious freedom" thread. Just because a person is religious doesn't mean they want to live in a Theocracy.

CheezePavilion wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'll make a "Liberal war on religious freedom" thread where we can discuss that, sound good? :)

I assure you, many of us would love to understand exactly what kind of war we're waging on religious freedom.

Yeah, it should be a "Liberal war FOR religious freedom" thread. Just because a person is religious doesn't mean they want to live in a Theocracy.

Both of them will lead to the same discussion so why not? I think it's a good idea.

On topic:

IMAGE(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/417362_357177144306082_153964677960664_1272446_71678513_n.jpg)

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Another thing this whole Catholic kerfuffle highlights is the silliness of the concept of getting your health insurance through your employer. It's completely entrenched in our society, enshrined in law in many states, but has no rational basis any more.

But, I admit this is a derail.

Amen to that.

As a slight redirect, the idea that an employer can restrict your health insurance (earned compensation) such that you are disallowed from participating in contraception is only slightly less ridiculous than it telling you that you can't spend any part of your paycheck on condoms.

Paleocon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Another thing this whole Catholic kerfuffle highlights is the silliness of the concept of getting your health insurance through your employer. It's completely entrenched in our society, enshrined in law in many states, but has no rational basis any more.

But, I admit this is a derail.

Amen to that.

As a slight redirect, the idea that an employer can restrict your health insurance (earned compensation) such that you are disallowed from participating in contraception is only slightly less ridiculous than it telling you that you can't spend any part of your paycheck on condoms.

Your country is literally terrifying.

Except the article explicitly states the opposition is related to new gay and immigrant provisions of the law.

Right, but the Republican counter-proposal strips out significant funding for prosecuting crimes against women.

I stand behind my comment. It was accurate.

And note that I even said that it wasn't 'just a reauthorization' the way the article made it sound, that the Democrats were changing the rules. I explicitly pointed out that they were objecting to an expansion of the law. I was being fair.

However, their counter-offer is abhorrent. Tough on crime, unless it's crime against women.

I'm darkly amused by the idea that "No, they just don't like the gay and immigrant parts" was presented as if it'd make me say "Oh, ok then, that's fine."

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'm darkly amused by the idea that "No, they just don't like the gay and immigrant parts" was presented as if it'd make me say "Oh, ok then, that's fine."

On that note, can someone link to the gay and immigrant parts? I'm especially curious about what benefits gay people might receive from this law that would be considered unacceptable. Domestic violence is ok if they're gay?

gregrampage wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'm darkly amused by the idea that "No, they just don't like the gay and immigrant parts" was presented as if it'd make me say "Oh, ok then, that's fine."

On that note, can someone link to the gay and immigrant parts? I'm especially curious about what benefits gay people might receive from this law that would be considered unacceptable. Domestic violence is ok if they're gay?

This isn't the language from the actual bill, but a synopsis of the parts from the article linked above.

The Republican opposition seems driven largely by an antigay, anti-immigrant agenda. The main sticking points seemed to be language in the bill to ensure that victims are not denied services because they are gay or transgender and a provision that would modestly expand the availability of special visas for undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence — a necessary step to encourage those victims to come forward.
Crispus wrote:

I reject the concept of sex as an action with no consequences, because that's not biology, no matter how much we might wish it to be otherwise. So, with that outlook, it DOES seem fair to me that if a woman has sex without contraceptives, she could be barred from aborting her pregnancy. By granting such a woman an abortion, I feel society grants her the ability to be as careless with her body as she desires, which I feel hurts both her and society. If some people feel that makes me a person who hates liberated women, so be it. I personally view that outlook as one which simply accepts the shortcomings of our biology.

I also believe that abortions are a significant action - it's surgery, after all - so it bugs me when I hear people talking about it as if it were just another form of birth control.

Now, I had a vasectomy, which quite a bit of a surgery. Where does it place me in the society that has overlooked the fact that it granted me ability to be as careless with my body as I desire? WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE.

This is a fascinating discussion. While I consider myself firmly in Malor's camp on the topic, I do like the refining of ideas happening by comparing sex to food and other evolutionary mandates.

I know everyone (including me!) hates That Guy who posts something without sources, but I read that the urge to have sex is actually utterly divorced from the urge to procreate in our species. That is, we evolved to enjoy sex, and the fact that babies can result is an indirect and actually quite rare conclusion. It reminds me that I am, many times, living in opposition to my genes. They have a desire to exist in the long term, a desire to survive on a timeline that makes my tiny lifespan laughable, so they manipulated my pleasure center to coincide with their goals.

Very sneaky, DNA.

Seth wrote:

This is a fascinating discussion. While I consider myself firmly in Malor's camp on the topic, I do like the refining of ideas happening by comparing sex to food and other evolutionary mandates.

I know everyone (including me!) hates That Guy who posts something without sources, but I read that the urge to have sex is actually utterly divorced from the urge to procreate in our species. That is, we evolved to enjoy sex, and the fact that babies can result is an indirect and actually quite rare conclusion. It reminds me that I am, many times, living in opposition to my genes. They have a desire to exist in the long term, a desire to survive on a timeline that makes my tiny lifespan laughable, so they manipulated my pleasure center to coincide with their goals.

Very sneaky, DNA.

Makes sense to me. Otherwise why would masturbation really exist?

Masturbation is a perfect example. My point with that unsourced statement above was to throw a bit of water on the "sex has consequences" crowd. If it can be accepted that sex is fun for its own sake, I think it delegitimizes in some way that argument.

In other words, people dont have sex to make babies, rather babies are the ocassional result of sex. Looked at like that, it seems dishonest to tie them inextricably. One could also say that people don't drive cars to run over pedestrians, rather pedestrians getting run over are the ocassional result of driving. I think I am repeating someone else's rhetoric, though, and there's theirs is likely better than mine.

Leaving my embarrassing typo for the world to mock. derp.

Seth wrote:

Masturbation is a perfect example. My point with that unsourced statement above was to throw a bit of water on the "sex has consequences" crowd. If it can be accepted that sex is fun for its own sake, I think it delegitimizes in some way that argument.

In other words, people dont have sex to make babies, rather babies are the ocassional result of sex. Looked at like that, it seems dishonest to tie them inextricably. One could also say that people don't drive cars to run over pedestrians, rather pedestrians getting run over are the ocassional result of driving. I think I am repeating someone else's rhetoric, though, and there's theirs is likely better than mine.

Leaving my embarrassing typo for the world to mock. derp.

And despite the dictionary definitions of consequence applied earlier, I doubt many people would call run over pedestrians a consequence of choosing to drive.

Seth wrote:

Masturbation is a perfect example. My point with that unsourced statement above was to throw a bit of water on the "sex has consequences" crowd. If it can be accepted that sex is fun for its own sake, I think it delegitimizes in some way that argument.

In other words, people dont have sex to make babies, rather babies are the ocassional result of sex. Looked at like that, it seems dishonest to tie them inextricably. One could also say that people don't drive cars to run over pedestrians, rather pedestrians getting run over are the ocassional result of driving. I think I am repeating someone else's rhetoric, though, and there's is likely better than mine. :)

Yeah I was trying to form a similar argument but I can provide a reference: the book Sex At Dawn
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehi...

IIRC one of the stats in there is that current estimates are that humans are typically having sex between 300 and 600 times for every live birth. Animals that only have sex for procreation's sake typically have sex only a couple of times per birth. So in humans birth is actually a fairly rare consequence of sexual activity. Although it's not proof it certainly suggests that sex's principle, day-to-day role for humans is not procreation.

I've read in a few places the idea that one of the reasons humans became the dominant species was that we actually enjoy sex and look forward to it. It increases the likelihood of having children, which is important when your young are effectively helpless for a number of years, so you want to be able to have more mating opportunities. Sex being in and of itself pleasurable is, for us, a pretty significant evolutionary advantage, because rather than waiting for a female to go into heat for a short period every so often and having males compete over her, you have females willing and ready to have sex at pretty much every time. This leads to more children, and also a wider gene pool because there isn't just a limited subset of dominant males passing their genes along.

DanB wrote:
Seth wrote:

Masturbation is a perfect example. My point with that unsourced statement above was to throw a bit of water on the "sex has consequences" crowd. If it can be accepted that sex is fun for its own sake, I think it delegitimizes in some way that argument.

In other words, people dont have sex to make babies, rather babies are the ocassional result of sex. Looked at like that, it seems dishonest to tie them inextricably. One could also say that people don't drive cars to run over pedestrians, rather pedestrians getting run over are the ocassional result of driving. I think I am repeating someone else's rhetoric, though, and there's is likely better than mine. :)

Yeah I was trying to form a similar argument but I can provide a reference: the book Sex At Dawn
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehi...

IIRC one of the stats in there is that current estimates are that humans are typically having sex between 300 and 600 times for every live birth. Animals that only have sex for procreation's sake typically have sex only a couple of times per birth. So in humans birth is actually a fairly rare consequence of sexual activity. Although it's not proof it certainly suggests that sex's principle, day-to-day role for humans is not procreation.

How is that, btw? (sorry for derail) It's on my wishlist, but I haven't grabbed it yet.

Yep. I didn't see a single reference in Crispus' post to the responsibility of men in the whole process. It's her fault, absolutely and utterly, and she deserves what she gets.

I think we should incorporate chemical sterility in the irresponsible male. It can last anywhere from 40 weeks to 18 years. There could also be a $40-60k fee, comparable to the cost of an adoption, to wave the sterility procedure.

To be honest, I'd bet that would be a much more effective counter to premarital sex than banning abortion and demonizing women who engage in premarital sex.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'm darkly amused by the idea that "No, they just don't like the gay and immigrant parts" was presented as if it'd make me say "Oh, ok then, that's fine."

Well, I was simply saying the underlying opposition was something different than hostility towards women, I'm not making any qualitative comments about the actual reasons.

DanB wrote:

Your country is literally terrifying.

+1. Sometimes I don't know why I read these P&C threads. Maybe just to brace myself for laws Harper and the Tories probably can't wait to pass.

Seth wrote:

Masturbation is a perfect example. My point with that unsourced statement above was to throw a bit of water on the "sex has consequences" crowd. If it can be accepted that sex is fun for its own sake, I think it delegitimizes in some way that argument.

I thought it was assumed we were talking about clinical male-female p-v sex, which normally does carry a potential consequence of pregnancy. Naturally other types of behavior don't carry that specific risk.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Seth wrote:

Masturbation is a perfect example. My point with that unsourced statement above was to throw a bit of water on the "sex has consequences" crowd. If it can be accepted that sex is fun for its own sake, I think it delegitimizes in some way that argument.

I thought it was assumed we were talking about clinical male-female p-v sex, which normally does carry a potential consequence of pregnancy. Naturally other types of behavior don't carry that specific risk.

Right, you missed the point. The point is we masturbate because we have sexual desires outside of the desire to procreate. Sex is not, biologically, just for procreation. If it was we wouldn't have these drives to do things outside of the clinical sex you refer to.

gregrampage wrote:

Sex is not, biologically, just for procreation.

Apologies, if someone actually made the counter argument I guess I missed it.

I just don't get how this was twisted into controversy or why religion should control private health insurance policy options for individuals.

If a religious person feels that birth control is not in line with their religious beliefs, are they not all the more pious for living their own beliefs in an environment of choice, instead of imposing those beliefs on others by eliminating that same personal choice?

When it gets down to it, I wonder if its not at all about babies or sex, not about abortion or birth control, but instead more base and just about money, power and influence. Maybe simply, its about folks generally feeling entitled in dictating the right way to live, their way, to their neighbor.

Irongut wrote:

I just don't get how this got twisted into controversy or why religion should control private health insurance policy options.

If a religious person feels that birth control is not in line with their religious beliefs, are they not all the more pious for living their own beliefs instead of imposing those beliefs on others by eliminating personal choice?

My theory is that traditional methods of enacting their will on the people have failed. Simply making their point in public forums hasn't work because the majority simply do not agree. Since that failed, they're not trying to subvert the existing system to enact their will. They're desperately searching for loopholes and propaganda techniques. If they can't get the public to want to stop buying birth control they're subvert the health insurance system to prevent it.

The story in the OP is another example. They've failed to get the majority to be against contraception so now instead of calling it contraception they want to call it abortion because abortion.

Irongut wrote:

When it gets down to it, I wonder if its not at all about babies or sex, not about abortion or birth control, but instead more base and just about money, power and influence. Maybe simply, its about folks generally feeling entitled in dictating the right way to live, their way, to their neighbor.

I think this is somewhat the point Malor is trying to make, except with the focus that it's dictating the right way for women to live.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'll make a "Liberal war on religious freedom" thread where we can discuss that, sound good? :)

I assure you, many of us would love to understand exactly what kind of war we're waging on religious freedom.

The spiritual war we wage when we don't convert. When we "throw it in their face" that we aren't religious.

Paleocon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Another thing this whole Catholic kerfuffle highlights is the silliness of the concept of getting your health insurance through your employer. It's completely entrenched in our society, enshrined in law in many states, but has no rational basis any more.

But, I admit this is a derail.

Amen to that.

As a slight redirect, the idea that an employer can restrict your health insurance (earned compensation) such that you are disallowed from participating in contraception is only slightly less ridiculous than it telling you that you can't spend any part of your paycheck on condoms.

+1 to both of you guys.

Also, I'd like to dig into this, but I don't really have the energy to get into a huge argument today:

I wonder, though, if there actually is some ethically valid anti-abortion argument that can be made. I am skeptical that there is, but I will attempt to do so; if, even when given a generous set of premises, the argument is of little value, we can perhaps conclude that the whole anti-abortion movement really is pure sexism.

There are valid anti-abortion arguments that don't fall back on religion. The central issue is personal rights: at what point does a fetus become a person who is granted the inalienable right to life? There is really no one point in the continuum of human development at which we can conclusively say that personhood is achieved. We have only arbitrary points that we superimpose on the continuum: first trimester, viability outside the womb, and so on. The only point that is not arbitrary is conception, so some people feel (I'm one of them) that until we have some way to definitively scientifically identify when a fetus becomes a human person, conception is the only safe, logical place to begin. There are a lot of arguments to be had from that point regarding how we prioritize the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn child. Some of these are discussed in articles like this: http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.... There's too much reverence toward Ayn Rand and Libertarian principles, but it's an example of how one can arrive at an anti-abortion position through secular reasoning.

An interesting thought exercise from Matt Yglesias:

Start with the assumption that ObamaCare is repealed, in its entirety, tomorrow. The day after tomorrow Abdul Hussain, owner and CEO of a large private firm with 5,000 employees, announces that his firm will no longer offer employees health insurance that permits women to visit male doctors or male employees to be treated by female doctors. This is a newsworthy event, and the day after the day after tomorrow Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder both offer the opinion that this is a form of illegal discrimination and that if it's not already illegal it should be made illegal. Will Mitch McConnell and other congressional Republicans stand up for Hussain's "freedom of conscience" in this case? Will my conservative Twitter followers?

I'm going to guess no.

Conservatives don't like the Affordable Care Act and are sympathetic on the merits to the claims of those who think contraceptives or morally wrong, so in this particular case the principle of "freedom of conscience" seems appealing to them. But there's actually nobody who endorses the general principle being invoked here.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Well, I was simply saying the underlying opposition was something different than hostility towards women, I'm not making any qualitative comments about the actual reasons.

I think treating all rape victims (the reported majority being female) as collateral damage in their campaign to prevent homosexuals from being ensured equal protection under criminal law definitely shows hostility and indifference to women as part of the whole repugnantly evil melange they have going. I have a hard time even processing the idea of not making qualitative comments on that--seriously, it's that f*cking evil.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'll make a "Liberal war on religious freedom" thread where we can discuss that, sound good? :)

Please do. I'd love to have that conversation.

I think it might be worthwhile to point out that the problem is not all conservatives. Just the fringe group that seems to have way too much power over the republicans.