Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 08/02/2012 06:02:27 PM
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.
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.
Regarding the definition I linked, "the condition of having something lying heavily on ones mind" cannot be involuntarily maintained absent outside imposition. Such outside imposition DOES qualify as "oppression" (which is the gist of your quoted definition,) but a person voluntarily tolerating it is NOT oppressed by anyone, because "self-oppression" remains oxymoronic.
Regarding the definition YOU cite, little needs to be said: Oppressive "laws, customs, or practices" are manifestly imposed by third parties, and the qualifier "institutionalized" only restricts that to "systematic" cases.
Consequently, there is a good case gay marriage bans illegally oppress adults sexually, but contraception laws have not since the last of the Comstock Acts contraception provisions was overturned (slightly) before Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Speaking of which, for a genuine example of sexual oppression, refer once again to Mary Does below linked affidavit. Regardless, that means sexual oppression of reproductive choice is impossible for adults under current law (which few seek to change,) and the reproductive choices of minors are assigned to their legal guardians, not from oppression, but to prevent sexual abuse of those unable to give consent.
Sexual oppression is therefore non-existent within the subject of this thread, unless it turned into a gay marriage thread when I was not looking.
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.
Actually, I meant the section two paragraphs lower (hence I placed the word "overwhelm," which the referenced section contains, in quotes:)
And that's what the data show. Ryan's bill targets women with family incomes below 200 percent of the poverty rate, since they have higher rates of unintended pregnancy and more difficulty finding or affording contraception. Among these women, the percentage using contraception declined from 1995 to 2002. As predicted by contraception opponents, the rate of sexual activity also declined, though only slightly. Even better, from a pro-life standpoint, when these women got pregnant unintentionally, the percentage who chose abortion fell.
Less contraception, less sex, more women choosing life. So, the abortion rate among these women went down, right?
Wrong. It went up. The decline in contraception overwhelmed the decline in sexual activity, resulting in a higher rate of unintended pregnancy. And the increase in unintended pregnancy overwhelmed the increase in women choosing life, resulting in more abortions. From a pro-life standpoint, trading contraception for abstinence and a "culture of life" was a net loss.
Less contraception, less sex, more women choosing life. So, the abortion rate among these women went down, right?
Wrong. It went up. The decline in contraception overwhelmed the decline in sexual activity, resulting in a higher rate of unintended pregnancy. And the increase in unintended pregnancy overwhelmed the increase in women choosing life, resulting in more abortions. From a pro-life standpoint, trading contraception for abstinence and a "culture of life" was a net loss.
So a seven year CDC study shows a positive correlation between rates of contraceptive use and sexual activity. Increased contraception DOES encourage sex—it just reduces pregnancy far more (which I explicitly noted in my initial reference.) That survey was not restricted to teens, but it does seem a higher chance of pregnancy deters sexual activity; again, the effect on pregnancy and abortion is just greatly offset by contraceptions reduction of pregnancy.
I would even say that study makes a very good argument contraception greatly reduces abortions overall DESPITE encouraging sexual activity (hence the Slate article using it as such.) However, arguing increased contraception use does not encourage sexual activity is contradicted, not only by logic and common sense (though those cetainly contradict it,) but data.
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.
I am familiar with how statistics work, I was simply unaware rates of aspirin related mortality were that high. There is a difference between "attributed" and "reported" deaths, but I would not regard it as significant in this case (though that does not make it negligible or non-existent.) Others might disagree, in which case they should avoid one or both of the drugs in question.
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.)
You might also be interested in the last article I meant to link, but instead replaced with a second link to the reality check article: http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/contraceptionguide.pdf
Again, that is from an openly pro life UK doctor purporting to analyze which contraception is and is not "pro life." It DOES take the "life begins at conception" perspective, but for precisely that reason attempts to exhaustively list (and PROMOTE) contraception without that complication.
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.
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.
Her very existence completely destroys your argument she, Tim Ryan and others are "silent" (or NON-existent,) because they manifestly are not. Painting all pro lifers as anti-contraception does people like that a great disservice, just as painting all pro choicers as supporting "abortionplexes" does them one. Actions certainly count more than words, and they are acting, despite significant heat from pro lifers who DO oppose contraception. Basically, the pro life movement is increasingly divided over this issue, just as they are over capital punishment.
Restricting human behavior is a matter of law, not science, hence your reference to bills that define miscarriage as manslaughter: 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."
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.
Was the reference to murder also medical? Discussing what people MAY rather than SHOULD do is a legal issue, not medical. That is why this whole thing started over a Congressional invesitagion of allegations Planned Parenthood used federal funds for abortion (which is illegal, but not "immedical.")