Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 11/02/2012 02:59:24 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.
"If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices...." These do not, which was my original point. Laws, customs and practices are manifestly imposed by third parties, yes; otherwise, they are not imposed at all, and their observance is voluntary (or nonexistent.)
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
Common sense is just basic reason, and quite useful, ESPECIALLY for human behavior. It has limitations (e.g. complex dynamics, particularly with counterintuitive outcomes) but serves well if we recognize those limitations. Recognizing limitations of not just our knowledge but means of acquiring it is also useful. At the risk of a tangent, I cannot help wishing schools spent more time on division by zero so people do not forget it exists, or expect to define it "someday, when we know more."
In this case, we have conflicting data: One study of a large but incomplete group shows a positive correlation between contraception use and sexual activity, but another study of a large partially overlapping group shows a negative correlation. Absent additional studies, preferably of ALL people rather than just those with low incomes or in their teens, firm conclusions FROM DATA are impossible. However, FROM LOGIC, we can indisputably say increased contraception use in no way deters sex, which most people enjoy (though I do not have any data handy to support that "proposition.") Thus contraception can ONLY encourage sexual activity.
While increased contraception use significantly reduces the risk of pregnancy, and therefore a deterrent to sexual activity, I have not seen even a speculative suggestion of why it would encourage sexual activity, so it is hard to see how it could cause the reduced sexual activity in the study you cited. The most logical explanation is probably that promoting abstinence and other things styled as "oppression" actually HAVE increased teen abstinence, though increased awareness that contraception is imperfect may have been a factor also. That should not obscure the fact promoting abstinence remains an inadequate solution to teen pregnancy, because many teens will disregard it, and thus the proper use of birth control, along with its risks and limitations, should be taught in school health classes.
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.
I suspect it depends on how one defines "miscarriage." Since preventing uterine implantation of fertilized eggs is a primary goal of IUDs, they SHOULD raise rates of "spontaneous abortion" as defined by those who believe life begins at conception: That is the POINT. If they do not, they are just uncomfortable placebos. What is critical is that is one small part of a "life begins at conception" article premised on promoting effective contraception. It is proof of pro-contraception members of even the strictest pro life factions, which makes categorically dismissing all pro lifers as anti-contraception unfair and inaccurate.
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.
Ryans legislation earned many pro life critics; they do not necessarily represent "the movement at large." It is VERY "large," with widely disparate views, the point I (and nossy) have tried to convey. Just a couple days ago I saw a story about a pro life group assailed by far right pro lifers for promoting the anti-mercury campaign as "pro life." It basically went as one would expect; some critical pro life groups even took a moment to explicitly deny global warming along the way. Part of the problem is the sheer size of the pro life movement that not only creates great diversity, but attracts demagogues who care no more about fetuses than about babies, far less than they care about a way to rally millions to their far right agenda. This covers that well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1PUFNZgWD0
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?
Separate, but related. You led off mentioning the contention abortion is murder and the following sentence noted murder has moral precedence over birth control. Miscarriage was only referenced as a medical rather than legal concern ONCE, auxillary to the initial argument and preliminary reinforcing it by pointing out the rarity of "legislator[s]... trying to criminalize miscarriages." That was the second (and only other) mention of miscarriages, and even that was in the context of law, not medicine. So, yeah, if three of five sentences in a paragraph that begins and ends discussing law are also about law, and only one of the remaining two is about medicine, I am unlikely to conclude the paragraph is about a medical epidemic. Do I really need to explain how paragraphs work? I take it you remain unconvinced self-righteous condescension will not persuade pro lifers to alter their position.
From what I can tell, you, I and nossy are in basic agreement on the legal and policy issues, but the reaction from pro choice people like us suggests your advocacy could use improvement. 