Long busy week, but noticed this article related to a previous post and thought it was interesting.
Between 2007 and 2012, Colorado saw the highest percentage drop in birth rates among teens 15 to 19 in the country, according to a report released today by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. During that time, its teen birth rates dropped 39 percent compared to 29 percent nationwide. Abortion rates in the state among teens fell 35 percent between 2009 and 2012 and are falling nationally, as well.
The CDC’s report comes on the heels of Colorado’s own study, which reported a 40 percent decline in births among teens 15 to 19 from 2009 to 2013. The stunning decline in teen birth rates is significant not just for its size, but for its explanation. State public health officials are crediting a sustained, focused effort to offer low-income women free or low-cost long-acting reversible contraception, that is, intrauterine devices or implants. The Colorado Family Planning Initiative, supported by a $23 million anonymous donation, provided more than 30,000 IUDs or implants to women served by the state’s 68 family-planning clinics. The state’s analysis suggests the initiative was responsible for three-quarters of the decline in the state’s teen birth rates.
Increased education, power, and access to contraceptives for women have been driving down both birth and abortion rates for a generation. Why isn’t the so-called “pro-life” movement embracing these effective approaches to reducing abortion rates? It’s almost as if there were something else they cared about more…
Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.
GOPLifer 
I would like to clarify my comment down below about the opposition to abortion being all about “sex.”
I used the word “many” deliberately. There are many people who rail against abortion simply because they decry the thought that sex would be something pleasurable, by itself, outside of procreation. Many also rail against abortion for political reasons because they see it as a wedge issue to get the blood boiling of many traditional, “down home” conservatives against the stereotypical boogie “wo-man” many of their targeted audience have in their head (think, hairy armpits, angry, lives in San Francisco or maybe the Upper Westside, probably went to some place like Columbia, Berkley or, even…*gasp*, Vassar).
But I also know that there are many opponents of abortion who truly believe that the human soul is engrained at conception. These people hold that a zygote, by its very nature, should have the same moral resonance as we grant a newborn or even an adult. Many of these people also devote their lives to helping mothers or soon to be mothers, raise children that will be born into a world without a father figure. These people, and I mean the people who really believe here, hold a valid, logical argument. It’s an argument I don’t agree with because I don’t equate a zygote with an infant and I think such a belief raises all kinds of other issues but I will concede that this viewpoint is a cogent argument.
Maybe that is why this issue is never going to go away here.
Well said. I completely agree.
Bringing religion into the discussion is a sign of weakness, attempting to set up anti-abortion as only based on religion and then explaining that we do not make laws based on religion. I do not include religion in any of my arguments against abortion.
What is sad and shameful, or should be shameful, is how several people here are waxing poetically about the deliberate killing of a living innocent human being. They don’t want to even acknowledge that it is a living innocent human being. Not the first time in history that attitude has been taken and made as an excuse, the only difference is the criteria used.
So why are you bringing religion into the discussion? Gaunt certainly didn’t, beyond saying that some people believe a fertilized egg has the same “moral resonance” as a child.
But, let’s be real here. The Venn diagram of “abortion opponents” and “religious conservatives” has a heck of a lot of overlap.
John, when he talked about the soul he brought religion into the discussion.
Now there are people that have the attitude towards sex that 75 talks about, but that is not because of abortion. That is because they generally think sex is bad, dirty, something to be ashamed of, only to be done as a duty to reproduce and never for simple pleasure or bonding.
Mr. 75, you’ve pretty much summed up the Catholic view on abortion, to which I subscribe.
Good post 75. As you and Fitty bring up below we can respectfully disagree with this belief but we can’t prove it false, which is the foundation of science. A seed isn’t a tree, but there are no trees without seeds (forgoing transplanting and growing from cuttings). I believe differently from the Captain, in Texas his side wins more elections, fewer in other parts of the country. His viewpoint is idealistic, romantic even and not simply an attempt to hide misogyny or some fear of sexuality. In one’s personal life there is nothing wrong with believing this way, it harms no one and adds value (shouldn’t we be mindful of all consequences), but as pointed out below, are we really going to start monitoring every pregnancy and develop standards of behavior regarding the vessel of every two cell person? Every two years we decide which belief we want represented in our government regarding delivery of health services in conjunction with personal belief regarding what happens in reproduction and our definitions of humanity.
Crogged,
Individuals having different perspectives is a wonderful thing, and in the abstract, a beautiful thing that will generally lead to better decisions.
However, you note that Stern’s side wins more elections in Texas, and that means the abstract becomes the reality, and women are forced to jump through unnecessary hurdles to obtain a legal medical procedure.
Those hurdles often delay the abortion, which means it moves from a relatively simple process to a process that increases the risk to the woman. Those hurdles also cause women to seek alternative, much less safe, approaches to abortion, which again, increase the risk to the woman.
The romantic nature of the beliefs, while possibly not founded in misogyny, certainly puts the rights and freedom of women in jeopardy, restricting very fundamental bodily autonomy and personal agency about which no man need to ever worry.
The source of the ideas may not be misogyny, but the results certainly would feel like it to the woman forced to carry a pregnancy to term, undergo significant bodily change and discomfort, and potentially have surgery against her will as she delivers the baby.
I agree with you on all your points, but the solution for your concerns is how to motivate enough voters to win elections or move somewhere else. How about, keep pressure on the FDA to approve more ‘morning after pills’ and other medical technology which really does empower the individual woman to make her own decision? Rather than focusing on the impossible task of changing minds regarding belief of when life occurs, allow women more options to make their decision on their own, faster, easier and cheaper. Always work for the creation of the freedom you wish to see in the world. The romantics will rail against the horrible moral choice, then reach for the antacids which stops God’s punishment and pray they are forgiven for intervening in His will.
Certainly, winning elections is the path forward, but it is a bit disconcerting that protecting a woman’s bodily autonomy and freedom is something that requires working through the ballot box.
I gave an alternative, but you are right-it’s ridiculous and one of the reasons I don’t reach for the Bible before discussing medical treatments with my doctor, but sometimes after the discussion I might think about my own beliefs of what is in the book. But the tax guy always says what the Bible does, “Pay up, dude.”
If you focus on a message of providing freedom via reasoned argument eventually you win. It was back in the 80’s, in the height of God’s plague against homosexuality that Andrew Sullivan asked, “You can marry your lover, why can’t I?” There was no immediate response but laughter and derision, even his own side thought he was asking for too much.
Don’t worry about the arguments against, even the men of the Catholic church change their mind or God reveals another side of itself to some dude in Italy.
Progress happens. Sometimes it is just slow. 100 years ago women couldn’t even vote in the United States!
The South has never broken its losing streak.
Hey, better to be called romantic than racist.
“Which is to say, we are free to speculate on the fates of others, about the degree to which others are conditioned by their circumstances and the degree to which they condition those circumstances, but where we should end, ethically, is simple and clear, and everyone has always known it. We should wish them well.”
http://www.bostonreview.net/leland-de-la-durantaye-david-foster-wallace
I see the Captain has nailed himself to a cross again, let him bleed out this time, don’t take him down.
Looks like someone is “cross” this morning.
Well I see this went off topic almost immediately and hasn’t come back.
I do not believe that any innocent human being should be denied their humanity, their basic human rights, treated as property to be killed and thrown in the trash for convenience at any stage of their lives. GG claims that I would only apply such basic human rights to the unborn, that I suggest it should be legal to kill innocent human beings for convenience after they are born. That is complete garbage and I have never even heard of anybody that is pro-life or anti-abortion ever suggest such a thing.
It isn’t about sex, it isn’t about controlling women, it isn’t about reproductive rights, it isn’t about religion, it isn’t about some having more rights than others, it isn’t about birth control or restricting access to contraceptives. These are bogus claims from the weak because they can’t stand to face the reality of what it is they are supporting, the “right” of some treating others as property and killing them by the tens of millions for convenience. It is about basic human rights and equal rights for all in all stages of their lives. And no, abortion is not birth control. Birth control and reproductive rights happen before a woman gets pregnant. Once she gets pregnant, she and the man have already reproduced.
I also see that Turtles is trying to spread the same lies Intrigued tried to say about me. I have never advocated for such things, never supported them, spoke out against them and called such ideas pure nonsense. That is not how things were done in Texas before Roe vs Wade, nor would it be how things were done if we could manage to secure basic human rights for all at all stages of their lives. Tutt is right, Owl and others have tried to bait me with that nonsense and now since it never worked people simply resort to outright lies. Yes I have said abortion should be treated as murder, no different than a woman giving birth and then strangling her newborn and throwing it in the garbage, or having somebody else do it for her.
One more thing, just because I don’t believe or suggest that it should be legal to go around killing neighbors or others for convenience doesn’t mean I should be held responsible for and support every person in the state, the nation or the world. How about stepping up and take some responsibility for yourself and your family? Killing your family, your offspring, because you find them inconvenient and want to avoid the consequences of your own actions is not taking responsibility.
2nd “one more thing”. How would any of you feel if I took your underage child and gave permission for anything that you might disagree with? None of you addressed Tutt’s question about that. Do any of you think you should have a say in what your underage child should or should not be doing, to allow complete strangers or neighbors or teachers to take your child away from you and do something you disapprove of? Most on the left are saying yes, so if a conservative, anti-abortion teacher takes your pregnant daughter to a shelter so she ccan avoid having an abortion, you are good with that and will not seek her out and attempt to regain custody. And y’all expect us to believe such a thing? Really?
I would not be cool with a teacher doing that, since you wanted an answer. There are, however, too many horror stories of girls being abused or locked away by less than completely stellar parents because they became pregnant, so I believe there needs to be legal recourse for these kids to bypass the parents in extreme events and if a teacher helped her pursue those options, I would be OK with that.
There is a catch-22 here. A decent parent wouldn’t abuse their kid because she got pregnant, so that girl doesn’t need the legal option. A horrible parent would, so she does and, obviously, that parent would object to that. It is precisely those parents most opposed to this for which it is most needed.
First Cap, welcome back.
Next, the central issue is that we do not see a mass of cells as a human being. We see humanity as a bit more complicated than that. It’s that, er, simple.
Bingo.
You are a mass of cells. Fifty. But you do not see yourself as a human being. That is clear enough. I have said what I have to say. Think I will go read a book or watch some TV now.
Last I checked, I was a highly differentiated mass of cells with a brain. Sort of a big difference, I’d say.
Fifty is also not completely dependent in all bodily functions on a single specific person in which he resides.
JG: Cap marches to the beat of his own drum. He very well might have been an abolitionist, if only to be contrary.
Stern…let me poke you on this a bit.
Your position is that “abortion should be treated as murder, no different than a woman giving birth and then strangling her newborn and throwing it in the garbage.”
I do not believe you believe strangling a two-month old is the same as aborting a two-week old blastocyst. If you do believe those things to be equal, I’m curious why you are wasting time here online rather than stopping these murders.
If you knew 10 women were planning to strangle their two-month old children tomorrow, and you knew there was a specific “strangling two month old children building” in south Houston, I believe you would do everything in your power to stop that from happening. I would like to think all of us would do everything we could to stop women from strangling their two-month old children, up to and including burning down the building where it was to occur because we know there would be ten more two-month old children strangled the next day.
Yet, here you are shaking an impotent fist at the internet rather than doing something about it.
Also, you can go online to make a donations to tommys.org pushing for desperately needed research on miscarriage.
If you can let your love of all things fetal overcome political partisanship, you might encourage your congressional representatives to step up funding for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the NIH for more miscarriage research. This might get in the way of your “we need to cut government spending across the board with an axe not a scalpel” approach however.
Store employees were shot last night, one died. Why don’t you go burn down all the stores, HT?
Foolish comment. and that is being nice. Goodnight.
He made his point sternn. You are raging on a machine instead of doing something to actually help children.
*sigh* Why did I come back to look? No, GG, HT made no point other than to try and get me to justify bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors that perform abortions. I will not do so any more than I would justify abolitionists murdering entire families, raping women, burning homes and crops and killing livestock, even though I would have been an abolitionist and you would have been pro-choice on slavery, or as HT would put it, he would call me “anti-choice” on slavery.
Now, I will not be drawn into this any further tonight. Two sentences got Lifer his traffic, a few comments should do pleny for him. Y’all have a nice day.
No pro slavery here Cappy. Keeping banging your head on that obsession though if it makes you feel better.
Stern…I’m certainly not endorsing you raping women, killing livestock, and murdering entire families…I do think however, were I to know that 10 women were going to strangle their two-month old children tomorrow, I’d happily burn down the “strangle your two month old children building” and I think I would certainly be willing to use force, including deadly force, to stop a woman attempting to strangle her two month old child, but hey, that is just me.
“even though I would have been an abolitionist ”
As I have posted in the past, had you, a white man, been born in Texas in 1845 you would most certainly not have been an abolitionist. It shows a certain lack of self-awareness for you to not realize this.
Fifty, a bird is a mass of cells with a brain, as id a fish and a frog and many other organisms. I suggest you go back to biology class and learn about different species.
HT, you are the one that suggests the only recourse for laws you disagree with are in acts of terrorism. That puts you in the class of al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood and even with the rioters in Furgeson. Maybe you should not advocate acts of terrorism?
John, you suggest that there were no white males born in Texas in 1845 that opposed slavery. I don’t buy that. Might as well tell us there are no white males born in Texas in 1965 that would ever vote for republicans. I notice you finally admitted that you don’t want your parental authority taken away, but you still advocate taking parental authority away from others. And that has nothing to do with abuse that should be reported to CPS and the police.
JG: Cap marches to the beat of his own drum. He very well might have been an abolitionist, if only to be contrary.
Stern suggests I go back to science class. ”Nuff said…
What you have to understand is that Cap is an independent thinker, no matter how much you may scoff at his ideas. He doesn’t subscribe to the hive mentality, whether conservative or libertarian. He doesn’t watch Fox News or listen to Rush (expect occasionally to see what the fuss is about). His ideas are his own. That’s why I would not be at all surprised at the possibility of his being an abolitionist during the days of slavery.
And Cap is not some old, uptight, bitter White male afraid of change.
He’s young at heart, laid back, an idealist hippie type, sort of nerdy, like me. 🙂
Can I take that science class with you, 50? I’m a bit rusty myself.
Apparently we’re in the same boat, JG. Reckon we can find a school that serves beer during the lectures and labs? Lemme know. I’m tired of being ignorant.
An advantage to working on the organism that makes beer is that it’s never inappropriate to have been during the labs and lectures!
Tutt…it is actually kind of sweet that you want to help explain Stern. I’m pretty sure my wife would not go to bat for me here.
However, an independent thinker, marching to the beat of his own drum, avoiding the hive mentality might be a stretch when there are a few hundred websites and sources of information arguing his exact arguments that the civil war was not really about slavery.
The abortion = slavery argument made by Stern is almost verbatim what you would find any one “lifenews” or other “pro-life” websites.
His “hive” may not be my “hive”, but it is a hive nonetheless. Personally, the folks in his hives tend to be kind of scary.
I will give Stern some credit for somewhat independent thinking on the “It should be permissible for restaurants not to serve Black folks” front. He and Rand Paul are the only folks I know wading into that side of the argument. it is a horrible side to be on, and it probably is scary that he independently thought that would be a keen idea for the country, but hey, he is a bit of an independent island on that issue.
You mean others have independently come to the same conclusions and views that I have, HT? Imagine that. There must be something to it.
50 & JG: Cap has been invited as guest lecturer at the science class. You guys are invited to attend
With enough beer, I’m sure I could get a laugh out of Capt’s lecture.
Cappy babbled: Yes I have said abortion should be treated as murder, no different than a woman giving birth and then strangling her newborn and throwing it in the garbage, or having somebody else do it for her.
Yet, only a few sentences before you claim I am spreading lies about you supporting such things. As far as I know women go to jail for strangling newborn babies. Since you claim abortion is an equivalent crime then it stands to reason that you support women going to jail for aborting a fetus.
If we are sending women to jail for abortion then when a woman loses her child during pregnancy then the cause must be determined (police investigation). That means there must be police officers that understand medical science and can perform an whatever medical procedures needed on women to determine the cause for the miscarriage.
You can mealy-mouth all you want about pre-Roe days, the simple fact is you want to strip any dignity and human rights from women.
Once again, I stand by the comments I made to Tutt. Till you come out and write down you do not support the treatment of abortion as murder (in your own ignorant eyes).
Poor Turtles, this is not going well for you at all. First you try to spread lies about me, and now you can’t accept that things would go back to the way they were before Roe vs Wade if that ruling gets overturned. You act as if every death in the U.S. requires a police investigation now, and that is not even close to the truth.
They did not come out and investigate my dad’s passing nor did they investigate when my lady’s mother passed. They didn’t even show up. Do you also think that CPS investigates every instance when a child is taken to the doctor for bumps and scrapes? Now if a doctor does suspect child abuse and reports it they will investigate. If somebody dies under suspicious circumstances they will investigate.
Seems to me that you are getting angry and being hateful because the lies you and others are trying to spread about me simply are not true, to the point where you have thrown common sense out the window and replaced it with your own fantasies.
Yes, I do believe abortion should be the same as premeditated murder. But all this mess about registering every pregnancy, investingating every miscarriage and making women report their menstral cycles is utter and absolute nonsesne. It was not down before Roe vs Wade, so why would or should it be done if that is overturned?
Cappy – You call abortions murder. Are you now claiming that the police do not investigate murders?
I do not need to lie, I leave that to the experts like yourself and Buzzy. .
Your pre-Roe comments are proof of your BS. As the legal scholar you claim to be you know that pre-Roe, most laws were aimed at the person performing the abortion. Women were considered victims not murderers. Now it seems you seek to change that dynamic and treat women as though they were murderers. Or in your own words you believe in assumed guilt.
http://www.aul.org/2010/04/why-the-states-did-not-prosecute-women-for-abortion-before-roe-v-wade/
You pretty much shot down your own claims there, Turtles. Now I do disagree with your link, somebody that hires another person to kill yet another person should be prosecuted as such, and that usually happens, except in cases of abortion. Also your link suggests that the woman was aborted, then called as a witness or viewed as a second victim. If the woman had been aborted, she would be dead. That is what abortion is, the killing of an inocent living human being.
And you are still spreading lies about me. I do not call abortion murder, I say it should be called murder. Murder is a legal term, and since abortion for covenience or any other reason under the sun is legal in most circumstances, it is not defined as murder.
You are really emotional about this, even calling the very ideas of the right to life something “vile”. Since when is the right to life something to be considered “vile”?
“I do not call abortion murder, I say it should be called murder.”
If you had your wish then everything I said would come to pass. Women that abort (murder) their fetus would be sent to jail. Some may even be given the death penalty. Those that have a miscarriage will have to prove they did not murder their child. Enter your uterus police.
Nice police state you advocate there. I am not emotional I am simply pointing out you logic. You are by no means pto-life, pro-forced birth yes but pro-life, you are not even close.
So, Turtles, you assume guilty until proven innocent. Just the opposite idea of what this state and nation are founded on, the idea of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law through due process. You have made yourself quite clear on that point.
In fact, you, HT and several others have come right out and voiced opinions of assumed and automatic guilt, denying property rights and demanding involuntary servitude. And on top of that, you deny innocent human beings their humanity and basic human rights. Treat innocent living human beings as less than human, just property to be disposed of for convenience.
Yes, you have made your point quite clear.
Assumed Guilty….yup like GG said keep banging your head.
You are the one trying to criminalize the reproductive rights of women. Starts off with jailing her for murder charges when she decides to get an abortion. Then if she has a miscarriage and the police find out it was due to strenuous exercise….off to prison with her. What if she did not take her pre-natal pills, will she be jailed for endangering the life of a child.
That is your world Cappy. Women are simply vessels whose bodies are to be controlled by “abolitionists” like yourself. She has no rights when pregnant, isn’t that what you advocate. Assumed Guilt..that’s all you.
You have no leg to stand on so once again you argue what you want to hear. At least I can claim you actually wrote that abortion should be called murder, a capital crime.
Once a woman become pregnant she and the man have already reproduced, so abortion has nothing to do with reproductive rights nor birth control.
Many drugs are illegal, Turtles. Should all people in the nation be forced to submit to daily drug tests to prove their innocence? Or would you have it just be weekly? After all, we must all prove our innonc e at all times because you assume all are guilty. That is the type of “logic” you are using, even though abortion was once illegal and it was nothing like you claim it was.
Turtles, here is your assignment for the day: You posted a link on how abortion cases were handled before Roe vs Wade, so explain how the authorities determined an abortion had been performed. Then explain why it would done differently if Roe vs Wade would be overturned and abortion laws in Texas reverted to what they were before that ruling.
I don’t think you nor anyone else is up for that challenge because it would shatter the fantasies you have created and destroy the lies many of you have tried to spread about me. Take your time, I am gone for the day and maybe the weekend.
Cappy – easy. My remarks are based on you claiming that abortion SHOULD be considered murder. Pre-roe abortion was not considered murder on the part of a woman and most people against abortion today do not support legislation that would charge women with murder. Notice
My comments refer to the environment that would occur if you got your wish and abortion was considered murder and your prior claims that is what women should be charged with if they obtain abortions. It would bring about a jack-booted state that most right-wingers seem so eager to install in this country.
Lets address your claim you would be an abolitionist were you to have lived in the slavery era. Now we can use your prior claims of support for segregation or your disdain of civil and voting rights, you support of a nation founded solely to continue the practice of slavery, or the racist-type language your often employ and come to the conclusion you would be be a supporter of slavery. But I do not need to use any of those things.
The reason I know you could never be an abolitionist s because if there is one thing you are completely consistent on is that you will always pick the side of any issue which causes the most human misery. Your inability to empathize with the suffering of others guarantees you not only would you not be an abolitionist but you most likely would be one of the most vocal & proud supporters of slavery.
I give my assignment an A+, you however fail human decency
No, Turtles, you failed. The means to determine if a woman had an abortion were already in place, that would be no different if the ruling was overturned. The discussion about what the charges and penalties would be is a separate issue.
You speak of a nation formed for the sole purpose of slavery, I know of no such nation. The U.S. had slavery, the Republic of Texas had slavery, the Confederacy had slavery, the first one and the second one. I am proud to be a citizen of Texas and of These United States and I am not ashamed of my heritage. That doesn’t mean I am proud of everything that the nations and state has done.
You speak of human misery and a lack of empathy, but those are your qualities, not mine. The human misery is denying basic human rights, denying a person’s very humanity. You have no empathy for the millions, tens of millions, killed in this nation and 95% or more of the time they are killed and disposed of out of convenience. I can empathize with them because I was an unwated pregnancy. Had I been concieved ten years later I would say there was a 95% chance that I would not have survived.
You speak of discrimination, and I support your right and the right of all others to discriminate. You only support your own right to do so, and deny others that same right. You call for involuntary servitude, which is included in the 13th amendment along with slavery. You do not support the 13th amendment. You support treating innocent human beings as nothing more than property, I oppose that.
So which of was would have supported treating others as property, which of us would support slavery and involuntary servitude, which of us would have no empathy, which of us would not support equal rights for all? I would say it is the one that supports treating innocent human beings as property, the one that supports involuntary servitude, the one that has no empathy for the tens of millions killed, the one that does not support equal rights for all. I am not that one. You are.
Cappy – In all you senseless rant did you do the one thing that would prove me wrong. You did not state that you do not believe that women that have an abortion should be tried for murder.
Till you do so my comments are very valid.
No, Turtles, your comments are based on some sick fantasy you have about a police state because something like murder is illegal. Not valid at all. There were not investigations into every miscarriage or monitoring pregnancies or reporting menstral cycles when abortion was illegal. That is a load of idiotic garbage Owl came up with. Now you and others have tried to pin it on me, and you are still failing. My opinion on what the crime and punishment would be has nothing to do with how it would be determined that a woman had an abortion. That part would be just like it was before Roe vs Wade.
Stern I didn’t lie and you know it!
Yes, Intrigued, you did lie and we both know it. Now you have Turtles in on it. I never suggested the things you accuse me of, never supported such nonsense and spoke out against it as nonsense, just as I am having to do again. I could understand that you read what Owl posted and made a simple mistake of the source, but you continue to insist I am the source and that you can prove it while we both know you can’t. That turns it into a lie.
Stern, Turtles has a mind of his own and has witnessed your absurd comments like everyone else here has. I can only hope this sudden amnesia is an indication that you have realized the impossibilty to document and protect an embryo as a person without extensive intrusion on a woman’s body.
“It’s almost as if there were something else they cared about more…”
Help me out Chris. What exactly to you have in mind?
I didn’t see it in the report, but I wonder if there was any change in the incidence of STDs since the contraceptive devices given out were IUDs.
Obviously Lifer’s closing comment was implying that Pro-Lifers really want to be the Sex Police, or to control women (the latter assertion is getting kind of old though). I don’t know if it’s that’s simple though. I would imagine that there are liberal, pro-choice folks out there who are all for our society urging its young people to be careful and responsible in their sexual choices; that there is such a thing as sexual morality and that it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with religion.
Careful and responsible are fantastic messages when it comes to sex ed. I’ve thought about this a bit, since I’m a few short years from having the first of these conversations with my offspring. These are key parts of the as yet incomplete message I’ll offer. But there is a social conservative approach in which careful and responsible is replaced with ignorance and threats. This is ineffective and has no place in public policy because it has abjectly failed.
Lifer ends with, “It’s almost as if there were something else they cared about more…”
I know the good people here on this blog are interested in saving the fetus and their issue is the fetus and not the woman.
However, you good people have to recognize that you (or at least the vocal people who support your side) make it very easy for folks to think your movement has a lot more to do about the women than it does the fetus.
The venn diagrams of folks against abortion and against contraception show a decent overlap of nutty folks (as Desperado highlighted specifically in the Colorado case).
No one protests at fertility clinics where women are participating in spree killings of fertilized egg “people”. A few IVF cycles will result in the “death” of or imprisonment in a frozen hellscape for dozens of these fertilized egg “people”, yet no one protests. A multi-cycle IVF woman is likely to kill more fertilized egg “people” than any 100 women who forgot to use birth control during a randy night with a boyfriend.
It makes folks wonder if the protests are more about “loose women” because these nice IVF folks are typically suburban, overwhelmingly White, overwhelmingly upper middle class who aren’t out getting themselves knocked up by a one night stand.
There is lots of discussion about saving the fetus, but a visit to most “pro-life” group websites will have nary a mention of the mass deaths of these fertilized egg “people” with miscarriages. You would think these folks would be funding miscarriage research, advocating for more miscarriage research, and suggesting more pre-natal assistance to women to reduce the number of miscarriages. Oddly, none of that happens (or at least it is incredibly rare that it happens).
The talking point is that these are “natural” deaths and thus not something to we can do anything about. If 25% of all two-year olds died each year of “natural causes”, there would be a massive effort to figure out why. It would lead every news broadcast and research would be in hyperdrive. However, about 25% of fertilized eggs end up as a miscarriage, and there is not a peep from our “pro-life” friends.
Seems a bit like we are more interested in the sex life of the woman rather than the fetus.
Also, nothing more fun than our more libertarian “pro-life” friends wanting to force a woman to have a surgery against her will (about 1/3 births occur via c-section), “Hey, I know you don’t want to be pregnant, but once you consented to having sex, you were consenting to carry a baby to term and to having us cut open your stomach, through some pretty important muscles, and into your uterus.”
Freedom!
Ok, so just because you have not witnessed anyone protesting outside fertility clinics, it means no one is opposed to the mass disposal of fertilized eggs?
And so, if there are no protests outside fertility clinics, it cannot POSSIBLY be about the fetus, therefore, it MUST be about the sex life of the woman?
I can make similar conclusions about you. You had not posted in several days until today, when Captain Sternn broke his silence. It MUST be because of Cap’s return to the blog that you are back as well, NOT because you have any particular interest in the topic of abortion.
Come to think of it, I’m not particularly interested in the subject of abortion myself. I just address the issue because it keeps coming up here.
I’d rather discuss how technological advances have influenced “quotidian” life.
Tutt…I’ll help you with what seem to be rhetorical questions by pointing to the third paragraph I wrote:
“However, you good people have to recognize that you (or at least the vocal people who support your side) make it very easy for folks to think your movement has a lot more to do about the women than it does the fetus.”
Maybe the intentions are true, but your public positions do not seem to align well with those true intentions. You, or at least the most vocal proponents of your position, seem to focus on a one aspect of killing fertilized egg people while being strangely quiet about others.
I am, no doubt, being slightly hyperbolic, and I am sure that there have been goofy people somewhere protesting at fertility clinics, but I think you and everyone would agree that the “pro-life” movement has generally ignored these spree killings.
You even used the phrase, “mass disposal of fertilized eggs” rather than the common language of “killing babies” that we hear with abortion.
The next time we see a protester screaming “baby killer” at a woman going into a fertility clinic will the first time we see a protester screaming “baby killer” at a woman going into a fertility clinic.
Tutt…you seem to be spoiling for a fight today. I’ve been away from the office with clients for the last week or so, but I’ll happily engage on this topic.
Maybe not quotidian, except for what we tell our kids about jobs and college…….
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/08/21/we-are-all-chumps-now-app-economy-edition/
Quotidian is as quotidian does.
I’m just expressing what I’ve noticed a lot of their attitudes are Tutt. They hate abortion but screech about “welfare queens” getting govt. support for their kids or are not interested in adopting kids. If you haven’t noticed, then you’re either deaf and blind to it or ignoring it.
I believe even your Sternn has said “they aren’t my responsibility”.
This should be at the bottom.
It’s at the top now, so I have followed you here.
GG, I’m referring to the part about it all supposedly coming down to their attitudes about sex.
Tutt, a lot of it is about control and women needing to be kept from their “lustful natures” and their only worth is being a brood sow.
The Quiverful movement especially is all about men being dominant over their women.
That may be the case for many people, but you can’t make a blanket statement and say that that’s what Cap believes, for example.
In case your unfamiliar with the Quiverful movement, the Duggars are members. It’s all about the women being obedient and constantly pregnant and keeping their kids ignorant and away from evil education.
No, I’d never heard of that movement and don’t know anyone who belongs to it.
Appropriate name for a “movement” — QUIVER.
And I, like many liberal males, believe in the equality of the sexes, but unable to clean the bathroom at home. I know there are cults and sects of many different types out there, but there always has been rejections of the world changing. They don’t represent anything larger in America other than for the most part you can believe and act hypocritically about just about any damn thing you want to in America.
There’s an interesting post over on Andrew Sullivan’s site regarding social liberals. In it the author points out that social liberals ‘won’, in part because ‘just say no’ and ‘don’t have sex’ weren’t ever going to win over young people anyway and the message of social liberals was positive and accepting. Now, not so much and I wonder if those who think there is a massive conspiracy of right wing conservatives who might take away your right to fantasize about Jennifer Lopez, should back off the slippery slope argument of assuming bad intent. There are people who oppose abortion who don’t give a flip about birth control and don’t want to spend vast sums of tax money. This doesn’t make them ‘baby haters’ and you will not win over any converts to the simple idea of making birth control easier and just more well known in the populace.
And just because you’re opposed to abortion it doesn’t follow that you should have to financially support every kid born out of wedlock. Where’s the logic in that?
Reminds me of a cute post I read on the Chron. A guy said that just because he was against wife beating didn’t mean that he should have to marry all those ladies who were victims.
Crogged, meaning no disrespect but I have no idea what you are talking about. You lost me at Jennifer Lopez and the right to fantasize about her.
Correlation sometimes means coincidence. There are some in the anti-abortion ‘party’ (group?) who do believe in subjugation of women and turning us into the Taliban minus the headgear. I think there a many more who reserve their right to be forgiven for the one heretical belief which doesn’t follow the doctrine and remain Catholic (or Baptist, or Republican) but can’t speak loudly about this one extremely divisive issue. They want to stay Catholic, or conservative, despite this one, unpure, thought. You will never reach them by aggregating them into the Taliban or even discussing the topic of abortion. Abortion is birth control, there are better ways for birth control, stick to the topic of birth control and don’t follow the rabbit trail.
Tutt wrote: And just because you’re opposed to abortion it doesn’t follow that you should have to financially support every kid born out of wedlock. Where’s the logic in that?
When you force your morality upon others then you should assume personal responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Isn’t that what right wingers always claim?
Well if you remove the choices women are able to make concerning their bodies then you need to accept financial responsibility.
As for the things Cappy has said: He has claimed that women that miscarry should be investigated in case they actually had an abortion and to be jailed for murder. Cappy is all about forcing women to live in a police state where their bodies are under the domain of others.
Turtles, when and where did “Cappy” say that? The only instances where I’ve seen references to such things is when Owl has challenged Cap to extend his arguments to their full, logical conclusions, suggesting to him that, if he considers abortion to be homicide, should he not also be in favor of investigating the circumstances behind miscarriages as the logical next step.
Abortion is a subset of birth control, which is the real issue. These arguments of abstraction regarding women’s bodies, zygotes and their rights can more easily be dealt with by making positive societal steps regarding birth control as opposed to tortured ethical arguments about ‘slavery’ and ‘rights’ and the relation of women with their doctors. Pregnancy is more easily prevented than disease, let the zealots argue but work towards providing real information regarding human reproduction to the entire population, even with people who oppose ‘abortion’. There is a common ground, no one is in favor of unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies and abortion. For me, human reproduction just has a different output than human digestion, but I can empathize with romantics and idealists, do they really wish harm on people?
Tutt, this is a year old but an interesting read about just what TR mentioned about miscarriage. The yahoos in MS as well as a legislator in GA wanted to investigate miscarriages by Uterus Police.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/23/conservative-controlled-mississippi-seeks-to-toss-women-in-prison-for-miscarriages/
Thanks, GG. I will read it. Just please don’t accuse Cap of being in favor of this, just because of his outspoken views on abortion.
GG, it’s ironic that the name of the website is Addicting Info.
Tutt – Lets be honest with each other. You know the kind of carp he spews and the BS he likes to tell.
He did favor the jailing of women that have abortions for murder. When it was pointed out that the implications of such a belief, Uterus Police, police investigations of each miscarriage he did not deny such events would occur. Nor did he reject such ideas. In his own mealy mouth words he stated “police investigate crimes they know about”. So if doctors have to let the police know about abortions then yes, that is what will happen.
Feel free to ask him. I stand by my comments
Turtles, I think it’s fair game to challenge Cap on his words and the potential consequences of his logic. What’s unfair is to assume that he agrees with those potential consequences, or to assume he agrees because he is silent on the matter or doesnt reject it outright. Maybe he’s thinking about it, because you’ve given him food for thought. We all entertain all sorts of ideas and possibilities here. Thats what debate and discussion are all about. It doesnt mean we necessarily agree with everything we consider. Intrigued mentioned that Cap had “pondered” the idea of ladies reporting their menstrual periods. Hell, we all “ponder” here. If you present an idea to me, I will ponder it. That doesnt mean I will agree with it necessarily.
Tutt – Then have cappy clear up his position. In all the ranting he did, never once claimed that women should not go to jail for having an abortion.
Turtles, go ahead and challenge him. Give him something to think about. Who knows — this may lead him to rethink his original position. That’s what we’re here for.
Turtles, and if you think his words are just BS, then what are you worried about?
Tutt – I did and this is an interactive blob and we chose to reply to whatever comment we want. I rather not let his vile beliefs go without response.
It’s a fair point that if you (generically) are against sex ed, against ready access to contraception for teens, and against abortion, you’re part of the problem. Abstinence-only education is a joke and has been for millennia: our biology has made sex rather enjoyable at all times while risking pregnancy (even if unprotected) only about 25% of the time. Stigmatization has only partially worked while carrying terrible costs to the unlucky ones.
So now we have lots of teenage parents, whose education and future employment prospects are now in peril. If you are now against supporting the children of these children, which many social conservatives also seem to be, then you are refusing to help solve a problem you helped create.
So – a bit of good news, this. I’d add only that the US adolescent birth rate is still, by a very wide margin, the highest in the Western World. We’ve a long way to go, friends…
Yes we do and abortion is an expensive, invasive and dumb method of birth control for adolescents.
Agreed.
No argument there.
I might add, and only used as a last resort. However, it should be legal and the choice should be between a lady and her Doctor. All others need not stick their noses in where it doesn’t belong.
I’m with ya, RoR, but you might have worded that differently…
You’re right fifty, should have replace the nose part with a different orifice.
Now that’s just plain weird, orifice to orifice.
I would imagine easier access to birth control plus early sex education. Europeans are not nearly as puritanical about sex and nudity as Americans are. I used to work with a Norwegian man whose daughter would go topless at the beach even if her parents were with her. No big deal to them, whereas my both my father and I would be very uncomfortable.
I’m more surprised there are beaches with people on them in Norway.
I ran into lots of nice people from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany vacationing on the Black Sea in Turkey. They changed into/out of bathing suits right on the beach and were not ashamed of their bodies. No shame, which IMO is the way it should be.
I’d say, that depends, RoR!
And most Nordic people are very attractive and keep fit which is helpful. 🙂
On the other end of the spectrum you then have Mormons. One of the lessons constantly pushed by LDS members is the law of Chastity and Modesty. With modesty women should not wear skirts or dresses above the knees or sleeveless shirts. Nudity at the beach try no two pieces only one piece.
But more to my point. I remember a lesson about modesty of dress. The lesson went as follow: a young girl 4 years of age receives a dress from her Grandmother , the child loves the dress but it has no sleeves, the young girl knows that it is not modest wear sleeveless shirts, so the Mother gives her a shirt to wear underneath.
Now the members in our class agreed that was an acceptable solution but I kept thinking to myself. Do these people understand that they just made it look like this Grandmother wanted her grandchild to look like slut. I shook my head. The hang-ups I view in the church dealing with sex simply astonish me. I blame my love of sex on my Latino blood.
But much of the issue on teen sex and sex in general in our society stem from our puritan roots. I find it rather unhealthy. Sex is fun and good for you.
The story
Click to access 2011-06-19-hannahs-new-dress-eng.pdf
Turtles, since you brought up the Latino community, you know our community is also well-known for being overly protective and possessive of its women and their “sex.”
I grew up terrified of the possibility of getting pregnant. As for modesty, I happen to dress modestly, but that’s a personal trait of mine. I just happen to be rather shy and reserved in that respect.
Yea, but I grew up with a very progressive Mother and Grandparents that were pretty liberal (for Hispanics). And despite all the “over-protectiveness” there was a lot of ****ing going on in the neighborhood.
But like you I was terrified of knocking someone up so I just behaved myself.
And if you look at Europe it is possible to have policies on abortion which are stricter than our own and still have very low adolescent birth rates. Wonder how they do that.
Most European kids are much more sexual savvy than U.S. kids. Sex isn’t taboo, much like drinking isn’t any big deal to kids that have been raised trying beer and wine with their family. Hell, I remember my Aunt (a Baptist) that would go apeshitt nuts if you mentioned having a beer. Sex I’m sure would have made her apoplectic. However her daughter got preggers and “had” to marry at age 16, divorced with 3 more kids at the tender age of 21.
European abortion laws are pretty much like the US, though they are national in nature. The few countries that restrict access to abortion on demand probably represent a smaller percentage of the total population there than our states that attempt to restrict it through harassment. I think it’s also the case that, considering the distances involved, and the availability of mass transportation, going to a jurisdiction with fewer restrictions is easier. And even this discounts the fact that virtually universal public healthcare in Europe pretty much removes any financial burden on those who would seek an abortion within their home country.
And it takes away the financial burden of birth control too. I agree with you overall however, cheap mass transit across large distances is another evil we must avoid here in the States.
Tutt, clearly! LOL
I took lots of pictures fifty!
Dang, I don’t know where to reply….this was in response to fifty’s questioning of the Nordic physique.
Rush, it seems you are disoriented. 🙂
RoR, you’re a perv. 😉
Fifty, I assure you that my photos were for artistic value only. 😜
Yeah – and you only read the articles too, I bet!
Wonder if they could tell there was an American on the beach…………
Just curious. I don’t know the family situation of everyone here, but let’s say you have a teenaged daughter, and you teach her about birth control, provide her with it, and lecture her on the importance of it. Let’s say she fails to use the birth control for one reason or another and gets pregnant and is so embarrassed to tell you, after that big lecture you gave her about the importance of using birth control, and so she goes and has an abortion accompanied by a well-meaning teacher from school without telling you. How would you feel about having your parental authority/consent/right to know undermined on the abortion part? Wouldn’t you be angry with that teacher?
I’d be angrier with myself, frankly. If my daughter felt she couldn’t come to me or her mother with this, despite what had happened previously, I don’t think I’d feel like a very good father.
You could be the best parents in the world, yet your kids might still be terrified of disappointing you. If happens even in the best of families.
My point is about the importance of respecting the role of the parents — if the term parental “authority” sounds too harsh. I would be furious with the teacher for overstepping that boundary.
I’d rather be furious with the teacher than have a pregnant teenaged daughter though.
GG, so you’re saying you would be thankful to the teacher.
I’d probably be a pissed more at my daughter for failing to come to me but, at the same time, glad she trusted somebody. I’d still chew her ass though.
You know, as soon as I saw that headline I knew that Cappy would end his silence. 🙂
GG, the ironic thing is that Cap just posted a two-sentence comment, and that was enough for everyone else to break their own silence, or to take time out from their busy schedule. 🙂
I am with Galt here. If my daughter was too scared to come and talk to me about that, I obviously made her feel that sex is something to be ashamed of. It is not. It is natural and, let’s be honest here, essential!
Oh and damn fun too. Hah hah.
Mr. 75 – No, you would have made her feel that *getting pregnant* was something to be ashamed of.
Pregnancy can happen. No birth control is 100%. Sometimes a person is ready for a new child and sometimes they are not. Modern humans have the ability to choose when they are ready and to better control their sexual reproduction. Why is that a bad thing?
What? Should we return to the days of classical Greece when unwanted babies were simply abandoned after they were born? Is that the preferable solution?
Human have always had to deal with this since the dawn of civilization. We have a better way to control our sexual reproduction just as we have a better way to control the natural progression of other issues in life. Why is that bad?
The stigma is about getting pregnant, not about sex, ha ha.
My point is that there is still a stigma, even for supposedly open-minded parents — a stigma about the carelessness of not having used birth control, about a young lady allowing herself to be pressured by her boyfriend not to use birth control — things that might keep her from confiding in her parents, for fear they would consider her “stupid.”
What if your daughter is pro-life, opts against abortion, and chooses to have her baby? Would you let her? Are you truly that “pro-choice?” Or is it only YOUR choice that matters?
Well, I am a male so I can’t personally comment on the “stigma” but I can understand this feeling. Again, I would not feel anger I would just stress to her that she shouldn’t be ashamed or worried. What happened was perfectly natural and occurs even when people use birth control correctly.
In terms of “what if she was pro-life” well, again, this would be her choice but she would also have to learn that having a child when she was obviously not ready for it would also result in other sacrifices and changes to her life. She would likely have to leave school, at least traditional school to take care of her young infant. The father would also have to do the same. Maybe even drop out of school to find a dead-end job to support the new child. I would stress that it would be her choice, but that she could also not assume that we would support her indefinitely. Tough decision for someone that age to make but, again, humans that age have been making such decisions since the dawn of civilization.
I am not against birth control. I simply question the undermining of parental authority.
You think it can’t happen to you, having your authority undermined, that’s it’s unnecessary, because you’re so frank about sex. My point is that it can happen even to the most open-minded of parents.
Of course it could happen to me. It can happen to anyone. It hasn’t yet though, thankfully.
Simply telling you how I would attempt to deal with a difficult situation. Life sucks sometimes. You deal with it.
Well, I don’t have kids, so I wouldn’t know.
I can only speak as a former teenaged young lady, not as a parent.
I have a daughter and told her all (most) of the reverberations of decisions with regard to what she is doing with her life right now (she just turned 21) are reversible and/or fade with time, except for having babies. So don’t have a baby. Since I don’t have but metaphorical connections with early gestation fetuses, I would be more upset with the lack of communication, but even the best relationships include human beings who act because of their perception of best interests. I raised my children to eventually supersede my ‘parental authority’ with their own and separate my judgment of their decisions vs my acceptance of them as permanent, and loved, trusted confidants. After the yelling.
For some reason every time I hear concerns about ‘parental authority’ there’s a conflict of an adult with modernity.
Crogged, this may smack of prudishness, but I do think there’s something rather improper about a teacher or other “authority” figure overly involved in a teenager’s decisions about his/her own sex life.
If we were ants and could neatly tie up our roles in society to keep the nest running, I would agree with you. But ‘teachers’ and ‘authority’ figures are people and if I’ve taught my daughter well, she trusts the person because of her judgment (even at 15/16) and not the authority of the position.
Tuttabella, on the flip side, what emotional repercussions are there for the teenager who is taken to get an abortion by a well meaning teacher?
I don’t know what there is about hairdressers, but I always get into the most interesting discussions with them… Last time I went for a haircut, we started talking about adoption and the topic changed to adoption being the alternative to abortion. My hairdresser told me that when her sister was fourteen, she got pregnant and was afraid to tell their father, so my hairdresser, who was seventeen at time, took her to an abortion clinic.
My hairdresser said that for years afterward both she and her sister experienced extreme feelings of guilt and she needed to get counseling to deal with what she felt was her role in ending a life. She said that even to this day, she and her sister regret the decision to abort the baby. It would have been better to face the short-term anger of their father than deal with all the guilt over the years.
At the same time objv, many women after making the decision to abort are fine with that decision. A good friend in high school had an abortion, not because of any fear of parental anger, but she had a lot of ambition and wanted to finish her education and knew parenthood was not right for her at that time. She has no guilt to this day.
Waiting for Buzzy to scream “LIAR” at me. 🙂
Because it’s impossible for me to have any friends or family…….
I know a woman who got pregnant when 17 and had an abortion with the knowledge and consent of her parents. She continued her education (lots of it) and is now a very successful professional and a very successful mother, having exercised her choice to determine when she would reproduce. She says she has not been troubled by this decision in the slightest.
Did they ever tell him about their decision?
Crogged, I don’t know if they ever told their father. GG and JG, yes, women vary in the amount of regret over an abortion, and I do think there are situations where there may be an abusive situation at home, however in the vast majority of cases, a parent will make a better decision on what’s best for their daughter than a stranger.
If my daughter had had an unwanted pregnancy as a teenager, I would have been heartbroken if a teacher had taken my daughter for an abortion.The teacher would have been imposing HER values on my daughter and our family. My daughter is much like me, and we have a good and open relationship, but at 16, she may have easily been swayed by an authority figure and later regretted having an abortion.
Obj…you are assuming the teacher swayed the daughter…in the scenario, it would seem that the daughter reached out to the teacher because the daughter did not feel comfortable going to the parent.
I have a hunch there are many more teenagers actively seeking assistance getting abortion than adults trolling around looking to sway teenagers to get an abortion.
Homer, In Tutt’s original comment, she asked what we would personally feel if we had a daughter who was taken to get an abortion by a teacher.
How would you feel? Conversely, how would you react if you had a pregnant daughter who was told that abortion was wrong under any circumstances by a teacher she went to in confidence? Both situations involve the teacher using her own value system to influence the student.
Obl…I thought Tutt’s original posting had the daughter playing a bigger role, or at least I interpreted it that way.
“Let’s say she fails to use the birth control for one reason or another and gets pregnant and is so embarrassed to tell you, after that big lecture you gave her about the importance of using birth control, and so she goes and has an abortion accompanied by a well-meaning teacher from school without telling you. ”
I mean, the daughter goes to have an abortion accompanied by a well-meaning teacher (who would absolutely get fired if this happened in Texas). It certainly seems as though it was the daughter instigating rather than the teacher swaying an opinion.
A key statistic in the Denver Post article desp posted below is this one: “The family-planning program has saved $5.68 in Medicaid costs for every dollar spent on the contraceptives, the state said.”
That’s a hell of an ROI for a public health measure, but I’m quite sure it wouldn’t happen without the private donation that funded this experiment. That’s a shame because it’s a win-win for the taxpayer and the women. Everyone except…
Should be
Cappy
And you are once again trying to muddy the waters. The point is that the pro-forced birth crowd on one hand claims to want to end the practice of abortion but on the other hand they resist any efforts except those that strip the constitutional rights from women. The pro-forced birth crowd is more interested in control of people versus actually caring about so-called unborn children.
I like how Lifer ends his blog entry with an ominous ellipsis.
Very coy . . .
State government through private donations. You failed to show where the pro-life or anti-abortion crowd is against such things.
“Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of public policy for the conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, said she was skeptical of the state’s claim that increased access to IUDs and other birth control caused the steep decline in teen birth rates.
“What we have seen over many years is that access to contraception does not equal fewer unintended pregnancies and fewer abortions,” Earll said. “Availability of contraception leads to increased sexual activity, which leads to unintended pregnancies and abortions.”
Earll said she found it offensive that the state was dispensing IUDs and that teens don’t need to be accompanied by an adult to receive these forms of contraceptives.”
“It totally undermines parental rights,” Earll said.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26085784/colorado-teen-birth-rates-drop-state-hands-out
These Pro-Birth folks are very upfront about how they feel about birth control…or the control of women.
http://www.prolifewisconsin.org/proLifeIssues.asp?article=Hormonal+Birth+Control+and+its+Abortion+Causing+Effect&aid=270&id=6
She’s full of shit.
And you are once again trying to muddy the waters. The point is that the pro-forced birth crowd on one hand claims to want to end the practice of abortion but on the other hand they resist any efforts to do so. The pro-forced birth crowd is more interested in control of people versus actually carrying about so-called unborn children.
The hypocrisy burns the eyes.
Because, although they claim otherwise, for many this really boils down to sex. Many anti-abortion groups (especially conservative Christian groups who are predominantly Protestant like Focus on the Family), have for years claimed that abortion was their real foe but it’s always been about sex…or at least sex outside their confined, 1950’s version of sex.
That is why many conservative Christians (well, at least WASP conservative Christians) never had much of a problem with abortion. See George Bush Sr. and even Ronald Reagan’s position on the issue up until the 1980’s. Abortion was tolerated so long as it was not spoken about in polite circles.
But, combined with the empowerment of women (often very politically active, liberal women), increased access to birth control and the culture wars, “abortion” became the new target. But all along it was about controlling the sex lives of women who for millennia were seen as the more lustful, sinful sex (especially in the eyes of Christians).
Sorry to get too wordy here but context is important especially when one tries to really understand the reason why so many anti-abortion groups are now turning their guns to contraception.
All too true. The issue really is controlling women and their sexuality which is why the don’t give a crap about babies once they are born.
Well stated Mr. 75
All true jg75. But here is the buzz saw social conservatives face: something like 90% of Catholic American women of childbearing age ignore the church’s (antiquated) teaching and use contraception. If God and the Pope aren’t going to convince them, Ralph Reed sure as hell won’t.
If Republicans are somehow deluded into pursuing seriously anti-contraception policies in this country they will cease to exist within a couple of election cycles.
GG, are you in a position to speak for others?
The Catholic Church is old and very conservative. Thus it is slow to react to changes and popular pressure. It is also not a democracy which doesn’t help!
So, I cut it some slack. It took hundreds of years for the church to finally get rid of the overtly corrupt practices like the selling of indulgences. Some of that wasn’t cleared up until the 1960’s!
Coming from a non-Catholic BTW…..and basically a non-Christian now.