There's no such thing as the "war on women"

[MysticSang'ha]

I don't base my beliefs on this issue on statistics. I base my beliefs on this issue on Truth. However, I can look up some statistics.

Statistics give a peek into truth. They show us things based on what happens over a given period of time.

I hope you don't think the Earth is flat, or that the universe revolved around us, or that the heliocentric model of the solar system is blasphemous.

 

[crossfire]

What statistics do you have to support your contention that abstinence-only education helps to reduce teen pregnancy and STD rates?

I have a study here from the National Institue of Health that investigates the correlation between abstinence only education and teen pregnancy right here: full article:

Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S

Abstract:

The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. In an effort to reduce these rates, the U.S. government has funded abstinence-only sex education programs for more than a decade. However, a public controversy remains over whether this investment has been successful and whether these programs should be continued. Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S. In alignment with the new evidence-based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative and the Precaution Adoption Process Model advocated by the National Institutes of Health, we propose the integration of comprehensive sex and STD education into the biology curriculum in middle and high school science classes and a parallel social studies curriculum that addresses risk-aversion behaviors and planning for the future.​

Bottom line: Higher teen pregnancy occurs with abstinence-only education.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

There is a lot of evidence that practicing abstinence can reduce these.... but not much that suggests only teaching abstinence significantly increases the practice of abstinence.... It's an ideological position which is all well and good... except for it's abysmal results.

Granted, I'll give abstinence that. But on that same note, never driving a car and never even going out on the road will reduce the risk of getting into a car accident or hit by a car.

But see, we don't shame people into never driving a car, right?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I agree - but we do point out that people who are intoxicated shouldn't drive and to some extent we shame those people... the drinking analogy is perhaps better suited here I believe. We look at ways to mitigate the effects of drinking such as encouraging car pooling and public transport, we have police to check the roads for people who are driving dangerously and we look at ways to alter the culture of how we consume alcohol in the first place such as whether we drink alone, with friends, in private or in public, whether we have it after a meal as opposed to being the central focus of consumption, not mixing different types of drinks etc. What we don't do is say no one should drink in an effort to prevent drink driving. Because that sort of approach to attempting to mitigate drink driving and all the negative outcomes of that behavior simply doesn't work in a society where people DO drink alcohol.

When peoples' lives are at stake, dealing with reality comes before living in a fantasy land.

 

[Sunstone]

When peoples' lives are at stake, dealing with reality comes before living in a fantasy land.

Except when you're a Republican lawmaker.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Shoot, I don't even view abstinence as an ideological view to be supported. Sex is one of the great things in life, one of the few things that make life worth living. Like a good meal, or a good book, or some really good music. Except that sex feels better than all of those.

Considering this obvious truth, abstinence is just attempting to deprive people of a great joy. Yeah, I get it, kids don't need to be having sex, due to the possible repercussions. And yet, we already know that they aren't inclined not to do it just because of that little thing called consequence. So, abstinence only classes are clearly a massive waste of time. You need to educate kids on what can happen if they have sex, and educate them on ways to protect themselves, because that's way more important than a few parents sensibilities.

Honestly, I'm tired of sex being viewed as some kind of dirty thing. I mean, sure it can be, if you know how to go about it, lol. Generally though, it's an enjoyable activity that can lead to a life! How is this so horrible?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Shoot, I don't even view abstinence as an ideological view to be supported. Sex is one of the great things in life, one of the few things that make life worth living. Like a good meal, or a good book, or some really good music. Except that sex feels better than all of those.

Considering this obvious truth, abstinence is just attempting to deprive people of a great joy. Yeah, I get it, kids don't need to be having sex, due to the possible repercussions. And yet, we already know that they aren't inclined not to do it just because of that little thing called consequence. So, abstinence only classes are clearly a massive waste of time. You need to educate kids on what can happen if they have sex, and educate them on ways to protect themselves, because that's way more important than a few parents sensibilities.

Honestly, I'm tired of sex being viewed as some kind of dirty thing. I mean, sure it can be, if you know how to go about it, lol. Generally though, it's an enjoyable activity that can lead to a life! How is this so horrible?

I completely agree except that sex is better than all those things you cited..."combined"...

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I love sex, but good food is way better. When you're done it's gone with no need for an awkward conversation

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Except when you're a Republican lawmaker.

No they are completely cognizant of reality; it's just that they put their own beliefs and/or election chances before the suffering of others... thats worse.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I love sex, but good food is way better. When you're done it's gone with no need for an awkward conversation

Was with my wife 10 years before marriage and now married for ten years.....The pleasure and the conversation is still going strong. Some things just work out that way....:dan:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I said this right after the election that things were going to ramp up in the states...and I've been on RF for a while now in various threads talking about this massive effort by republican controlled states where they're pushing these theocratic agendas. The idea that there is no war on women should be put to rest given this massive overreach by state governments and a few in the federal government (nationwide anti-abortion bill). A couple pages back I linked to this (Pro-choice advocates respond to abortion propaganda bill « The Progressive Pulse). NC Governor Patrick McCrory is expected to sign this crazy bill into law. It's a crazy bill because none of it is medically true......(The war continues)

 

[Apex]

Yet the only person in politics with a confirmed kill in the war on women is a Democrat (Ted).



Sorry, I still get a kick our of this war on women stuff.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

My question on abortion specifically is when does life begin and why? What constitutes as un-developed tissue and unborn baby. Where is the line drawn and why? Is there wiggle room?

If you say birth then what about escaping the vagina is so liberating in terms of rights to the mass of cells? What development is required to be considered alive in its own terms rather than just a mass of cells that don't match DNA to the mother.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sorry, I still get a kick our of this war on women stuff.

Are you denying there's an effort by republicans to control a woman's ability to make her own medical decisions without state or federal government involment?

 

[Alceste]

My question on abortion specifically is when does life begin and why? What constitutes as un-developed tissue and unborn baby. Where is the line drawn and why? Is there wiggle room?

If you say birth then what about escaping the vagina is so liberating in terms of rights to the mass of cells? What development is required to be considered alive in its own terms rather than just a mass of cells that don't match DNA to the mother.

That's not really the point. The point is that it's inside somebody's body, and needs to use that body to survive. No born person is entitled to use another person in this way.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

My question on abortion specifically is when does life begin and why?

When the fetus is viable outside the womb. I think this has already been said here and is also agreed upon by doctors.

What constitutes as un-developed tissue and unborn baby. Where is the line drawn and why? Is there wiggle room?

When it is viable and can survive outside the womb. Doctors put that at 22 to 24 weeks I believe.

If you say birth then what about escaping the vagina is so liberating in terms of rights to the mass of cells? What development is required to be considered alive in its own terms rather than just a mass of cells that don't match DNA to the mother.

Viability. Then again these decisions should be between the woman and her doctor. It shouldn't be determined by government. Thatis if we're being serious about small government, less government intrusion into our private lives and preventing government overreach.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's not really the point. The point is that it's inside somebody's body, and needs to use that body to survive. No born person is entitled to use another person in this way.

I disagree. If a woman is 9 months prego she has a responsibility to the child. That is the point. And the argument for allowing abortion but not late term abortion is that it gives women time to have the abortion before we start calling it murder.

I mean by the extention should a man be forced to pay child support for a child he doesn't want? should men have a say in if their child should be aborted? I don't think so but this is thoughts and questiosn that beg the question of responsiblity for ones actions.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

When it is viable and can survive outside the womb. Doctors put that at 22 to 24 weeks I believe.

Specifically why? I'm not arguing a poitn but just wondering why.

Viability. Then again these decisions should be between the woman and her doctor. It shouldn't be determined by government. Thatis if we're being serious about small government, less government intrusion into our private lives and preventing government overreach.

I am not seriuos about uber small government. I think abortion should be safe and legal and covered by medical insurance. I don't think that late term abortions should be legal under the morality issue.

 

[Alceste]

I disagree. If a woman is 9 months prego she has a responsibility to the child. That is the point. And the argument for allowing abortion but not late term abortion is that it gives women time to have the abortion before we start calling it murder.

I mean by the extention should a man be forced to pay child support for a child he doesn't want? should men have a say in if their child should be aborted? I don't think so but this is thoughts and questiosn that beg the question of responsiblity for ones actions.

Virtually no abortions take place past the point of viability unless the woman's life is at risk, so it's a moot point. In general, women decide what to do and end an unplanned pregnancy as soon as possible. They don't just tack it onto their list of things to do alongside putting the bug screens in and cleaning the gutters. It's a high priority.

 

[Alceste]

Specifically why? I'm not arguing a poitn but just wondering why.



I am not seriuos about uber small government. I think abortion should be safe and legal and covered by medical insurance. I don't think that late term abortions should be legal under the morality issue.

Then you're in luck, because late term abortions are not available already. See Roe v. Wade for more info. On the other hand, you're unlucky too, because more barriers, expenses and obstacles are being erected every day by Republican lawmakers, all of which will delay women seeking to terminate an unplanned pregnancy.