Re: Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 05/02/2012 02:11:28 AM
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.
Yes, for sexually active people, getting STD screenings is very important. Planned Parenthood does just as much of that as it provides birth control. Hm, it's almost like they're aware of these facts, and act based on them!
People who support abstinence-only education have unrealistic ideas about both sex and their children. There's no getting around that. As I said, sex ed affects the future adult, not just the current teenager.
I said outright age of consent
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?
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.
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?
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.
I have only said that their sexual mores are oppressive; you are the one who seems insistent on labeling them oppressors because of that. The terminology of sexual oppression is not new, and I certainly did not invent it myself. Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_norm, for starters.
Arguing from age of consent laws is silly. Those laws are a low-order approximation to the underlying morality. We consider sex to be wrong if one or both (or more) parties have an impaired or undeveloped ability to consent. There are many nuanced situations in which that could be the case; the law makes gross approximations by age because it can't accurately evaluate most of those situations on an individual basis. I am sure that some people under the age of consent are still mentally able to consent, and some people over it are not able. The legal age of consent was not handed down from on high, and its existence is not an argument against safety education (which is what sex ed actually is).
There's a difference between understanding why people hold the views they do, and accepting those views as legitimate or grounded.
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.)
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.)
Some 12 or 14 year olds can still get pregnant; if we're really trying to prevent unplanned pregnancies, that's where to start. I think you're overestimating the amount of risk assessment or weighing that teenagers do at any point. Availability of reliable birth control has not been shown to encourage sex.
We will never completely eliminate the chance of pregnancy without actually removing the reproductive system, but we can get the chance low enough that it isn't worth worrying about.
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.
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.
I think that we need to move toward social norms which would make getting a birth control implant (at whatever age) the accepted, usual, and responsible option. Spreading disinformation about birth control must be discouraged, as well as parents foisting oppressive sexual mores on their children. The operative question to be asked is, "do you want your daughter to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if she gets raped?" (Assuming, in the ideal world of the (fictitious) reasonable pro-life movement, abortion is outlawed once such implants exist.)
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.
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.
You are speaking descriptively. My impression is that the "pro-life" movement view that fact prescriptively, i.e., pregnancy should be the consequence of sex.
I address your misunderstanding of the idea of oppressive sexual mores above.
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.
As I explained to nossy:
Yes, miscarriages are natural. So are any number of diseases, disorders, injuries, etc., but we still try to cure those so that people don't die. If a zygote is a person, why does the "pro-life" movement give zero attention to medical research that might save more of them from miscarriages?
Susan G. Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood. (with updated edit)
02/02/2012 04:32:27 PM
- 2210 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
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
- 955 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
- 1250 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
- 956 Views
So which moron is feeding you this crap?
04/02/2012 10:27:15 PM
- 973 Views
It worries me when we think alike....
05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
- 1013 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
- 1029 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
- 1142 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
- 977 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
- 1120 Views
No, I got the point: You expect me to accept a heavily biased, partisan and combative "source."
07/03/2012 01:47:37 AM
- 1040 Views
The claim of brain waves at 8 weeks is still unsupported by evidence, i.e. a myth.
15/03/2012 09:16:14 PM
- 1078 Views
Well, yes.
04/02/2012 11:14:47 PM
- 1041 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
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
- 974 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
- 982 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
- 1056 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
- 1045 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
- 1029 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
23/02/2012 10:59:32 PM
- 1325 Views
There are problems with the implants
03/02/2012 01:42:55 AM
- 1002 Views
Any form of birth control doesn't work for everyone, though.
03/02/2012 02:37:00 AM
- 1028 Views
Oh yes, I totally agree! My point is just that there are some barriers to handing out implants *NM*
03/02/2012 03:38:05 AM
- 472 Views
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
03/02/2012 01:47:42 AM
- 936 Views
I was actually kinda with you until you closed with that anathema I condemned in my response to rt.
03/02/2012 01:39:06 PM
- 964 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
- 988 Views
Right
02/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
- 1037 Views
it is a judgment call and I hope her decision is based on more than my guesses
02/02/2012 06:53:50 PM
- 910 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
- 1028 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
- 938 Views
Ooor, the best.
03/02/2012 12:25:56 AM
- 912 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
Never having heard of any of those except PP, my opinion may not be the most relevant...
02/02/2012 08:32:48 PM
- 1041 Views
You don't know stuff.
02/02/2012 08:43:38 PM
- 1006 Views
I know the stuff that matters.
02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
- 912 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
did you notice I called tactic disgusting? That doesn't mean it isn't effective
03/02/2012 12:45:10 AM
- 996 Views
The investigation by Congress is well-known to be specious. It's the House GOP abusing their power. *NM*
03/02/2012 12:41:58 AM
- 649 Views
This is so foreign a debate for me
02/02/2012 10:16:15 PM
- 1024 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
- 956 Views
Obviously not adenocarcinoma, no.
04/02/2012 07:36:06 AM
- 969 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
Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
02/02/2012 10:54:34 PM
- 1004 Views
Re: Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
02/02/2012 11:03:32 PM
- 933 Views
After a little more digging I have to say you are probably right.
03/02/2012 02:23:14 AM
- 867 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
- 991 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
- 938 Views
Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
04/02/2012 12:41:42 AM
- 974 Views
Re: Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
04/02/2012 01:53:25 AM
- 1162 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
Re: well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
03/02/2012 06:29:34 PM
- 883 Views
I do wonder a bit which lawmakers Fox thinks "pressured" Komen.
03/02/2012 08:29:50 PM
- 906 Views
Beyond the 26 senators, I'd imagine rumor of the more reliable sort
03/02/2012 08:46:31 PM
- 971 Views
Well, if they wrote AS senators rather than friends of Nancy Brinker, that probably qualifies.
03/02/2012 10:24:11 PM
- 1026 Views
Judge for yourself
04/02/2012 12:01:06 AM
- 1036 Views
Well, a public letter makes whether they signed it "Sen. so-and-so" irrelevant: It is political.
04/02/2012 04:07:20 PM
- 957 Views
are you trying to disprove the study you posted?
03/02/2012 09:20:12 PM
- 1035 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
- 1008 Views
educated guess don't work when you are tinfoil hat wearing kool-aid drinker
04/02/2012 09:33:49 PM
- 907 Views