posted
For those of you that don't read Savage Love, an advice column by Dan Savage originally published in The Stranger and republished at TheOnion.com, here is a quote from the recent issue:
"Earlier this month, Republicans in South Dakota successfully banned abortion in that state. Last week, the GOP-controlled state house of representatives in Missouri voted to ban state-funded family-planning clinics from dispensing birth control. "If you hand out contraception to single women," one Republican state rep told the Kansas City Star, "we're saying promiscuity is okay." On the federal level, Republicans are blocking the over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception and keeping a 100 percent effective HPV vaccine—a vaccine that will save the lives of thousands of women every year—from being made available.
The GOP's message to straight Americans: If you have sex, we want it to **** up your lives as much as possible. No birth control, no emergency contraception, no abortion services, no life-saving vaccines. If you get pregnant, tough shit. You're going to have those babies, ladies, and you're going to make those child-support payments, gentlemen. And if you get HPV and it leads to cervical cancer, well, that's too bad. Have a nice funeral, slut.
What's it going to take to get a straight-rights movement off the ground? The GOP in Kansas is seeking to criminalize hetero heavy petting, for God's sake! Wake up and smell the freaking Holy War, breeders! The religious right hates heterosexuality just as much as it hates homosexuality. Fight back!"
I just thought that this is delightfully inflamatory and wanted to know what the good people of hatrack thought about it.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the trouble is that people don't have a right to sex without consequences, whether they are heterosexual or not. It might be nice to have that, but not at the risk of killing people.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And democrats are on the complete opposite of the spectrum. Abortions should be allowed regardless of anything. That bothers me to, just as much as banning it all. Why can't there be a compromise in the middle?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What type of middle ground do you see on this issue? To me it looks mostly like an either/or situation.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: And democrats are on the complete opposite of the spectrum. Abortions should be allowed regardless of anything.
*surprised look
quote:I just thought that this is delightfully inflamatory and wanted to know what the good people of hatrack thought about it.
Hmm. It may not be my place to point this out, but in the past, posting something that was either deliberately inflammatory or was posted without any substantive commentary was considered to be bad form. That is, people here in general seemed to try to avoid things that were inflammatory just for the sake of being inflammatory, and people were also pretty good about putting something of themselves and their own views out there as gristle to gnaw on and digest.
Things may work differently now. I'm not sure. But (also in the past, and now, don't mind me, but back in the War, we usta ... ) I recall people being critical of others who did not bring up standards when it was in reference to a poster with whom they generally agreed, so ...
quote:keeping a 100 percent effective HPV vaccine—a vaccine that will save the lives of thousands of women every year—from being made available.
Would someone please point me to the people who don't want this vaccine on the market at all? Because I've looked, and haven't seen it. I've seen organizations and people speaking out against making the vaccine mandatory for all children but I've yet to see someone who wanted it blocked from the market entirely. Most of the concerns I've read about are that the vaccine might encourage sexual activity and that they would prefer instead of it being mandatory, that parents decide when and if to have their children vaccinated. That's a far cry from wanting to keep it off the market entirely.
And for the record, I've glad the vaccine is going to be available as the mother of three girls. I do not want it made mandatory, because I want to choose at what age my child receives it and I will encourage each of them to get it because even if they stay chaste until marriage, their future spouses may have been exposed, it only makes sense to take advantage of a vaccine that can offer them protection from cervical cancer.
But I'm sick and tired of seeing Republicans and religious conservatives painted as people who want women to die rather than see a vaccine hit the market. It's a distortion of the actual truth as I've seen it. There may well be a small fringe movement that would prefer to see the vaccine never hit the market but I doubt they are representative of Republicans or religious conservatives as a whole. Heck, you don't get much more conservative than me and I don't have a problem with the vaccine being available, I just don't want it to be made mandatory at a certain age. I'd rather be the one to decide when my kids get vaccinated.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: What type of middle ground do you see on this issue? To me it looks mostly like an either/or situation.
I see a middle ground being to allow it for those underage (a case could be made that it is a health risk anyways), rape, incest, and health to the mother. I honestly think if you are over 18, healthy, and consent to sex, then if nothing else put the kid up for adoption.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
The vaccine tested in this study has several limitations, noted NCI’s Hildesheim. For one thing, the vaccine offers no protection against other types of HPV that can also cause cervical cancer. In addition, it’s unknown whether the vaccine’s protection against HPV-16 is long-lasting. Finally, it does not prevent HPV-16 infections already present at the time of vaccination from progressing to cancer.
The study, which was supported by Merck Research Laboratories, will continue until all the participants have been followed for four years. Laura A. Koutsky, Ph.D., of the University of Washington in Seattle, led the team of researchers who conducted this study. An editorial by Christopher P. Crum, M.D., of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston accompanies the report. There are other efforts to develop a cervical cancer vaccine, as well, including one trial sponsored by NCI that is not yet open to enrollment. "
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my way of seeing it, these issues are controversial enough that no one group should be able to dictate what choices the whole country should have. These issues, which are deeply grounded in some very closely held moral and religious beliefs are best left to the individuals involved, so that they can make the decisions that best conform to their own moral and religous principles.
If you sincerely believe that birth control, for instance, is wrong, then you should not employ it. And perhaps you should even make efforts to persuade people that they would be better off eschewing it. But you also have to realize that not every American shares your beliefs, and just as you wouldn't want some other group legislating a morality that is contrary to yours, you should not attempt to legislate your morality to others.
So, my stance is that I make the moral and religious choices that conform to my own beliefs, but I do not support any legislation that would restrict those choices for anyone.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:and keeping a 100 percent effective HPV vaccine—a vaccine that will save the lives of thousands of women every year—from being made available.
Unless you have information you couldn't provide last time, we've already established here that this is a lie because they're not trying to ban it, merely keep it from being made mandatory.
Further, I doubt the 100% effectiveness rate. The best I could find is 90%.
quote:I just thought that this is delightfully inflamatory and wanted to know what the good people of hatrack thought about it.
Since the author is factually careless and blurs the distinction between state funding of something and banning of something, I don't think much of it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't mean that it is deliberately inflammatory, thought i suppose it was. just delightfuly so. i am more concerned with the content than the style. i agree wholeheartedly with what Dan says. I feel that it is no ones place to say if and when i can have sex and what the consequences of that will be. If there are alternatives available to help reduce the negative effects of sexual conduct, i believe they should be made widely and completely available.
one of the specific things that i would argue is that contraceptives are not only for single people. by denying the availability of contraceptives in gov't funded family-planning centers it is equivelent in my mind of saying "if you don't have enough money to buy contraceptives, you have to have more children."
also i think it is freaking insane that anyone anywhere, even Republican's in Kansas, to criminalize "heavy petting." i mean, indecent exposure is one thing, but come on!
furthernmore, i think this line is hilarious: "And if you get HPV and it leads to cervical cancer, well, that's too bad. Have a nice funeral, slut." (in a really morose, dark comedy sort of way)
there, are you happy now CT?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: In my way of seeing it, these issues are controversial enough that no one group should be able to dictate what choices the whole country should have. These issues, which are deeply grounded in some very closely held moral and religious beliefs are best left to the individuals involved, so that they can make the decisions that best conform to their own moral and religous principles.
If you sincerely believe that birth control, for instance, is wrong, then you should not employ it. And perhaps you should even make efforts to persuade people that they would be better off eschewing it. But you also have to realize that not every American shares your beliefs, and just as you wouldn't want some other group legislating a morality that is contrary to yours, you should not attempt to legislate your morality to others.
So, my stance is that I make the moral and religious choices that conform to my own beliefs, but I do not support any legislation that would restrict those choices for anyone.
The question I have for that is, where do you draw a line? The whole abortion debate is whether or not it SHOULD be considered a personal choice. What laws don't stem from the morality of other being imposed on everyone?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
The vaccine tested in this study has several limitations, noted NCI’s Hildesheim. For one thing, the vaccine offers no protection against other types of HPV that can also cause cervical cancer. In addition, it’s unknown whether the vaccine’s protection against HPV-16 is long-lasting. Finally, it does not prevent HPV-16 infections already present at the time of vaccination from progressing to cancer.
The study, which was supported by Merck Research Laboratories, will continue until all the participants have been followed for four years. Laura A. Koutsky, Ph.D., of the University of Washington in Seattle, led the team of researchers who conducted this study. An editorial by Christopher P. Crum, M.D., of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston accompanies the report. There are other efforts to develop a cervical cancer vaccine, as well, including one trial sponsored by NCI that is not yet open to enrollment. "
I'm not sure exactly what you take the implications of your citation to be, Stephan. This seems (to me) to be information on a single particular trial registered with the .gov cancer registry.
But of course, that is not a summary of other randomized, controlled trials that are out there, so it doesn't really establish anything about the overall level of knowledge and evidence (or lack thereof) regarding this type of vaccine in general -- only what was and was not established in this particular study. And if I recall correctly, there have been at least 5 RCTs published in the literature.
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: So, my stance is that I make the moral and religious choices that conform to my own beliefs, but I do not support any legislation that would restrict those choices for anyone.
While I agree with you on one level, is it not the government's job to protect the lives (more than lifestyles or even quality of life) of it's citizens? And IF (there is room to debate this, I know) you believe that life starts at conception, wouldn't it be proper, even necessary for the government to legislate against abortion?
I feel that birth control and vaccines fit in a totally different category and agree that they should not be legislated. It just needs to be made clear, crystal clear, that birth control is not 100% effective and every time you have sex there is a possiblity of becoming pregnant. If you become pregnant, that is the consequence of your choice to have sex and you cannot choose to opt out of it.
Posts: 44 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The question I have for that is, where do you draw a line? The whole abortion debate is whether or not it SHOULD be considered a personal choice.
I believe that each individual involved should be free to make the decision. I oppose legislation restricting abortion.
By the way, I also oppose abortion.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The question I have for that is, where do you draw a line? The whole abortion debate is whether or not it SHOULD be considered a personal choice.
I believe that each individual involved should be free to make the decision. I oppose legislation restricting abortion.
By the way, I also oppose abortion.
I used to say the same thing, so I do understand where your coming from with that. But then I thought about why I oppose abortion. I think that there is a living person growing inside there, and I don't believe a mentally competent healthy adult woman, who knew the risk of having sex, has the right to terminate its life.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rien: And IF (there is room to debate this, I know) you believe that life starts at conception, wouldn't it be proper, even necessary for the government to legislate against abortion?
IF it were universally agreed on that life indeed began at conception, and that fetuses are people with rights, then of course those rights ought to be protected. This is far from universally agreed upon, however. And making it our national law crosses a line, I think, between Church and State, because the government would be legislating one group's religious beliefs for the entire citizenry.
I have my own deeply held religious beliefs and practices. I am not comfortable with the government interfering with my moral choices in this issue.
And I think I especially am sensitive to concerns about the government instituting faith-based legislation because I practice a minority religion.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a similar topic, there's a controversy at the University of Oregon over the federally-funded FPEP program (Family Planning Expansion Project) that distributes free birth control (condoms, pills, etc) and provides STD tests to students. Apparently it is against the program rules to distribute condoms to gay or heterosexual couples who are not "using the program strictly for birth control," so no gays are allowed to use it at all unless they lie about their identity, and heterosexual couples who are using the products for something like... fun... aren't allowed as well.
Some free country.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
i had an argument along these lines with my girlfriend a couple of weeks ago and she disagreed vehemently, so i fully expect the same, but i'll say it anyways.
i think that all medical rights (and many other rights, but that isn't being discussed here) should be the state's right. each state should be able to independently decide if they want abortion, emergency contraceptives, HPV vaccines, and any other issue, controversial or otherwise, to be legal. if that South Dakota wants abortion to be illegal, fine, move somewhere where it is legal. same with everything else. as long as the federal gov't can't come along and say this or that is legal or illegal across the board. that way, we as individuals have a greater chance of gathering in a group large enough for our opinions to hold sway and enforce our particular beliefs.
i am quite sure that there are many things that make this not as simple as i think it is, and i would love to hear those things. then i can come up with arguments against those things Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the first argument would be that if you don't like US law, you are free to leave just as easily as switching states.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Well the first argument would be that if you don't like US law, you are free to leave just as easily as switching states.
I honestly don't think it's just as easy as switching states, though.
---
Edited to add: It seems to be verrah, verrah complicated indeed. My spouse (a Canadian citizen) and I (a US citizen) had to hire an immigration lawyer to wind our way through the jumbled mess of getting him able to work in the US, and it looks like we may end up doing the same to get me cleared to work up there.
Nothing even remotely like moving from Indiana to Alabama to Illinois to Wisconsin. A snap, apart from the whole "boxing everything up" and "finding a new mechanic" fiascos. *smile
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
in addition to what CT said Stephan, having independent state's rights would not negate the federal gov't's enforcing the constitutional rights, specifically the bill of rights, which in my theory would not be left up to the states. i believe those are important enough to stick around and deal with what i don't agree with.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: i think that all medical rights (and many other rights, but that isn't being discussed here) should be the state's right.
vonk wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: having independent state's rights would not negate the federal gov't's enforcing the constitutional rights, specifically the bill of rights, which in my theory would not be left up to the states.
Wait, no he doesn't.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Apparently it is against the program rules to distribute condoms to gay or heterosexual couples who are not "using the program strictly for birth control," so no gays are allowed to use it at all unless they lie about their identity, and heterosexual couples who are using the products for something like... fun... aren't allowed as well.
Perhaps I am terribly sheltered, but I fail to see how one could use a condom as a sex toy. How are they using them if they're not using them, to a certain extent, for birth control?
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: IF it were universally agreed on that life indeed began at conception, and that fetuses are people with rights, then of course those rights ought to be protected.
Why does it have to be universal? I doubt it's universally agreed that women should vote, blacks should vote, people should be allowed to bear arms, or be free in their speech, or from search and seizure or...
Rights aren't rights because they're universally agreed upon. I'm not sure what makes something a "right," but I think you're setting an impossibly high bar.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see a middle ground being to allow it for those underage (a case could be made that it is a health risk anyways), rape, incest, and health to the mother. I honestly think if you are over 18, healthy, and consent to sex, then if nothing else put the kid up for adoption.
But you still think of it as murder, no? It's just that some things are worse than murder?
And to Rien- It's awesome to see you posting!! Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: now that does not sound like fun at all. harrumph.
Edit: refering to Stephan's post.
Yeah, its my belief if you don't know someone well enough to need a condom for oral sex, you need to give a second thought to what your about to do. But to each his own.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Even I, The Claw, cannot touch that one.
Have I finally bested The Claw?
But okay, so they can use them for anal sex or oral sex (although...doctor's gloves don't taste good, so I doubt...). It's not like the people from the program are going to stalk them and take pictures and be like, "You had anal sex last night! WE HAVE PROOF!"
posted
yeah, thats why i never got the whole 'law agains anal sex' thing. i mean, what is the special ops team that tracks that down?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: IF it were universally agreed on that life indeed began at conception, and that fetuses are people with rights, then of course those rights ought to be protected. This is far from universally agreed upon, however. And making it our national law crosses a line, I think, between Church and State, because the government would be legislating one group's religious beliefs for the entire citizenry.
I don't believe this is necessarily a religious issue. I think that there is enough scientific evidence to back a claim that life startes at conception and even more scientific evidence that it starts at the end of the second trimester when there is a good chance that the child would be able to live on its own.
Posts: 44 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Even I, The Claw, cannot touch that one.
Have I finally bested The Claw?
Darlin', I yielded that game a long time ago. *grin
quote:But okay, so they can use them for anal sex or oral sex (although...doctor's gloves don't taste good, so I doubt...). It's not like the people from the program are going to stalk them and take pictures and be like, "You had anal sex last night! WE HAVE PROOF!"
*nods thoughtfully
Ah. I see you have not spent much time in Indiana. Nobody expects the Indiana Department of Judicial Affairs!Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: yeah, thats why i never got the whole 'law agains anal sex' thing. i mean, what is the special ops team that tracks that down?
I want YOU! To join the Sex Squad! Protect your country from the evils of sex acts that are not vaginal intercourse in the missionary position!
I want there to be one just so that they can have ads on TV.
quote: I feel that it is no ones place to say if and when i can have sex and what the consequences of that will be. If there are alternatives available to help reduce the negative effects of sexual conduct, i believe they should be made widely and completely available.
Exactly. We should do away with forcing fathers from having to pay child support. There are many fathers out there who consider that to be a negative side affect of having sex.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
zgator, did you really not understand what i meant or are you just being difficult?
but i'll respond anyways. i don't think fathers should pay child support. i think they should stick around and help the child directly instead of moving away and having their wages garnished.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps I am terribly sheltered, but I fail to see how one could use a condom as a sex toy. How are they using them if they're not using them, to a certain extent, for birth control?
-pH [/QB][/QUOTE]It's some weird language that addresses intent. If the "purpose" of the visit is not birth control, it's not okay.
The condoms aren't the only issue. More important is the free STD testing and checkups.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One side calls itself pro-choice, because choice is good and it wants this to be seen as purely an issue of choice.
It calls the other side anti-choice for the same reason, and ignores the fact that the other side sees more to the issue than choice alone.
The other side calls itself pro-life, because life is good and it wants this to be seen as purely an issue of life.
It calls the other side pro-abortion, because it views abortion as murder, and wants to label the other side as supporting murder.
The pro-lifers are unwilling to concede that they may not have the last word on when life begins, and the pro-choicers are unwilling to concede that they may not have the last word on when life begins.
The extremes on both sides -- those who want to ban abortion under all circumstances and those who want abortion untouchable by law, even for minors, even without informing their parents, even in the last trimester when there's clearly a viable infant involved -- suck.
posted
i'm not sure that is a fair summation of either of the sides, especially the pro-choicers (but that may be because i am pro-choice)
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that's the point. I bet the pro-lifers wouldn't think I was being fair either.
Vonk, my daughter was born at a day short of 36 weeks. Do you believe, as a pro-choicer, that a woman should be permitted to abort a fetus that developed? Or let's make it more generic. Would you be willing to accept a restriction on abortion that would take the earliest point at which a fetus has ever been born viably and make it murder to abort after that date? With exceptions for fetuses that have no brain or where the mother would be at risk of serious injury or death should the pregnancy proceed?
I'm not trying to trap you. My answer to that question is yes, but beyond that, I don't think anyone has a right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do about a pregnancy. I'm just curious, since you said that you find my summation unfair, whether you'd accept such a restriction. And if not, why not? I'm honestly curious.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
now this is gonna sound like i'm being evasive, and that's because i am. i honestly don't think that i, having a wang between my legs, have any right to say anything about how, when, or why a woman does anything at all with whats between her legs.
now if we were talking about a lady that had my seed growing in her belly, i would take an interest and do all in my verbal power to stop her from having an abortion. but if she really wanted to have it at any time during her pregnancy, i wouldn't stop her. if it were at such a point that i thought that it was barbaric, i would never speak to her again, but i wouldn't stop her.
in conclusion, i would not accept such a restriction, but only because it is not my place to accept or not accept it.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Especially since Planned Parenthood is only open Monday-Friday.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) I recall people being critical of others who did not bring up standards when it was in reference to a poster with whom they generally agreed, so ...![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
How are they using them if they're not using them, to a certain extent, for birth control?![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
