Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 07/02/2012 07:47:27 AM
Again, no argument but, also again, being unrealistic is not in itself oppression or oppressive, though it can foster that.
Based on the link, restrictive social norms considered negative are oppression and those considered positive are chastity. The same principle is considered either oppression OR chastity solely on a given individuals opinion of it, irrespective of its nature. Those are strained arbitrary definitions.
A restrictive norm is oppression if (and only if) imposed on consenting adults against their will, and chastity only if it is abstinence. The same restriction can qualify as both, regardless of what advocates on either side choose to label it, but marital sex is not chastity and opposing pedophilia not oppressive. Note that the article refers to social NORMS that may or may not be enforced by law. I have no idea who decided "encouraging sexual SELF-restraint" is oppression, but someone should get them a dictionary, because "self oppression" is a contradiction in terms.
Inaccurate, inconsistent and subjective definitions are a running theme in that article. The use of "oppression" is a good example, but what is to be made of "Many societies which aggressively regulate sexual behavior tend to have high levels of hidden child sexual abuse, although if this level is lower or higher per capita than in sexually permissive societies is unknown"? That usage of "high" is very relative; we cannot know if the prevalence of hidden child abuse in sexually permissive societies is "high" unless we know its prevalence elsewhere. The statement is meaningless, and sounds like someone wants us to believe, but cannot prove, that "oppression" (whatever that means at the moment) fosters pedophilia. The next statement is similar, that some Westerners "choose" to define "normal" as "not perverted," which even the author immediately notes is a just a truism reflecting perennial practice; normal=¬perverted.
Regardless of the articles muddled presentation, however, it is also a truism that when you accused people of oppression you (not I) labeled them oppressors. That was the whole point, no? Won't someone think of those oppressed by the parochial morality of others? Its only major failing is being untrue.
Based on the link, restrictive social norms considered negative are oppression and those considered positive are chastity. The same principle is considered either oppression OR chastity solely on a given individuals opinion of it, irrespective of its nature. Those are strained arbitrary definitions.
A restrictive norm is oppression if (and only if) imposed on consenting adults against their will, and chastity only if it is abstinence. The same restriction can qualify as both, regardless of what advocates on either side choose to label it, but marital sex is not chastity and opposing pedophilia not oppressive. Note that the article refers to social NORMS that may or may not be enforced by law. I have no idea who decided "encouraging sexual SELF-restraint" is oppression, but someone should get them a dictionary, because "self oppression" is a contradiction in terms.
Inaccurate, inconsistent and subjective definitions are a running theme in that article. The use of "oppression" is a good example, but what is to be made of "Many societies which aggressively regulate sexual behavior tend to have high levels of hidden child sexual abuse, although if this level is lower or higher per capita than in sexually permissive societies is unknown"? That usage of "high" is very relative; we cannot know if the prevalence of hidden child abuse in sexually permissive societies is "high" unless we know its prevalence elsewhere. The statement is meaningless, and sounds like someone wants us to believe, but cannot prove, that "oppression" (whatever that means at the moment) fosters pedophilia. The next statement is similar, that some Westerners "choose" to define "normal" as "not perverted," which even the author immediately notes is a just a truism reflecting perennial practice; normal=¬perverted.
Regardless of the articles muddled presentation, however, it is also a truism that when you accused people of oppression you (not I) labeled them oppressors. That was the whole point, no? Won't someone think of those oppressed by the parochial morality of others? Its only major failing is being untrue.
Most people reason about right and wrong based on societal (and especially familial) views and positions. A view of sex which condemns or opposes any kind of consensual interaction is oppressive. Such a view contributes to a social environment in which people feel limits on their freedom of consensual sexual interactions because of external negativity (which often generates internal negativity, as well). Social customs and practices are the aggregate of those of individuals, so people can contribute to the existence of an oppressive more without being active, intentional oppressors themselves.
Legal oppression is far from the only kind of oppression. Social norms can be and often are oppressive.
That sounds more repression than oppression. One can "condemn or oppose any kind of consensual interaction" without oppression, provided compliance is not forced. I oppose voting Republican, consensually or not, but discourage it via persuasion, not legislation, so I do not feel especially "oppressive" or even repressive. Regardless, oppressive behavior is by definition oppression, legal or otherwise. Speaking of definitions is conveniently illustrative here:
op·pres·sion
n.
1. a. The act of oppressing; arbitrary and cruel exercise of power: "There can be no really pervasive system of oppression . . . without the consent of the oppressed" (Florynce R. Kennedy).
b. The state of being oppressed.
2. Something that oppresses.
3. A feeling of being heavily weighed down in mind or body.
n.
1. a. The act of oppressing; arbitrary and cruel exercise of power: "There can be no really pervasive system of oppression . . . without the consent of the oppressed" (Florynce R. Kennedy).
b. The state of being oppressed.
2. Something that oppresses.
3. A feeling of being heavily weighed down in mind or body.
Not only does that rather clearly establish oppression requires an oppressor, but the usage example encapsulates why oppression is generally off the table for adults: There can be no really pervasive system of oppression without the consent of the oppressed; I could not have said it better. Legal oppression is not the only kind of oppression, no; there is also illegal oppression, which we prevent as best we can through law and its enforcement.
What suddenly made false misleading appeals to misplaced morality and emotion acceptable when they are so reprehensible in pro lifers?
Arguing from age of consent laws is inevitable in this case because only minors face significant obstacles to contraception and sex ed. They constitute nearly everyone vulnerable to "oppression," and their SEXUAL oppression is simply denying their ability to consent to sex, as they are denied it with so many other things. They are also proscribed from drinking, voting, military enlistment, full time jobs and signing legal contracs, but no one demands their "liberation" from those "oppressions." Age of consent laws are an approximation of an underlying generally accepted morality, yes, but not an oppressive nor unrealistic one, surprisingly enough.
Sex ed is more about health than about safety (the latter excludes childbirth, beyond a mothers welfare,) but I will not argue if the distinction is only semantic.
Sex ed is more about health than about safety (the latter excludes childbirth, beyond a mothers welfare,) but I will not argue if the distinction is only semantic.
This response entirely misses my point. Arguing from age of consent laws is essentially saying that the age of a person, and nothing else, determines his or her actual (not legal) ability to consent. That's not how it works; age is an estimator of other factors in the brain, which are harder to measure.
I got your point, and responded to it. Age is the only practical determiner we have for a moral principle with near universal acceptance: Those incapable of consent cannot give it. Legally codifying that prevents rather than perpetrating oppression, in this case statutory rape. Since contraception and sex education are both freely available to adults, legal oppression is impossible; illegal oppression is prevented to the greatest extent practical (in no small part by age of consent laws.)
If age of potential pregnancy is the metric, we apparently must begin implants around 5 (at least 8, if we discount the earliest three pregnancies on record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers.) I am VERY sure few people will accept implanting birth control in girls when they start school.
I do not overestimate teen judgement (believe me,) it is simply a matter of logic: Available birth control CANNOT deter sex, and does REMOVE a deterrent, therefore it MUST encourage sex overall, though not necessarily by measurable amounts. Surely we do not need a study to prove the self evident.
I do not overestimate teen judgement (believe me,) it is simply a matter of logic: Available birth control CANNOT deter sex, and does REMOVE a deterrent, therefore it MUST encourage sex overall, though not necessarily by measurable amounts. Surely we do not need a study to prove the self evident.
Those cases seem to be anomalies of premature puberty. My concern is with biology, not what people will accept today. If we get away from the idea that using birth control is equivalent to standing out on the street corner, it would no longer be objectionable. Make it into a matter of basic health, just like the HPV vaccine.
You say you don't overestimate teen judgment, but then you say that birth control gets rid of a deterrent. If they don't actually weigh pregnancy as a substantive risk, then it's not a deterrent. Also, "it must encourage sex overall, though not necessarily by measurable amounts" is a fine example of an unfalsifiable claim.
See http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/6/1/14:
With data aggregated at the state level, conservative religious beliefs strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates, in a relationship that does not appear to be the result of confounding by income or abortion rates. One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception.
...
Our findings by themselves, of course, do not permit causal inferences. There could be unstudied confounding variables that account for the correlations we report. But if we may speculate on the most probable explanation, drawing on the other research cited above: we conjecture that conservative religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging use of contraception among their teen community members than in discouraging sexual intercourse itself.
...
Our findings by themselves, of course, do not permit causal inferences. There could be unstudied confounding variables that account for the correlations we report. But if we may speculate on the most probable explanation, drawing on the other research cited above: we conjecture that conservative religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging use of contraception among their teen community members than in discouraging sexual intercourse itself.
This makes my point pretty clearly.
Those were mostly cases of premature puberty, yes; that is manifestly a biological matter, and what society will accept is inseparable from reproductive policy, whether or not it should be. Even if hormonal birth control carried NO risk and pro lifers advocated it for elementary school kids it would still be impossible in the foreseeable future, and a waste of resources they could apply to far greater practical goals. There is a nice overview of this at the below linked Slate article: Basically, reduced contraception DOES reduce sex, and even seems to reduce the prevalence of abortion among the sexually active—but sex also leads to pregnancy far more often, to an extent that "overwhelms" the reduction in sex, so abortion totals skyrocket.
I believe teens weigh pregnancy as a substantive risk, but improperly weight it, so diminishing the chance of pregnancy can ONLY diminish a deterrent. That is very falsifiable; all we need is a survey of teens asking whether the chance of pregnancy is a factor in their sexual decisions, and whether it is a positive or negative factor. In the absence of such a study I feel confident saying at least SOME teens would admit it as a factor, regardless of how they weight it, and the majority of those would identify it as a negative rather positive factor. Consequently, increased contraception availability can only reduce it. I will concede saying it REMOVED a deterrent was an overstatement, but it certainly reduces one.
You WOULD say that, you MAN! Seriously, it is not worth considering until it happens, but that is most teens attitude teens toward standard sex. The PROBABILITY is low but the CONSEQUENCES serious; what that does to risk depends on whom we ask. If, for example, we ask those 600 pregnant Brits, their answer probably differs from yours. 
I would wager dollars to donuts scores, perhaps hundreds, got Implanon precisely because they are pro life, pro sex and anti-personal pregnancy.
Seriously, it is not worth considering until it happens, but that is most teens attitude teens toward standard sex. The PROBABILITY is low but the CONSEQUENCES serious; what that does to risk depends on whom we ask. If, for example, we ask those 600 pregnant Brits, their answer probably differs from yours. I would wager dollars to donuts scores, perhaps hundreds, got Implanon precisely because they are pro life, pro sex and anti-personal pregnancy.Trying to reason from "low probability, serious consequences" can get you to any conclusion if the seriousness of the consequences is not strictly set. Otherwise, you can just arbitrarily increase it to cancel out the lowness of the probability.
The consequences of getting hit by a meteor are pretty serious, but people don't live in bomb shelters. Eventually, it really isn't worth worrying about a low enough probability.
It is a judgement call, hence it should belong to the individual; in the case of minors that discretion is rightly recoginzed as their guardians.
Parents will continue passing on their sexual mores to their children; those children may or may not embrace them, but as long as the parents are not coercing adherence after the age of consent there is no oppression. In terms of abortion specifically it gets a bit more complicated because of the risks of pregnancy, which are elevated for girls, especially young ones, and because of incestuous rape; obviously an abusive parent cannot be trusted with decisions about their daughters body.
Again, I generally endorse those above the age of consent and aware of the risks doing whatever they like to their own bodies, but have reservations about most forms of hormonal forms of birth control because in most cases the full risk is unknown. I was prepared to tentatively endorse NuvaRing until I saw this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42848006/at-merck-an-undercover-video-and-40-deaths-plague-nuvaring-birth-control-brand/?tag=bnetdomain
The German article CBS links does not say how many women used NuvaRing (that I can tell; my German is rusty, but if yours is no better and you are still hanging around the LHC you can probably find a translator.) I did notice there were less deaths reported using it than any of the other hormonal birth control cited. Bigger question: Why must I (and apparently everyone not a gynecologist) read a Swiss newspaper to learn of a USFDA report on fatal contraception complications...?
Whether a pro life parent wants their child forced to carry a pregnancy to term if raped is only half the question. The need to balance two mortal risks, however small, plus the difficulty and subjectivity of doing so, is a great reason to leave the decision in the hands of legal guardians. It sounds like you agree but, once again, I urge making it VERY explicit when trying to persuade others of your views. Many people get nervous about the possibility of ACTUAL oppression in the form of the state demanding to raise their children for them, ESPECIALLY when people talk about parents not passing on their oppressive sexual mores, .
Again, I generally endorse those above the age of consent and aware of the risks doing whatever they like to their own bodies, but have reservations about most forms of hormonal forms of birth control because in most cases the full risk is unknown. I was prepared to tentatively endorse NuvaRing until I saw this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42848006/at-merck-an-undercover-video-and-40-deaths-plague-nuvaring-birth-control-brand/?tag=bnetdomain
The German article CBS links does not say how many women used NuvaRing (that I can tell; my German is rusty, but if yours is no better and you are still hanging around the LHC you can probably find a translator.) I did notice there were less deaths reported using it than any of the other hormonal birth control cited. Bigger question: Why must I (and apparently everyone not a gynecologist) read a Swiss newspaper to learn of a USFDA report on fatal contraception complications...?
Whether a pro life parent wants their child forced to carry a pregnancy to term if raped is only half the question. The need to balance two mortal risks, however small, plus the difficulty and subjectivity of doing so, is a great reason to leave the decision in the hands of legal guardians. It sounds like you agree but, once again, I urge making it VERY explicit when trying to persuade others of your views. Many people get nervous about the possibility of ACTUAL oppression in the form of the state demanding to raise their children for them, ESPECIALLY when people talk about parents not passing on their oppressive sexual mores, .
I think I've made it extremely clear that I'm talking about changing social norms, not instituting state mandates.
You have been vague at times, unwise given parental paranoia on the subject. Overcoming those fears (which cannot be eliminated) is vital.
Raising children with sex-negative views is still oppressive, because those views don't magically vanish once they turn 18.
Again, that sounds more like repression than oppression and, again, whether adults embrace, tolerate or reject their parents sexual mores is solely their decision.
My German is non-existent, and I will not be back at CERN until the summer; in any case, CERN is in Geneva, which is generally French-speaking (being right at the Swiss-French border).
I ran it through Google Translate, and got this:
The fact that drugs have risks is a reason to do more research and improve the drugs. I am not trying to gloss over or make light of any deaths that did occur, but a few hundred deaths out of tens or hundreds of millions of people is an incredibly low rate already. Aspirin causes more deaths than that.
I ran it through Google Translate, and got this:
The Phama company Bayer, Janssen Cilag and Essex Chemie wanted to be the actual numbers of deaths not comment. They stressed, however, the reports are spontaneous reports, and as such is not always complete, because information about the same drugs taken together with information on medical conditions and exposures were often missing.
Spontaneous reports have no explanatory power, when it comes to the risk of a drug. The three companies hold, the positive benefit / risk profile of their contraceptives had been confirmed by experts, authorities and repeated in numerous studies.
Spontaneous reports have no explanatory power, when it comes to the risk of a drug. The three companies hold, the positive benefit / risk profile of their contraceptives had been confirmed by experts, authorities and repeated in numerous studies.
The fact that drugs have risks is a reason to do more research and improve the drugs. I am not trying to gloss over or make light of any deaths that did occur, but a few hundred deaths out of tens or hundreds of millions of people is an incredibly low rate already. Aspirin causes more deaths than that.
I had always understood most of Switzerland to be effectively (though sometimes dialectictally) bilingual, but the translation is fairly comprehensible. That spontaneous reports often do not mention the preexistence of contraindicated conditions is valid, though I would still be surprised if the FDA has received even 40 reports of aspirin related deaths recently. NuvaRing still does not look too bad, provided people are informed of the risks, however small or large.
I usually speak descriptively, and this exchange illustrates much of why. The pro life movements views on the necessity of childbirth as a consequence of sex runs as broad a gamut as we should expect in such a large group. The "every sperm is sacred" view is very popular with many Catholics, perhaps most; the Vaticans position is essentially the impression you have of pro lifers in general: No abortion, no birth control; procreation is the primary goal of every sexual act. I would expect the Greek Orthodox view to be similar, but do not know their doctrine well (a few others here could almost certainly say.) Protestants... Protestants are all over the place theologically, from liberalism little more than vague secular humanism to a level of repression that would shock Cotton Mather. With Jews and Muslims I imagine it varies by degree of orthodoxy, though Jews practically invented secular humanism masquerading as religion around the time Luther nailed his theses to the Wittenberg chapel. With other religions I can only guess, and among non-religious pro lifers you would probably have to ask them individually.
It is really not as monolithic as you seem to think. As to sexual mores, I agree we covered it; I am descriptivist by nature, disliking definitions that change by user.
It is really not as monolithic as you seem to think. As to sexual mores, I agree we covered it; I am descriptivist by nature, disliking definitions that change by user.
If all of these "reasonable pro-lifers" exist, what impact do they have? The main "pro-life" movement, comprised of the organizations which dedicate their time to opposing abortion, does not take actions consistent with their stated position, as I have pointed out. This is still a silent majority claim, and one with no supporting evidence that I have seen. Yes, there are undoubtedly individuals who are not motivated in their "pro-life" views by sexually oppressive mores, but their existence has not had any noticeable effect on the movement at large. If they don't actively try to take positive actions and oppose the actions of the current movement, they might as well be a part of it, since the only difference they make is increasing the percentage of "pro-life" people in polls, creating ammunition for the movement.
That would be a reasonable complaint without nossys lengthy, though still partial, list of pro life groups with no stated position on contraception. The pro life movement marches in such lock step there is widespread disagreement over whether being "pro life" requires opposing capital punishment. Calling it "oppression" to oppose giving kids contraception was already a stretch, but calling it oppression to simply not publicly disagree with fellow pro lifers doing so is absurd. That is no more fair than when jingoists say all Muslims support terrorism because they do not speak out against it enough. Tim Ryan is pro life and sponsored an abortion bill with lots of contraception funding because of it; that several pro life groups kicked him out over that does not make him any less pro life, it is just a great example of a pro lifer publicly endorsing contraception as a means of reducing abortion:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2006/09/where_the_rubber_meets_roe.html
Here is another article on the subject from an avowedly pro life person urging pro contraception pro lifers form their own advocacy group for both things:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/commonground/2009/07/23/prolife-procontraception-protim-ryan
Or consider this British article by an avowedly pro life Christian doctor contending "life begins at fertilization" and seeking to inform people of contraceptive methods that prevent pregnancy without interfering with it post fertilization:
http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/contraceptionguide.pdf
What do you want? For every pro lifer to publicly endorse all contraception? Never going to happen, because many pro lifers DO take the parochial anti-contraceptive view of sexuality that you allege in all of them. It might even be a majority (though the second article claims studies show 80% of pro lifers are pro contraception; that probably varies wildly by means of contraception) but it is certainly not all or even most. We are talking about a group representing tens of millions just within the US; a monolithic view of them is, once again, inaccurate, unfair and counterproductive. It fosters smug self rightousness at the expense of expanded access to and education about contraception. In other words, declaring pro lifers, as a group, opposed to all contraception makes no more sense than pro lifers offering that opposition.
Probably for the same reason the police spend more time preventing murders than they do preventing heart attacks, even though the latter kill far more people. There is a tremendous difference between death, taking a life and murder, and pro lifers believe that, in the case of the unborn, the last is far easier to cause OR prevent than is the first. They are, of course, wrong; banning abortion only dooms women seeking it to die or be seriously, often permanently, injured in secret, nonsterile unprofessional environments. I know there are pro lifers who consider that justice, because one of them told me so point blank at wotmania. I do not, however, believe them the norm, because I have spoken with too many who feel otherwise.
Bottom line is that falsely demonizing pro lifers as having ill intent is no more fair, accurate or constructive than demonizing pro choicers that way.
Bottom line is that falsely demonizing pro lifers as having ill intent is no more fair, accurate or constructive than demonizing pro choicers that way.
I referred to medical research, and you responded by talking about the police. I feel no need to dignify that straw man with an actual response.
Restricting human behavior is a matter of law, not science, hence your reference to bills that define miscarriage as manslaughter:
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.)
You SUBSEQUENTLY referenced research when nossy and I responded to that. "Murder is a more important issue than birth control or teenage sex"? Which clinical study concluded that? Constructing a strawman is when someone puts an argument in anothers mouth (an ironic accusation since IT WAS MY OBJECTION TO YOUR INITIAL ARGUMENT. 
) There is nothing wrong with knocking down a flawed argument someone actually presents themselves. Incidentally, while pro lifers have several times introduced legislation criminalizing drunk drivers and the like causing miscarriages in OTHERS, the only case I found of legislation criminalizing it for pregnant women specifically exempted those who did not know they were pregnant, and thus had nothing to do with that "epidemic."EDIT: Miscopied a link.