No argument here; I oppose abstinence-only sex ed. I merely sought to explain why many support it for reasons unrelated to "oppression." Kids should be taught abstinence is the only perfect means of preventing pregnancy (because it is,) but also receive comprehensive contraception education because 1) nearly all will have sex before their majority (let alone marriage) anyway and 2) so they understand contraception is not a panacea. In particular, not only does it imperfectly prevent pregnancy, but most is USELESS against STDs. That is irrelevant to abortion, but HIGHLY relevant to health.


I said outright age of consent
How specific did you want it? Age of consent varies by country and, within the US, by state. It is close in most cases, (only varying two years in the US,) though, again, minors near the same age often receive legal latitude few adults enjoy. I believe the rule of thumb is one must be within four years of their partners age, so in many (NOT all) jurisdictions it is legal, not only at 17, but even at 19, sometimes even 20, to have sex with 16 year olds even in the nineteen states where age of consent is >16. After 21 it is simple: Anyone <17 is off limits, except in the 31 states where the age of consent is 16. In eleven states the age of consent is 18 but, depending on local "grace period" (if any,) someone who recently turned 22 might legally be able to have sex with someone who turned 17 nearly a year ago. Better?

For once, I thought MY point would not suffer from more brevity. I still think it does not. GENERALLY SPEAKING, US society and law discourages minors having sex, so many "nonoppresive" people oppose teaching kids to safely do something currently illegal for them.

As to relevance, tangents are by definition tangential to a point, and therefore not completely unconnected. In this case, age of consent is far more than a tangent; many people oppose sex education, not out of oppression, but because they (and the law) oppose kids having sex in the first place. Obviously, that is both naïve and short sighted, because most kids do it despite the law, and even those who do not should know how to have safe sex once they are no longer kids. I do not SHARE that view, but do UNDERSTAND it, to a degree your statement did not reflect, so I sought to explain it. Ignorance or idealism are no better justifications than malice, but not abusive, tyrannical or "oppressive." Painting sex ed opponents as "oppressors" offers a rallying point and sense of superiority similar to painting pro choice people as "baby murderers" but is no more fair or accurate.


That would reduce, but NOT eliminate, abortion and we both know it (I hope.)

While I agree ignoring reality is often the problem, ignorance is not oppression, though it can lead to that, inadvertently or otherwise. A lot of pro lifers (and pro choicers) could support implants (in the absence of real medical concerns) as an abortion alternative, but finding majorities who support them for 12 or 14 year olds would probably be difficult. Fourteen is WELL below the age of consent in all 50 states, and even people who recognize it happens anyway try to avoid anything encouraging it (and, yes, telling teens contraception eliminates the chance of pregnancy would encourage sex, in addition to being false.)


The BBC article only cites REPORTED problems, which makes a big difference (hence drug trials actively seeking reports from all test subjects.) If I had to bet, I expect most of the pregnant women in that BBC article thought their implants made pregnancy impossible, and were outraged at the result of "ignoring reality."

All hormonal treatments have side effects, yes; that, and how little we know about the long term ones of most, has much more to do with reservations than does any "oppression." You should have seen my wifes eyes pop when I read her that line about implants for 12 year olds, and not because Norway is some anti-reproductive rights bastion. She actually talked more about her doctor putting her back on the pill because of concerns about osteoporosis with injections and what they did to her menstruation. We both fully support reproductive rights, but think everyone getting an implant at 12 a really bad idea.

Incidentally, your phrasing there was ambiguous, but for the purposes of an online discussion I can assume you meant implants should be available for 12 year olds rather than compulsory (i.e. reproductive CHOICE, not just oppression via government rather than guardian.) In light of the fight Perry started when he tried to mandate the HPV vaccine for TX school girls, I recommend making it explicit when trying to convince people. I generally support peoples freedom to do whatever they wish with their own bodies so long as they know the risks (though the importance of understanding the risks often makes minors an exception to that general rule,) but many disagree. Either way, no "choice" shoved down the throats of kids (and their parents) is better than another.


Pregnancy is always on the sexual table (or heterosexual table.) If you consider that "oppression," take it up with Mother Nature, but you severely overextended the meaning of "oppression." Noting that was a high point of my reply, and much (though not all) of my point. Practically no US adult is sexually "oppressed" (the few exceptions are oppressed illegally, so changing laws will not help them) and you are a little old to believe every parental choice a child dislikes "oppression."

It is neither fair nor accurate for EITHER side to paint the other as seeking to brutalize children; it may feel good, but is counterproductive.


That one is news to me, but a natural death is not killing, and killing not necessarily murder. On the other hand, logic is often the first casualty of such debates.


Cool.