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
2332 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
1226 Views
I agree.
- 02/02/2012 05:20:17 PM
1120 Views
Actually, there are longer-acting forms of birth control than the pill.
- 03/02/2012 12:37:42 AM
1110 Views
I do think that preventing abortions is their primary goal.
- 03/02/2012 01:08:05 AM
1076 Views
If they don't see that link, it's because they haven't looked.
- 03/02/2012 02:42:42 AM
1161 Views
That is a little unfair.
- 03/02/2012 12:48:46 PM
1380 Views
Won't someone please think of the children?!
- 04/02/2012 05:03:27 AM
1149 Views
I think you're leaving out some important points.
- 04/02/2012 03:40:48 PM
1093 Views
Ah, the good ol' silent majority.
- 04/02/2012 07:32:29 PM
1076 Views
So which moron is feeding you this crap?
- 04/02/2012 10:27:15 PM
1124 Views
It worries me when we think alike....
- 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
1148 Views
- 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
1148 Views
Brain waves at 8 weeks are a myth.
- 05/02/2012 08:46:06 PM
1232 Views
"brain function... appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks' gestation."
- 05/02/2012 10:42:35 PM
1152 Views
Oh please.
- 05/02/2012 11:13:50 PM
1104 Views
Re: Oh please yourself.
- 06/02/2012 09:15:26 PM
989 Views
Quite a telling reply.
- 07/02/2012 04:38:20 AM
1071 Views
Re: I quite agree.
- 08/02/2012 06:03:23 PM
1278 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
1079 Views
No, your source, in which there is very little that is objective, did that for me.
- 11/02/2012 02:59:45 AM
1129 Views
I see you have continued to provide no factual arguments.
- 14/02/2012 04:53:28 AM
1400 Views
I presented factual rebuttals.
- 19/02/2012 01:56:45 AM
1179 Views
You continue to miss the point.
- 23/02/2012 10:22:24 PM
1260 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
1172 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
1234 Views
Well, yes.
- 04/02/2012 11:14:47 PM
1158 Views
A silent majority may as well not exist, if it has no tangible effects.
- 05/02/2012 12:54:34 AM
1109 Views
You ignoring it is not the same thing as it having no tangible effect.
- 05/02/2012 02:11:36 AM
1196 Views
Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
- 04/02/2012 08:25:49 PM
1243 Views
Re: Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
- 05/02/2012 02:11:28 AM
1083 Views
If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 05/02/2012 08:42:17 AM
948 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 05/02/2012 10:04:59 PM
1121 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 06/02/2012 08:57:38 PM
1068 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
1191 Views
Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 08/02/2012 06:01:32 PM
1280 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 09/02/2012 05:30:58 AM
1142 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 11/02/2012 02:58:00 AM
1164 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 14/02/2012 04:29:08 AM
1263 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 19/02/2012 01:54:30 AM
1144 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 23/02/2012 10:59:32 PM
1470 Views
There are problems with the implants
- 03/02/2012 01:42:55 AM
1130 Views
Any form of birth control doesn't work for everyone, though.
- 03/02/2012 02:37:00 AM
1150 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
527 Views
*NM*
- 03/02/2012 03:38:05 AM
527 Views
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
- 03/02/2012 01:47:42 AM
1062 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
1095 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
1268 Views
I agree.
- 02/02/2012 06:00:17 PM
1044 Views
yes she is going to have to piss off one group or the other
- 02/02/2012 06:12:31 PM
1105 Views
Right
- 02/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
1164 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
1026 Views
Do you see a way Komen could have avoided pissing off one side?
- 02/02/2012 06:55:36 PM
1102 Views
No, I don't. I don't believe I said that?
- 02/02/2012 07:53:50 PM
1019 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
1094 Views
I know I'm not always clear.
- 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
1091 Views
- 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
1091 Views
Just curious...
- 02/02/2012 10:07:49 PM
1079 Views
Not at all.
- 02/02/2012 10:24:19 PM
1146 Views
Not at all?
- 02/02/2012 10:32:31 PM
1038 Views
No.
- 02/02/2012 10:47:04 PM
988 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
1088 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
1084 Views
wow that may be the worst advice I had in weeks
- 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
1063 Views
- 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
1063 Views
Ooor, the best.
- 03/02/2012 12:25:56 AM
1041 Views
ok now you are just being mean *NM*
- 03/02/2012 12:46:12 AM
641 Views
The thread was going too well - I thought we needed the meanness. *NM*
- 03/02/2012 11:30:39 AM
592 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
1149 Views
You don't know stuff.
- 02/02/2012 08:43:38 PM
1115 Views
I know the stuff that matters. 
- 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
1023 Views
- 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
1023 Views
they may also be a afraid that PP will go the way of ACORN
- 02/02/2012 11:04:16 PM
1172 Views
"Accused" of = unfounded slander.
- 03/02/2012 12:13:30 AM
1226 Views
did you notice I called tactic disgusting? That doesn't mean it isn't effective
- 03/02/2012 12:45:10 AM
1123 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
694 Views
This is so foreign a debate for me
- 02/02/2012 10:16:15 PM
1142 Views
*NM*
Re: stuff
- 03/02/2012 09:18:53 AM
1041 Views
I'm sorry, but what're we talking about when we're talking about "cancer"
- 03/02/2012 12:49:34 PM
1076 Views
Obviously not adenocarcinoma, no.
- 04/02/2012 07:36:06 AM
1157 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
1031 Views
Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
- 02/02/2012 10:54:34 PM
1131 Views
Re: Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
- 02/02/2012 11:03:32 PM
1042 Views
After a little more digging I have to say you are probably right.
- 03/02/2012 02:23:14 AM
974 Views
They restored funding incidentally
- 03/02/2012 05:43:47 PM
1045 Views
Unless I've missed it
- 03/02/2012 05:56:15 PM
1104 Views
You must have missed it then
- 03/02/2012 07:07:13 PM
1032 Views
If you're referring to Cannoli
- 03/02/2012 07:19:25 PM
1192 Views
Multiple was not an accidental choice of words
- 03/02/2012 11:46:30 PM
1075 Views
Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
- 04/02/2012 12:41:42 AM
1091 Views
Re: Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
- 04/02/2012 01:53:25 AM
1286 Views
well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
- 03/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
1215 Views
Re: well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
- 03/02/2012 06:29:34 PM
1003 Views
I do wonder a bit which lawmakers Fox thinks "pressured" Komen.
- 03/02/2012 08:29:50 PM
1029 Views
Beyond the 26 senators, I'd imagine rumor of the more reliable sort
- 03/02/2012 08:46:31 PM
1089 Views
Well, if they wrote AS senators rather than friends of Nancy Brinker, that probably qualifies.
- 03/02/2012 10:24:11 PM
1148 Views
Judge for yourself
- 04/02/2012 12:01:06 AM
1153 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
1068 Views
are you trying to disprove the study you posted?
- 03/02/2012 09:20:12 PM
1168 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
1060 Views
you admit you have no incite into what happened
- 04/02/2012 04:27:17 AM
1098 Views
Actually, it looks like Komens new VP (and former GOP GA gubernatorial candidate) had the incite.
- 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
1126 Views
- 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
1126 Views
educated guess don't work when you are tinfoil hat wearing kool-aid drinker
- 04/02/2012 09:33:49 PM
1039 Views