Community Messageboard: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. by Joel

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. Joel Send a noteboard - 08/02/2012 06:01:32 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:

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, 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.

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.

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.

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:

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?

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:

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.")

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.

Her body, her choice...?

This message last edited by Joel on 08/02/2012 at 06:03:08 PM

Reply to message

Susan G. Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood. (with updated edit) nossy - 02/02/2012 04:32:27 PM 2133 Views

The most annoying part is in the sixth paragraph- abortions are only a small part of their thing beetnemesis - 02/02/2012 05:08:07 PM 996 Views

I agree. nossy - 02/02/2012 05:20:17 PM 936 Views

I can understand it though. Sareitha Sedai - 02/02/2012 05:45:55 PM 985 Views

I can too, it just isn't for me. nossy - 02/02/2012 05:58:33 PM 907 Views

Actually, there are longer-acting forms of birth control than the pill. Dreaded Anomaly - 03/02/2012 12:37:42 AM 915 Views

I do think that preventing abortions is their primary goal. Sareitha Sedai - 03/02/2012 01:08:05 AM 882 Views

If they don't see that link, it's because they haven't looked. Dreaded Anomaly - 03/02/2012 02:42:42 AM 953 Views

That is a little unfair. Joel - 03/02/2012 12:48:46 PM 1158 Views

Won't someone please think of the children?! Dreaded Anomaly - 04/02/2012 05:03:27 AM 965 Views

I think you're leaving out some important points. nossy - 04/02/2012 03:40:48 PM 908 Views

Ah, the good ol' silent majority. Dreaded Anomaly - 04/02/2012 07:32:29 PM 870 Views

So which moron is feeding you this crap? Ray - 04/02/2012 10:27:15 PM 903 Views

A zygote isn't a person, because it doesn't have a brain. Dreaded Anomaly - 05/02/2012 12:33:29 AM 904 Views

It worries me when we think alike....

Joel - 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM 930 Views

Brain waves at 8 weeks are a myth. Dreaded Anomaly - 05/02/2012 08:46:06 PM 1041 Views

"brain function... appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks' gestation." Joel - 05/02/2012 10:42:35 PM 939 Views

Oh please. Dreaded Anomaly - 05/02/2012 11:13:50 PM 908 Views

Re: Oh please yourself. Joel - 06/02/2012 09:15:26 PM 798 Views

Quite a telling reply. Dreaded Anomaly - 07/02/2012 04:38:20 AM 854 Views

Re: I quite agree. Joel - 08/02/2012 06:03:23 PM 1036 Views

You're taking an issue of objective facts and treating it like a day of playground gossip. Dreaded Anomaly - 09/02/2012 03:47:06 AM 911 Views

No, your source, in which there is very little that is objective, did that for me. Joel - 11/02/2012 02:59:45 AM 935 Views

I see you have continued to provide no factual arguments. Dreaded Anomaly - 14/02/2012 04:53:28 AM 1151 Views

I presented factual rebuttals. Joel - 19/02/2012 01:56:45 AM 953 Views

You continue to miss the point. Dreaded Anomaly - 23/02/2012 10:22:24 PM 1041 Views

No, I got the point: You expect me to accept a heavily biased, partisan and combative "source." Joel - 07/03/2012 01:47:37 AM 960 Views

The claim of brain waves at 8 weeks is still unsupported by evidence, i.e. a myth. Dreaded Anomaly - 15/03/2012 09:16:14 PM 1004 Views

Well, yes. nossy - 04/02/2012 11:14:47 PM 965 Views

A silent majority may as well not exist, if it has no tangible effects. Dreaded Anomaly - 05/02/2012 12:54:34 AM 909 Views

You ignoring it is not the same thing as it having no tangible effect. nossy - 05/02/2012 02:11:36 AM 1003 Views

Ignoring what? You haven't shown me anything solid. Dreaded Anomaly - 05/02/2012 05:25:23 AM 901 Views

It's ok, we're done. *NM* nossy - 05/02/2012 09:29:05 AM 544 Views

Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case. Joel - 04/02/2012 08:25:49 PM 991 Views

Re: Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case. Dreaded Anomaly - 05/02/2012 02:11:28 AM 889 Views

If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. Joel - 05/02/2012 08:42:17 AM 746 Views

Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. Dreaded Anomaly - 05/02/2012 10:04:59 PM 908 Views

Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. Joel - 06/02/2012 08:57:38 PM 888 Views

I'm done discussing my use of the term "oppression." The Tim Ryan stuff is interesting, though. Dreaded Anomaly - 07/02/2012 05:37:05 AM 978 Views

Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. Joel - 08/02/2012 06:01:32 PM 1060 Views

Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. Dreaded Anomaly - 09/02/2012 05:30:58 AM 943 Views

Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. Joel - 11/02/2012 02:58:00 AM 974 Views

Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. Dreaded Anomaly - 14/02/2012 04:29:08 AM 1029 Views

Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. Joel - 19/02/2012 01:54:30 AM 961 Views

Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. Dreaded Anomaly - 23/02/2012 10:59:32 PM 1243 Views

Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. Joel - 07/03/2012 01:47:44 AM 900 Views

Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. Dreaded Anomaly - 15/03/2012 10:27:23 PM 1159 Views

There are problems with the implants LadyLorraine - 03/02/2012 01:42:55 AM 933 Views

Any form of birth control doesn't work for everyone, though. Dreaded Anomaly - 03/02/2012 02:37:00 AM 937 Views

Oh yes, I totally agree! My point is just that there are some barriers to handing out implants

*NM* LadyLorraine - 03/02/2012 03:38:05 AM 438 Views

You have a talent for understatement. Joel - 03/02/2012 01:08:40 PM 920 Views

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Cannoli - 03/02/2012 01:47:42 AM 867 Views

I was actually kinda with you until you closed with that anathema I condemned in my response to rt. Joel - 03/02/2012 01:39:06 PM 888 Views

I agree that they have made Beast Cancer a cult but splitting with PP is just smart Ray - 02/02/2012 05:39:49 PM 1042 Views

I agree. Sareitha Sedai - 02/02/2012 06:00:17 PM 838 Views

yes she is going to have to piss off one group or the other Ray - 02/02/2012 06:12:31 PM 913 Views

Right nossy - 02/02/2012 06:24:14 PM 954 Views

it is a judgment call and I hope her decision is based on more than my guesses Ray - 02/02/2012 06:53:50 PM 833 Views

Do you see a way Komen could have avoided pissing off one side? Sareitha Sedai - 02/02/2012 06:55:36 PM 925 Views

No, I don't. I don't believe I said that? nossy - 02/02/2012 07:53:50 PM 827 Views

You didn't; I inferred it from the way you phrased that ("if she HAS to..."). Sorry. Sareitha Sedai - 02/02/2012 08:06:11 PM 902 Views

I know I'm not always clear.

nossy - 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM 912 Views

Just curious... Narg - 02/02/2012 10:07:49 PM 882 Views

Not at all. nossy - 02/02/2012 10:24:19 PM 936 Views

Not at all? Narg - 02/02/2012 10:32:31 PM 855 Views

No. nossy - 02/02/2012 10:47:04 PM 804 Views

My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes Ray - 02/02/2012 11:17:24 PM 904 Views

Re: My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes nossy - 03/02/2012 12:08:01 AM 901 Views

wow that may be the worst advice I had in weeks

Ray - 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM 841 Views

Ooor, the best. nossy - 03/02/2012 12:25:56 AM 835 Views

ok now you are just being mean *NM* Ray - 03/02/2012 12:46:12 AM 560 Views

The thread was going too well - I thought we needed the meanness. *NM* nossy - 03/02/2012 11:30:39 AM 509 Views

rabble rouser *NM* Ray - 04/02/2012 04:24:01 AM 522 Views

I misread this at first Sareitha Sedai - 03/02/2012 12:51:44 AM 904 Views

not to mention codeine seems to make me double post

Ray - 02/02/2012 11:17:26 PM 1942 Views

I'm not so sure I agree. Or not completely. nossy - 02/02/2012 06:14:11 PM 833 Views

I don't diagree with the way you see it Ray - 02/02/2012 06:39:41 PM 900 Views

More inevitable than anything, considering who started Komen. Joel - 02/02/2012 10:19:34 PM 855 Views

Never having heard of any of those except PP, my opinion may not be the most relevant... Legolas - 02/02/2012 08:32:48 PM 978 Views

You don't know stuff. nossy - 02/02/2012 08:43:38 PM 937 Views

I know the stuff that matters.

Legolas - 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM 842 Views

That's true. nossy - 02/02/2012 10:34:32 PM 917 Views

they may also be a afraid that PP will go the way of ACORN Ray - 02/02/2012 11:04:16 PM 979 Views

"Accused" of = unfounded slander. Aeryn - 03/02/2012 12:13:30 AM 999 Views

did you notice I called tactic disgusting? That doesn't mean it isn't effective Ray - 03/02/2012 12:45:10 AM 910 Views

The investigation by Congress is well-known to be specious. It's the House GOP abusing their power. *NM* Dreaded Anomaly - 03/02/2012 12:41:58 AM 616 Views

This is so foreign a debate for me Lews_TherinThelamon - 02/02/2012 10:16:15 PM 951 Views

Must be nice.

*NM* nossy - 03/02/2012 12:26:49 AM 616 Views

Re: stuff rebelaessedai - 03/02/2012 09:18:53 AM 860 Views

I'm sorry, but what're we talking about when we're talking about "cancer" LadyLorraine - 03/02/2012 12:49:34 PM 872 Views

Obviously not adenocarcinoma, no. rebelaessedai - 04/02/2012 07:36:06 AM 899 Views

I"m not that fussed. I'm just generally leary of research that has results like that LadyLorraine - 04/02/2012 08:35:04 PM 855 Views

Fair enough. rebelaessedai - 04/02/2012 10:17:31 PM 904 Views

Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense. Joel - 02/02/2012 10:54:34 PM 925 Views

Re: Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense. nossy - 02/02/2012 11:03:32 PM 864 Views

After a little more digging I have to say you are probably right. Joel - 03/02/2012 02:23:14 AM 809 Views

They restored funding incidentally Isaac - 03/02/2012 05:43:47 PM 825 Views

Unless I've missed it nossy - 03/02/2012 05:56:15 PM 922 Views

You must have missed it then Isaac - 03/02/2012 07:07:13 PM 841 Views

If you're referring to Cannoli nossy - 03/02/2012 07:19:25 PM 979 Views

Multiple was not an accidental choice of words Isaac - 03/02/2012 11:46:30 PM 867 Views

Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you. nossy - 04/02/2012 12:41:42 AM 888 Views

Re: Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you. Isaac - 04/02/2012 01:53:25 AM 1088 Views

Well, I'll try again for both of us. nossy - 04/02/2012 02:56:42 PM 924 Views

Re: Well, I'll try again for both of us. Isaac - 04/02/2012 07:40:25 PM 878 Views

well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision random thoughts - 03/02/2012 06:24:14 PM 1030 Views

Re: well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision Isaac - 03/02/2012 06:29:34 PM 807 Views

I think that ship sailed long ago. Joel - 03/02/2012 08:45:13 PM 836 Views

Truth Dannymac - 04/02/2012 02:07:20 AM 936 Views

I do wonder a bit which lawmakers Fox thinks "pressured" Komen. Joel - 03/02/2012 08:29:50 PM 830 Views

Beyond the 26 senators, I'd imagine rumor of the more reliable sort Isaac - 03/02/2012 08:46:31 PM 912 Views

Well, if they wrote AS senators rather than friends of Nancy Brinker, that probably qualifies. Joel - 03/02/2012 10:24:11 PM 950 Views

Judge for yourself Isaac - 04/02/2012 12:01:06 AM 964 Views

Well, a public letter makes whether they signed it "Sen. so-and-so" irrelevant: It is political. Joel - 04/02/2012 04:07:20 PM 897 Views

are you trying to disprove the study you posted? random thoughts - 03/02/2012 09:20:12 PM 958 Views

To me, it depends on the nature of the contact, which I have not dug enough to discover. Joel - 03/02/2012 10:43:45 PM 870 Views

you admit you have no incite into what happened Ray - 04/02/2012 04:27:17 AM 873 Views

Actually, it looks like Komens new VP (and former GOP GA gubernatorial candidate) had the incite.

Joel - 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM 926 Views

educated guess don't work when you are tinfoil hat wearing kool-aid drinker Ray - 04/02/2012 09:33:49 PM 822 Views

Dude. nossy - 04/02/2012 11:20:49 PM 778 Views

Yo mama?

Joel - 05/02/2012 05:32:11 AM 930 Views

whhhhhhyyyyyy nossy - 04/02/2012 11:23:58 PM 900 Views

Why would I not think that? Joel - 05/02/2012 05:46:15 AM 818 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="244103">
<quote id="243974">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:
<quote>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.</quote>
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.</quote>
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. :P

<quote id="243974"><quote id="243927">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.</quote>
If this is the quote to which you refer:

<quote>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.</quote>
I don't think a simple assertion that "it's facile" is much of a rebuttal to a study including all 50 states.</quote>
Actually, I meant the section two paragraphs lower (hence I placed the word "overwhelm," which the referenced section contains, in quotes:)
<quote>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.</quote>
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.

<quote id="243974"><quote id="243927">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.</quote>
From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16086703:
<quote>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.</quote>
This is why understanding base rates is important for interpreting statistics.</quote>
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.

<quote id="243974"><quote id="243927">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.</quote>
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.)</quote>
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.

<quote id="243974">The article from RH Reality Check is a good one. I say this in part because it makes many of my points:

<quote>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? </quote>
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.</quote>
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.

<quote id="243974"><quote id="243838">Restricting human behavior is a matter of law, not science, hence your reference to bills that define miscarriage as manslaughter: <quote id="243645">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.) </quote> 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? :P Constructing a strawman is when someone puts an argument in anothers mouth (an ironic accusation since IT WAS MY OBJECTION TO YOUR INITIAL ARGUMENT. :rolleyes:) 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."</quote>
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.</quote>
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.")
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password