I'm done discussing my use of the term "oppression." The Tim Ryan stuff is interesting, though.
Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 07/02/2012 05:37:05 AM
You seem convinced beyond reason that "oppressive" and its related forms can only be used as synonyms for fascism. That simply isn't the case. I have explained my use of the term as much as I can; if you refuse to understand, that is not my problem.
Your own link includes as a definition:
3. the condition of having something lying heavily on one's mind, imagination, etc.
See also http://www.pcc.edu/resources/illumination/documents/institutionalized-oppression-definitions.pdf:
Again, I am not just making this stuff up myself. Your lack of familiarity with standards of discussion on this topic is the problem here.
If this is the quote to which you refer:
I don't think a simple assertion that "it's facile" is much of a rebuttal to a study including all 50 states.
From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16086703:
This is why understanding base rates is important for interpreting statistics.
I admit that I had not heard of Tim Ryan's legislative efforts in this area. He has immediately become the "pro-lifer" I respect the most; I hope he is heartened to see that the PPACA is close to accomplishing his goal of requiring insurers to provide birth control coverage. (In my own slight defense, I was a libertarian high schooler in 2006, and not very politically informed.)
The article from RH Reality Check is a good one. I say this in part because it makes many of my points:
I am glad to see that some "pro-lifers" are taking the time to think through their views. However, you will note that even one such person, the article author, admits that they are basically not represented in the current movement (my original point). She also seconds my point that what "pro-life" groups say is worth little, and it's their actions that count.
You have entirely misunderstood that paragraph. I referred to it as an "epidemic" to indicate that it is a problem of medicine, not law. The reference to miscarriage-manslaughter laws was sarcastic, because they miss that point.
Your own link includes as a definition:
3. the condition of having something lying heavily on one's mind, imagination, etc.
See also http://www.pcc.edu/resources/illumination/documents/institutionalized-oppression-definitions.pdf:
Institutional Oppression occurs when established laws, customs, and practices systematically reflect and produce inequities based on one’s membership in targeted social identity groups. If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the institution is oppressive whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have oppressive intentions.
Again, I am not just making this stuff up myself. Your lack of familiarity with standards of discussion on this topic is the problem here.
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.
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.
If this is the quote to which you refer:
There's a thread of logic to this argument. It's facile to assert, as some liberals do, that contraceptives don't cause sex any more than umbrellas cause rain. The belief that you're protected does make it easier to say yes. But denying that contraceptives reduce your risk of pregnancy is as crazy as denying that an umbrella reduces your risk of getting wet.
I don't think a simple assertion that "it's facile" is much of a rebuttal to a study including all 50 states.
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.
From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16086703:
Death rate attributed to NSAID/aspirin use was between 21.0 and 24.8 cases/million people, respectively, or 15.3 deaths/100,000 NSAID/aspirin users.
This is why understanding base rates is important for interpreting statistics.
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.rhrealitycheck.org/commonground/2009/07/23/prolife-procontraception-protim-ryan
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.
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.rhrealitycheck.org/commonground/2009/07/23/prolife-procontraception-protim-ryan
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.
I admit that I had not heard of Tim Ryan's legislative efforts in this area. He has immediately become the "pro-lifer" I respect the most; I hope he is heartened to see that the PPACA is close to accomplishing his goal of requiring insurers to provide birth control coverage. (In my own slight defense, I was a libertarian high schooler in 2006, and not very politically informed.)
The article from RH Reality Check is a good one. I say this in part because it makes many of my points:
The prolife movement as such, unfortunately, does not properly represent its pro contraception supporters, or even those who have religious objections to contraception but do not necessarily want to illegalize it. Some antiabortion organizations are actively hostile to contraception. Others, like DFLA, profess to be neutral on pregnancy prevention.
But that professed neutrality is all too often suspect. I myself ended up leaving a group that claimed neutrality on pregnancy prevention. It bent over backwards not to offend contraception opponents. Yet it stubbornly discouraged and stifled anyone who sought to be vocally pro contraception within the parameters of the group. And anyway, how is neutrality possible on voluntary pregnancy prevention, something so vital and indispensible to reducing abortion?
But that professed neutrality is all too often suspect. I myself ended up leaving a group that claimed neutrality on pregnancy prevention. It bent over backwards not to offend contraception opponents. Yet it stubbornly discouraged and stifled anyone who sought to be vocally pro contraception within the parameters of the group. And anyway, how is neutrality possible on voluntary pregnancy prevention, something so vital and indispensible to reducing abortion?
I am glad to see that some "pro-lifers" are taking the time to think through their views. However, you will note that even one such person, the article author, admits that they are basically not represented in the current movement (my original point). She also seconds my point that what "pro-life" groups say is worth little, and it's their actions that count.
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."You have entirely misunderstood that paragraph. I referred to it as an "epidemic" to indicate that it is a problem of medicine, not law. The reference to miscarriage-manslaughter laws was sarcastic, because they miss that point.
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
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
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
No, I got the point: You expect me to accept a heavily biased, partisan and combative "source."
07/03/2012 01:47:37 AM
- 1039 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
- 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
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
- 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
- 1028 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
- 987 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
- 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
- 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
- 1005 Views
I know the stuff that matters.
02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
- 911 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
- 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
Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
02/02/2012 10:54:34 PM
- 1003 Views
Re: Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
02/02/2012 11:03:32 PM
- 932 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
- 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 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
- 1025 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
- 956 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