Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 09/02/2012 05:30:58 AM
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, 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.
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, 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.
Customs and practices are manifestly imposed by third parties? Really?
At this point, it doesn't seem like you have any functional concept of how societies form or function. Seriously, it's right here: "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." If you've never studied how people reason in social settings and about social issues, you really shouldn't continue to speak from such a position of ignorance.
Actually, I meant the section two paragraphs lower (hence I placed the word "overwhelm," which the referenced section contains, in quotes:)
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.
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 see. I have been unable to track down the specific CDC data they claim to cite, since their link only goes to a homepage. (I did manage to find a graph: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/05/MNGTIIL98P1.DTL but it doesn't talk about rates of sexual activity.) While looking, I found this more recent study: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_031.pdf
It shows sexual activity among teenagers strictly decreasing over the past two decades, while use of contraception has increased. Whatever small correlation may have been seen in comparing the 1995-2002 data based on poverty level does not seem to extend to teenagers as a whole. The existence of that effect would not surprise me, but again, I have seen no evidence for it, and talking about human behavior based only on "common sense" is rarely advisable.
In any case, the situation certainly is not one which permits unquantified statements about birth control increasing sex rates. Such statements just feed those who oppose it, who seem to think of the situation as being something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upUg_mtCWq0
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.
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.
She seems to do a good job overall, although she appears unaware of some relevant research, e.g. this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11246602) on fertility after removing Implanon. Also, she cites statistics showing that over 50% of pregnancies occurring when IUDs are present end in spontaneous abortion (i.e. miscarriage), but this rate is not significantly different in pregnancies when IUDs are absent (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7117572), putting any causal link on the shaky side of plausible. Again, though, a pretty well-reasoned effort overall.
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.
My argument is not simply that they are silent or non-existent; it is that they do not constitute a silent majority within the movement. This is very clear from her description of how Ryan was treated by the movement at large, who acted precisely as I have described them.
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.")
The word "also" denotes the beginning of a separate point. Did I actually just have to explain the word "also" in this conversation?
Susan G. Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood. (with updated edit)
- 02/02/2012 04:32:27 PM
2195 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
1085 Views
I agree.
- 02/02/2012 05:20:17 PM
998 Views
Actually, there are longer-acting forms of birth control than the pill.
- 03/02/2012 12:37:42 AM
981 Views
I do think that preventing abortions is their primary goal.
- 03/02/2012 01:08:05 AM
943 Views
If they don't see that link, it's because they haven't looked.
- 03/02/2012 02:42:42 AM
1029 Views
That is a little unfair.
- 03/02/2012 12:48:46 PM
1238 Views
Won't someone please think of the children?!
- 04/02/2012 05:03:27 AM
1026 Views
I think you're leaving out some important points.
- 04/02/2012 03:40:48 PM
968 Views
Ah, the good ol' silent majority.
- 04/02/2012 07:32:29 PM
944 Views
So which moron is feeding you this crap?
- 04/02/2012 10:27:15 PM
967 Views
It worries me when we think alike....
- 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
1002 Views
- 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
1002 Views
Brain waves at 8 weeks are a myth.
- 05/02/2012 08:46:06 PM
1105 Views
"brain function... appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks' gestation."
- 05/02/2012 10:42:35 PM
1017 Views
Oh please.
- 05/02/2012 11:13:50 PM
981 Views
Re: Oh please yourself.
- 06/02/2012 09:15:26 PM
859 Views
Quite a telling reply.
- 07/02/2012 04:38:20 AM
924 Views
Re: I quite agree.
- 08/02/2012 06:03:23 PM
1129 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
968 Views
No, your source, in which there is very little that is objective, did that for me.
- 11/02/2012 02:59:45 AM
990 Views
I see you have continued to provide no factual arguments.
- 14/02/2012 04:53:28 AM
1227 Views
I presented factual rebuttals.
- 19/02/2012 01:56:45 AM
1019 Views
You continue to miss the point.
- 23/02/2012 10:22:24 PM
1110 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
1028 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
1066 Views
Well, yes.
- 04/02/2012 11:14:47 PM
1029 Views
A silent majority may as well not exist, if it has no tangible effects.
- 05/02/2012 12:54:34 AM
973 Views
You ignoring it is not the same thing as it having no tangible effect.
- 05/02/2012 02:11:36 AM
1067 Views
Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
- 04/02/2012 08:25:49 PM
1057 Views
Re: Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
- 05/02/2012 02:11:28 AM
967 Views
If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 05/02/2012 08:42:17 AM
801 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 05/02/2012 10:04:59 PM
969 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 06/02/2012 08:57:38 PM
950 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
1046 Views
Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 08/02/2012 06:01:32 PM
1137 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 09/02/2012 05:30:58 AM
1005 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 11/02/2012 02:58:00 AM
1034 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 14/02/2012 04:29:08 AM
1096 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 19/02/2012 01:54:30 AM
1013 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 23/02/2012 10:59:32 PM
1313 Views
There are problems with the implants
- 03/02/2012 01:42:55 AM
993 Views
Any form of birth control doesn't work for everyone, though.
- 03/02/2012 02:37:00 AM
1011 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
468 Views
*NM*
- 03/02/2012 03:38:05 AM
468 Views
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
- 03/02/2012 01:47:42 AM
925 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
954 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
1127 Views
I agree.
- 02/02/2012 06:00:17 PM
909 Views
yes she is going to have to piss off one group or the other
- 02/02/2012 06:12:31 PM
976 Views
Right
- 02/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
1027 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
897 Views
Do you see a way Komen could have avoided pissing off one side?
- 02/02/2012 06:55:36 PM
975 Views
No, I don't. I don't believe I said that?
- 02/02/2012 07:53:50 PM
883 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
965 Views
I know I'm not always clear.
- 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
968 Views
- 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
968 Views
Just curious...
- 02/02/2012 10:07:49 PM
950 Views
Not at all.
- 02/02/2012 10:24:19 PM
1014 Views
Not at all?
- 02/02/2012 10:32:31 PM
904 Views
No.
- 02/02/2012 10:47:04 PM
866 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
958 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
956 Views
wow that may be the worst advice I had in weeks
- 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
919 Views
- 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
919 Views
Ooor, the best.
- 03/02/2012 12:25:56 AM
901 Views
ok now you are just being mean *NM*
- 03/02/2012 12:46:12 AM
588 Views
The thread was going too well - I thought we needed the meanness. *NM*
- 03/02/2012 11:30:39 AM
534 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
1034 Views
You don't know stuff.
- 02/02/2012 08:43:38 PM
997 Views
I know the stuff that matters. 
- 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
898 Views
- 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
898 Views
they may also be a afraid that PP will go the way of ACORN
- 02/02/2012 11:04:16 PM
1041 Views
"Accused" of = unfounded slander.
- 03/02/2012 12:13:30 AM
1051 Views
did you notice I called tactic disgusting? That doesn't mean it isn't effective
- 03/02/2012 12:45:10 AM
982 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
644 Views
This is so foreign a debate for me
- 02/02/2012 10:16:15 PM
1017 Views
*NM*
Re: stuff
- 03/02/2012 09:18:53 AM
915 Views
I'm sorry, but what're we talking about when we're talking about "cancer"
- 03/02/2012 12:49:34 PM
947 Views
Obviously not adenocarcinoma, no.
- 04/02/2012 07:36:06 AM
959 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
905 Views
Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
- 02/02/2012 10:54:34 PM
997 Views
Re: Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
- 02/02/2012 11:03:32 PM
922 Views
After a little more digging I have to say you are probably right.
- 03/02/2012 02:23:14 AM
857 Views
They restored funding incidentally
- 03/02/2012 05:43:47 PM
893 Views
Unless I've missed it
- 03/02/2012 05:56:15 PM
981 Views
You must have missed it then
- 03/02/2012 07:07:13 PM
897 Views
If you're referring to Cannoli
- 03/02/2012 07:19:25 PM
1049 Views
Multiple was not an accidental choice of words
- 03/02/2012 11:46:30 PM
925 Views
Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
- 04/02/2012 12:41:42 AM
959 Views
Re: Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
- 04/02/2012 01:53:25 AM
1149 Views
well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
- 03/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
1093 Views
Re: well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
- 03/02/2012 06:29:34 PM
866 Views
I do wonder a bit which lawmakers Fox thinks "pressured" Komen.
- 03/02/2012 08:29:50 PM
896 Views
Beyond the 26 senators, I'd imagine rumor of the more reliable sort
- 03/02/2012 08:46:31 PM
964 Views
Well, if they wrote AS senators rather than friends of Nancy Brinker, that probably qualifies.
- 03/02/2012 10:24:11 PM
1011 Views
Judge for yourself
- 04/02/2012 12:01:06 AM
1020 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
949 Views
are you trying to disprove the study you posted?
- 03/02/2012 09:20:12 PM
1024 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
926 Views
you admit you have no incite into what happened
- 04/02/2012 04:27:17 AM
948 Views
Actually, it looks like Komens new VP (and former GOP GA gubernatorial candidate) had the incite.
- 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
997 Views
- 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
997 Views
educated guess don't work when you are tinfoil hat wearing kool-aid drinker
- 04/02/2012 09:33:49 PM
895 Views