Redefining Contraception as Abortion

dawny0826 said:

If our nation places more emphasis on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, we wouldn't need to concern ourselves as much with abortion rights.

Click to expand...

There will always be unwanted pregnancies and there are people who want to make it illegal, so it will always be a concern and for those pregnant women, it will always be a major concern.

dawny0826 said:

Does that make better sense? From what I've seen, the Democrats aren't making large, flying leaps to push the benefits of abstainance AND contraception.

Click to expand...

What do you know about what the Dems have said about abstinence besides opposing programs which teach only abstinence? To me, it seems like you're faulting Pelosi based on your personal ignorance of current policy debates rather than anything she has or hasn't done.

Saint Tigeress said:

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1441Attacking unwanted pregnancy prevention and planned parenthood is just the most psychotic thing I have ever heard, unless you're a radical religious person.

Click to expand...

And even then. But I think you've led a sheltered life if it surprises you. I've heard Catholics say -- with a straight face -- that masturbation is murder. Because you weren't aiming your genitals in a direction that could result in fertilization, you've "murdered" your potential children. There are some really sick people out there.

dawny0826 said:

What are the Democrats really doing to assist with the prevention of unwanted pregnancies? They bash the hell out of the "abstinence-only" message from the right. Granted, they're more apt to support educational programs...

Click to expand...

Which are more likely to prevent unwanted pregnancies than abstinence-only programs. Abstinence-only programs are worse than worthless, since they deliberately withhold pertinent information.

Saint Tigeress said:

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1441

I don't usually get heated about political things but this is just nuts. Women were liberated from reliance on their husbands and entrapment in unhappy and abusive marriages largely in part due to birth control availability. They were able to get into the work force since weren't viewed as flaming loaded guns any more, ready to pop out a baby and be a pain in the butt at least once a year... Working moms still get discriminated agianst in some areas by employers. Attacking unwanted pregnancy prevention and planned parenthood is just the most psychotic thing I have ever heard, unless you're a radical religious person.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is. An attempt to take away women's freedoms lest we get too uppity.

The abortion debate, the contraception debate, the BGLT equality debate, they all center around the same thing, maintaining the old order things where (straight) men were in charge and women were subordinate (and children even more so). The reason why same-sex marriages is so threatening to them is because they present an alternative model, where it isn't clear who's in charge and who's subordinate. The reason why contraception is so threatening is because they know that given an option, many women will no longer be satisfied just being the "helpmeet" men. The genders being equal. Men having to share authority and maybe do housework. Oh, the horror!

Father Heathen said:

Sure, but it's an unrealistic expectation, nor is it effective on a large enough scale.

Just because someone supports abortion rights doesn't mean they don't also support preventing them in the first place. I fail to see how the two are at odds. It's not an either or situation.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to say that the two are at odds, I simply feel that one is given more attention than the other and from what I've seen, Democrats seem to place more emphasis on protecting civil liberties, protecting a woman's right to choose over the prevention of pregnancy.

I agree with those who reject any ban against contraception. My beef with politicans like Pelosi, is that their political record shows that they've placed focus and emphasis on abortion rights but where is equal emphasis on prevention.

It doesn't matter what I think, though. In truth, I wouldn't have commented, beyond a simple "I agree w/ the OP". Pelosi just steams me.

MidnightBlue said:

Which are more likely to prevent unwanted pregnancies than abstinence-only programs. Abstinence-only programs are worse than worthless, since they deliberately withhold pertinent information.

Click to expand...

And I've commented on this thread, that I don't have much faith in abstinence-only programs, however, one can't argue that if abstainence surely eliminates the risk of unwanted pregnancy. In this regard (and in this regard only), the abstainence-only push is more effective than the pro-choice pushes from politicians.

dawny0826 said:

I didn't mean to say that the two are at odds, I simply feel that one is given more attention than the other and from what I've seen, Democrats seem to place more emphasis on protecting civil liberties, protecting a woman's right to choose over the prevention of pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Our rights and liberty should always be of the highest priority.

dawny0826 said:

If our nation places more emphasis on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, we wouldn't need to concern ourselves as much with abortion rights. Does that make better sense?

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

dawny0826 said:

From what I've seen, the Democrats aren't making large, flying leaps to push the benefits of abstainance AND contraception.

Click to expand...

Democrates are making large, flying leaps to push the benefits of contraception, with the intent to lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies, which everyone says they want lower, but Republicans are insisting that funding be tied to abstinence only.

From where I sit, it's the Republicans, more specifically the Christian Right, that is standing in the way of making contraception widely available and thus lowering the rate of unwanted pregnancies. We have repeatedly pointed to the studies that show that abstinence-only sex-ed does not work, and they have repeatedly refused to listen. A very frustrating stalemate, which has led me to suspect that they don't really want to lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies. What they want is for teens to get pregnant and then get married, because it seems to me, from watching the whole Sarah Palin daughter thing, that all is forgiven about sex before marriage so long as the kids get married. Regardless of whether or not they will be happy together or are emotionally prepared to be married and raise kids. All of which could easily be avoided, if the GOP really wanted to avoid it, by making contraception and comprehensive sex ed widely available.

The Dems are pushing for comprehensive sex ed. The Repubs are insisting on abstinence only. That's the situation.

A topic touched on, among others, which is why this upsets me so much also, is abstinence programs without education on contraception options as well. Children should be taught responsibility, not biased perfectionism.

I know so many girls that had good intentions, didn't plan on getting pregnant, but because they were just flat out stupid, ignorant, didn't care, or completely irresponsible (or all of the above) they got pregnant and then has an abortion to fix the problem. It wasn't health related, abuse related, or anything reasonable. They were stupid, didn't want to take responsibility, didn't want to destroy thier pretty little bodies and give the baby up for adoption... That is the case with every abortion case I know of on a personal level. And contraception is FREE.

I want to backhand some people. Or maybe I am just in a hateful mood. I have been in a hateful mood for quite a little while now.

Saint Tigeress said:

I know so many girls that had good intentions

Click to expand...

One thing abstinence-only advocates refuse to face up to is how dismal the results are.

One study found that 10% of sexually active teens who made an abstinence pledge subsequently claimed to be virgins. Another found that 53% of teens who made abstinence pledges denied having done so a year later, often after having broken their pledges. Another found that 88% of them broke their pledges. Study after study has shown that they're more likely to delay sexual activity for a year or two and likely to have fewer partners when they do become sexually active, which might sound good except that when they do become sexually active they're less likely to use condoms, more likely to engage in unprotected anal intercourse, and less likely to seek treatment for STDs.

The biggest reason abstinence education gets on my nerves is that it's OBVIOUS that not having sex results in not getting pregnant. It only took me about ten seconds to type that out. After that, what else is there to say, or "teach"? So where is all that funding going? On the other hand, there is a heck of a lot that can be said about sex, relationships, contraception, STDs, abortion, human biology and foetal development. And it's all interesting.What kind of exam do you have to pass at the end of an abstinence course? "Q: Pregnancy and STDs can be avoided by a) having sex. b) not having sex." Very high standards of education the Bush administration expects for American kids. Not.

Saint Tigeress said:

...I know so many girls that had good intentions, didn't plan on getting pregnant, but because they were just flat out stupid, ignorant, didn't care, or completely irresponsible (or all of the above)...

Click to expand...

I think I dated some of these girls in college.

Saint Tigeress said:

I want to backhand some people. Or maybe I am just in a hateful mood. I have been in a hateful mood for quite a little while now.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the club! I would love to backhand people who don't share my beliefs.
This may be a consequence of too much liberation though.

Alceste said:

The biggest reason abstinence education gets on my nerves is that it's OBVIOUS that not having sex results in not getting pregnant. It only took me about ten seconds to type that out. After that, what else is there to say, or "teach"? So where is all that funding going? On the other hand, there is a heck of a lot that can be said about sex, relationships, contraception, STDs, abortion, human biology and foetal development. And it's all interesting.What kind of exam do you have to pass at the end of an abstinence course? "Q: Pregnancy and STDs can be avoided by a) having sex. b) not having sex." Very high standards of education the Bush administration expects for American kids. Not.

Click to expand...

Abstinence-only sex ed isn't just a simplified, dumbed down version of sex ed. It's the imposition of religious belief into our education and public policy. They think that sex before marriage is morally wrong. So they don't want to teach kids about contraception because they think it will only encourage them to have sex. And they are definitely against teach about abortion because that to their minds is even more wrong.

The funding is going into drilling it into kids that sex before marriage is morally wrong.

Well, to be fair, Lil, my abstinence-only sex ed didn't drill into us that premarital sex is morally wrong. They just told us that condoms don't work.

Father Heathen said:

Our rights and liberty should always be of the highest priority.

Click to expand...

Nah, I don't think so.

UnTheist said:

Nah, I don't think so.

Click to expand...

oic kk

kthxbai?

dawny0826 said:

I don't like Pelosi and I find it ironic that she'd make such a comment. What has she done in her career to push PREVENTION of unwanted pregnancies?

Click to expand...

And I don't mean any disrespect when I say this but it sounds like people trying to project their religious morality onto those who do not share their way of life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?ref=us

The New York Times reports that the Bush Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services is drafting a rule that would place new restrictions on domestic family planning programs. While current law allows health care providers and professionals to refuse to provide abortions based on their religious beliefs, this provision would threaten the funding of organizations and health facilities if they do not hire people who would refuse to provide birth control and defines abortion so broadly that it would include many types of birth control, including oral contraception.

Click to expand...

You are all off base her a bit from what I have read. That is the opening quote from the article listed in the OP. So let me brake some of it down for you.....

This "law" would not outlaw abortion nor contraceptions.... NOR would it change the law that PRIVATE comanies and professionals could refuse such things due to their philosophical/religious beliefs. As for the threat of redefining abortion "so broadly" that BLA BLA BLA... abortion is LEGAL in the US. Don't lose sight of that! How could they outlaw the 48 hour pill or whatever it is called now if abortion is still legal????? Hmmm.... Some of you read too much into this all.

The fact of the matter is this: A lame duck President. Once he is no longer President, he has to still have the support of those with $ that supported his elections, etc... Make a futal attempt to please the "religious right" so once you are out of office, you still have your wealthy supporters to make business deals with etc...

Another bad program to cut back spending.... please the Republicans as well.... get it now?

Anybody with "two cents" who puts any "cents" into this changing anything.... you have no sence.

Comet, redefining contraception as abortion allows insurance companies to stop covering it, and in some cases forbids it to state plans, upon which many low-income women (myself included) are dependent.

I forgot to mention this too:

A democrat President with a democrat Congress= MORE GOVERNMENTSPENDING AND PROGRAMS.

A move like this will put republicans in a better position come the election in 4 years..... it is all about polotics: personal and national.... POLOTICS!