Active Users:679 Time:23/12/2024 06:43:31 AM
Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case. Joel Send a noteboard - 04/02/2012 08:25:49 PM
Abstinence-only "sex ed" doesn't work. Teenagers are going to have sex no matter what they're told by adults, so the choice is to give them good information or not. Giving them no information about birth control (or false information, as many abstinence-only programs have been found to do) just leaves them unprepared. That generally affects them through their adult years, as well.

No argument here; I oppose abstinence-only sex ed. I merely sought to explain why many support it for reasons unrelated to "oppression." Kids should be taught abstinence is the only perfect means of preventing pregnancy (because it is,) but also receive comprehensive contraception education because 1) nearly all will have sex before their majority (let alone marriage) anyway and 2) so they understand contraception is not a panacea. In particular, not only does it imperfectly prevent pregnancy, but most is USELESS against STDs. That is irrelevant to abortion, but HIGHLY relevant to health.

(Sexual consent laws are not nearly as uniform as you claim, either. Laws defining appropriate age ranges for sexual conduct for minors, e.g. it's okay for a 16-year-old to have sex with a 17-year-old but not a 40-year-old, are not uncommon. This is utterly tangential to the actual point, though.)

I said outright age of consent
varies by locale, and there is often some latitude when both (or however many) partners are close to the same age.

How specific did you want it? Age of consent varies by country and, within the US, by state. It is close in most cases, (only varying two years in the US,) though, again, minors near the same age often receive legal latitude few adults enjoy. I believe the rule of thumb is one must be within four years of their partners age, so in many (NOT all) jurisdictions it is legal, not only at 17, but even at 19, sometimes even 20, to have sex with 16 year olds even in the nineteen states where age of consent is >16. After 21 it is simple: Anyone <17 is off limits, except in the 31 states where the age of consent is 16. In eleven states the age of consent is 18 but, depending on local "grace period" (if any,) someone who recently turned 22 might legally be able to have sex with someone who turned 17 nearly a year ago. Better? :P

For once, I thought MY point would not suffer from more brevity. I still think it does not. ;) GENERALLY SPEAKING, US society and law discourages minors having sex, so many "nonoppresive" people oppose teaching kids to safely do something currently illegal for them.

As to relevance, tangents are by definition tangential to a point, and therefore not completely unconnected. In this case, age of consent is far more than a tangent; many people oppose sex education, not out of oppression, but because they (and the law) oppose kids having sex in the first place. Obviously, that is both naïve and short sighted, because most kids do it despite the law, and even those who do not should know how to have safe sex once they are no longer kids. I do not SHARE that view, but do UNDERSTAND it, to a degree your statement did not reflect, so I sought to explain it. Ignorance or idealism are no better justifications than malice, but not abusive, tyrannical or "oppressive." Painting sex ed opponents as "oppressors" offers a rallying point and sense of superiority similar to painting pro choice people as "baby murderers" but is no more fair or accurate.

If the "pro-life" movement realistically wanted to eliminate abortion, they would fund research into improving things like Implanon so that everyone would get an implant when they turned X (12, 14, 16, whatever) and no one could get pregnant or get someone pregnant unintentionally. That is a solution that actually acknowledges reality and works within it. Railing against Planned Parenthood and "marching for life" are not solutions.

That would reduce, but NOT eliminate, abortion and we both know it (I hope.)

While I agree ignoring reality is often the problem, ignorance is not oppression, though it can lead to that, inadvertently or otherwise. A lot of pro lifers (and pro choicers) could support implants (in the absence of real medical concerns) as an abortion alternative, but finding majorities who support them for 12 or 14 year olds would probably be difficult. Fourteen is WELL below the age of consent in all 50 states, and even people who recognize it happens anyway try to avoid anything encouraging it (and, yes, telling teens contraception eliminates the chance of pregnancy would encourage sex, in addition to being false.)

(The BBC article you cite about failures of Implanon does not contradict my statement that it has a sub-1% failure rate. (600+1600)/4100000 = 0.05%. No other birth control on the market does that well. Yes, it has side effects; all hormonal treatments do. Also, the implantation problem has been corrected with the updated version, called Nexplanon.)

The BBC article only cites REPORTED problems, which makes a big difference (hence drug trials actively seeking reports from all test subjects.) If I had to bet, I expect most of the pregnant women in that BBC article thought their implants made pregnancy impossible, and were outraged at the result of "ignoring reality."

All hormonal treatments have side effects, yes; that, and how little we know about the long term ones of most, has much more to do with reservations than does any "oppression." You should have seen my wifes eyes pop when I read her that line about implants for 12 year olds, and not because Norway is some anti-reproductive rights bastion. She actually talked more about her doctor putting her back on the pill because of concerns about osteoporosis with injections and what they did to her menstruation. We both fully support reproductive rights, but think everyone getting an implant at 12 a really bad idea.

Incidentally, your phrasing there was ambiguous, but for the purposes of an online discussion I can assume you meant implants should be available for 12 year olds rather than compulsory (i.e. reproductive CHOICE, not just oppression via government rather than guardian.) In light of the fight Perry started when he tried to mandate the HPV vaccine for TX school girls, I recommend making it explicit when trying to convince people. ;) I generally support peoples freedom to do whatever they wish with their own bodies so long as they know the risks (though the importance of understanding the risks often makes minors an exception to that general rule,) but many disagree. Either way, no "choice" shoved down the throats of kids (and their parents) is better than another.

The "pro-life" movement ultimately stems from the feeling, generally religiously inspired, that pregnancy must be a necessary consequence of sex. The idea that we could separate the two is what most of the movement actually opposes. Women who have sex out of wedlock should be punished by having to carry the pregnancy to term. Those are the oppressive sexual mores to which I referred. (Interpreting that as "locking up your kids"-style oppression was not a high point of your reply.)

Pregnancy is always on the sexual table (or heterosexual table.) If you consider that "oppression," take it up with Mother Nature, but you severely overextended the meaning of "oppression." Noting that was a high point of my reply, and much (though not all) of my point. Practically no US adult is sexually "oppressed" (the few exceptions are oppressed illegally, so changing laws will not help them) and you are a little old to believe every parental choice a child dislikes "oppression."

It is neither fair nor accurate for EITHER side to paint the other as seeking to brutalize children; it may feel good, but is counterproductive.

If they really felt that a single-celled zygote is morally equivalent to a person and abortion is murder, they would not act they way they do. Murder is a more important issue than birth control or teenage sex. Also, most pregnancies end in miscarriage, without the woman even knowing she was pregnant; a "pro-lifer" ought to see this as an epidemic. I have almost never encountered any who realize this, let alone try to do anything about it. (Every once in a while, some state legislator ends up trying to criminalize miscarriages, and quickly gets eaten alive in the public eye.)

That one is news to me, but a natural death is not killing, and killing not necessarily murder. On the other hand, logic is often the first casualty of such debates.

I'll try to keep an eye out for your NB.

Cool.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 04/02/2012 at 08:34:09 PM
Reply to message
Susan G. Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood. (with updated edit) - 02/02/2012 04:32:27 PM 2209 Views
The most annoying part is in the sixth paragraph- abortions are only a small part of their thing - 02/02/2012 05:08:07 PM 1099 Views
I agree. - 02/02/2012 05:20:17 PM 1003 Views
I can understand it though. - 02/02/2012 05:45:55 PM 1065 Views
I can too, it just isn't for me. - 02/02/2012 05:58:33 PM 984 Views
Actually, there are longer-acting forms of birth control than the pill. - 03/02/2012 12:37:42 AM 989 Views
I do think that preventing abortions is their primary goal. - 03/02/2012 01:08:05 AM 954 Views
If they don't see that link, it's because they haven't looked. - 03/02/2012 02:42:42 AM 1039 Views
That is a little unfair. - 03/02/2012 12:48:46 PM 1249 Views
Won't someone please think of the children?! - 04/02/2012 05:03:27 AM 1034 Views
I think you're leaving out some important points. - 04/02/2012 03:40:48 PM 979 Views
Ah, the good ol' silent majority. - 04/02/2012 07:32:29 PM 955 Views
So which moron is feeding you this crap? - 04/02/2012 10:27:15 PM 973 Views
A zygote isn't a person, because it doesn't have a brain. - 05/02/2012 12:33:29 AM 972 Views
It worries me when we think alike.... - 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM 1012 Views
Brain waves at 8 weeks are a myth. - 05/02/2012 08:46:06 PM 1115 Views
"brain function... appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks' gestation." - 05/02/2012 10:42:35 PM 1028 Views
Oh please. - 05/02/2012 11:13:50 PM 997 Views
Re: Oh please yourself. - 06/02/2012 09:15:26 PM 869 Views
Quite a telling reply. - 07/02/2012 04:38:20 AM 936 Views
Re: I quite agree. - 08/02/2012 06:03:23 PM 1141 Views
You're taking an issue of objective facts and treating it like a day of playground gossip. - 09/02/2012 03:47:06 AM 976 Views
No, your source, in which there is very little that is objective, did that for me. - 11/02/2012 02:59:45 AM 998 Views
I see you have continued to provide no factual arguments. - 14/02/2012 04:53:28 AM 1240 Views
I presented factual rebuttals. - 19/02/2012 01:56:45 AM 1031 Views
You continue to miss the point. - 23/02/2012 10:22:24 PM 1119 Views
Well, yes. - 04/02/2012 11:14:47 PM 1040 Views
A silent majority may as well not exist, if it has no tangible effects. - 05/02/2012 12:54:34 AM 982 Views
You ignoring it is not the same thing as it having no tangible effect. - 05/02/2012 02:11:36 AM 1077 Views
Ignoring what? You haven't shown me anything solid. - 05/02/2012 05:25:23 AM 976 Views
It's ok, we're done. *NM* - 05/02/2012 09:29:05 AM 594 Views
Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case. - 04/02/2012 08:25:49 PM 1071 Views
Re: Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case. - 05/02/2012 02:11:28 AM 973 Views
If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. - 05/02/2012 08:42:17 AM 815 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. - 05/02/2012 10:04:59 PM 981 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. - 06/02/2012 08:57:38 PM 955 Views
I'm done discussing my use of the term "oppression." The Tim Ryan stuff is interesting, though. - 07/02/2012 05:37:05 AM 1055 Views
Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 08/02/2012 06:01:32 PM 1152 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 09/02/2012 05:30:58 AM 1017 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 11/02/2012 02:58:00 AM 1044 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 14/02/2012 04:29:08 AM 1109 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 19/02/2012 01:54:30 AM 1028 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 23/02/2012 10:59:32 PM 1324 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 07/03/2012 01:47:44 AM 987 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 15/03/2012 10:27:23 PM 1239 Views
There are problems with the implants - 03/02/2012 01:42:55 AM 1002 Views
You have a talent for understatement. - 03/02/2012 01:08:40 PM 991 Views
I agree that they have made Beast Cancer a cult but splitting with PP is just smart - 02/02/2012 05:39:49 PM 1137 Views
I agree. - 02/02/2012 06:00:17 PM 921 Views
yes she is going to have to piss off one group or the other - 02/02/2012 06:12:31 PM 987 Views
Right - 02/02/2012 06:24:14 PM 1037 Views
Do you see a way Komen could have avoided pissing off one side? - 02/02/2012 06:55:36 PM 985 Views
No, I don't. I don't believe I said that? - 02/02/2012 07:53:50 PM 895 Views
You didn't; I inferred it from the way you phrased that ("if she HAS to..."). Sorry. - 02/02/2012 08:06:11 PM 975 Views
I know I'm not always clear. - 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM 979 Views
Just curious... - 02/02/2012 10:07:49 PM 959 Views
Not at all. - 02/02/2012 10:24:19 PM 1027 Views
Not at all? - 02/02/2012 10:32:31 PM 919 Views
No. - 02/02/2012 10:47:04 PM 873 Views
My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes - 02/02/2012 11:17:24 PM 972 Views
Re: My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes - 03/02/2012 12:08:01 AM 970 Views
wow that may be the worst advice I had in weeks - 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM 937 Views
Ooor, the best. - 03/02/2012 12:25:56 AM 911 Views
ok now you are just being mean *NM* - 03/02/2012 12:46:12 AM 592 Views
The thread was going too well - I thought we needed the meanness. *NM* - 03/02/2012 11:30:39 AM 541 Views
rabble rouser *NM* - 04/02/2012 04:24:01 AM 556 Views
I misread this at first - 03/02/2012 12:51:44 AM 974 Views
not to mention codeine seems to make me double post - 02/02/2012 11:17:26 PM 2017 Views
I'm not so sure I agree. Or not completely. - 02/02/2012 06:14:11 PM 907 Views
I don't diagree with the way you see it - 02/02/2012 06:39:41 PM 971 Views
More inevitable than anything, considering who started Komen. - 02/02/2012 10:19:34 PM 924 Views
Never having heard of any of those except PP, my opinion may not be the most relevant... - 02/02/2012 08:32:48 PM 1040 Views
You don't know stuff. - 02/02/2012 08:43:38 PM 1005 Views
I know the stuff that matters. - 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM 911 Views
That's true. - 02/02/2012 10:34:32 PM 1002 Views
they may also be a afraid that PP will go the way of ACORN - 02/02/2012 11:04:16 PM 1053 Views
"Accused" of = unfounded slander. - 03/02/2012 12:13:30 AM 1067 Views
This is so foreign a debate for me - 02/02/2012 10:16:15 PM 1024 Views
Must be nice. *NM* - 03/02/2012 12:26:49 AM 644 Views
Re: stuff - 03/02/2012 09:18:53 AM 922 Views
I'm sorry, but what're we talking about when we're talking about "cancer" - 03/02/2012 12:49:34 PM 955 Views
Obviously not adenocarcinoma, no. - 04/02/2012 07:36:06 AM 968 Views
I"m not that fussed. I'm just generally leary of research that has results like that - 04/02/2012 08:35:04 PM 915 Views
Fair enough. - 04/02/2012 10:17:31 PM 982 Views
They restored funding incidentally - 03/02/2012 05:43:47 PM 908 Views
Unless I've missed it - 03/02/2012 05:56:15 PM 990 Views
You must have missed it then - 03/02/2012 07:07:13 PM 907 Views
If you're referring to Cannoli - 03/02/2012 07:19:25 PM 1061 Views
Multiple was not an accidental choice of words - 03/02/2012 11:46:30 PM 937 Views
Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you. - 04/02/2012 12:41:42 AM 973 Views
Re: Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you. - 04/02/2012 01:53:25 AM 1162 Views
Well, I'll try again for both of us. - 04/02/2012 02:56:42 PM 995 Views
Re: Well, I'll try again for both of us. - 04/02/2012 07:40:25 PM 963 Views
well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision - 03/02/2012 06:24:14 PM 1101 Views
I think that ship sailed long ago. - 03/02/2012 08:45:13 PM 910 Views
Truth - 04/02/2012 02:07:20 AM 1017 Views
I do wonder a bit which lawmakers Fox thinks "pressured" Komen. - 03/02/2012 08:29:50 PM 906 Views
are you trying to disprove the study you posted? - 03/02/2012 09:20:12 PM 1034 Views
To me, it depends on the nature of the contact, which I have not dug enough to discover. - 03/02/2012 10:43:45 PM 935 Views
you admit you have no incite into what happened - 04/02/2012 04:27:17 AM 957 Views
Actually, it looks like Komens new VP (and former GOP GA gubernatorial candidate) had the incite. - 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM 1007 Views
educated guess don't work when you are tinfoil hat wearing kool-aid drinker - 04/02/2012 09:33:49 PM 907 Views
Dude. - 04/02/2012 11:20:49 PM 845 Views
Yo mama? - 05/02/2012 05:32:11 AM 998 Views
whhhhhhyyyyyy - 04/02/2012 11:23:58 PM 978 Views
Why would I not think that? - 05/02/2012 05:46:15 AM 873 Views

Reply to Message