I wasn’t even talking about insurance as much as pilot programs providing free long term contraception for poor women–very effective, very opposed by the Republicans.
And your second paragraph shows the problem–history says sex happens. And even if it isn’t premarital you still need contraception. Abstinence-based “sex-ed” isn’t sex-ed, it doesn’t work and produces a lot more oopses than comprehensive sex ed.
All government medicaid plans and obamacare already cover birth control. So what is there to oppose?
Sex ed does not have to take a stance on the likelihood or morality of premarital teen sex. There’s nothing “comprehensive” about telling kids they can’t avoid premarital sex or that there’s nothing wrong with it. You are calling my version of sex ed “abstinence-based” yet I didn’t say anything about abstinence. Does that mean that “comprehensive” sex ed is “pro-premarital-sex based” sex ed?
He’s doing what scripta often does - taking an argument he’s heard someone make, and then attributing that argument to everyone who disagrees with him. Because it’s easier to dispute than to address the actual arguments being made.
Indeed. There is also less of a political party connection to opinions abortion issues as there are to legislation on them. Same with sex ed. The differences are often more cultural and regional. For instance, the average democrat voter viewpoint on sex ed in an exurban community in the south is probably more “conservative” than the average republican voter viewpoint on sex ed in the northeast.
I don’t know exactly what’s covered under Medicaid, the reality is the Republicans killed the pilot program despite it’s obvious success.
Nobody’s saying they can’t avoid it. The problem is what the conservatives want is classes that teach abstinence is the proper route and often present false information trying to encourage that.
The reality is that most people will have premarital sex. Thus, for example, you teach about condoms for STI protection, something that would be nearly irrelevant in the conservative fantasy-world. (And it’s most certainly a fantasy-world. I used to work with some very conservative people–and during my years there every marriage I was aware of was due to an oops.)
Change #2 to:
and I’ll support it 
Yes, I think I would. Especially if she was dressed like a hippie with a 
pendant and not like a nun with a 
.
Thanks. Much appreciated. I think that is reasonable, at least in principle. I do not know how, as a practical matter this could be enforced. But it certainly should, at the very least, be encouraged.
Another aspect I did not address earlier revolves around cost. Women who are unable to afford pregnancy tests should be supported, either by private or by government entities, to avoid gaps in their testing.
Finally, and this goes to education, women must be encouraged to consider in advance whether or not they wish to bear a child. Because if the day comes when early testing reveals a pregnancy, the woman needs to know then and there what she is going to do. And if she opts for an abortion it must be performed as soon, as quickly, as humanly possible.
I have a huge problem with pro-death types who believe it is OK for a woman to take her sweet time where abortion is concerned. No way! A woman who wants an abortion needs to act quickly. Time is of the essence in that situation.
That was the point I was trying to make. It’s equally applicable to your #2 and mine.
Yes! Or by the men, whose responsibility it is per my amendment.
It doesn’t work like that – the answer to the actual question isn’t always the same as the answer to the hypothetical.
And I wonder what the actual statistics are. I have a hard time believing that a statistically significant portion of all the abortions performed were significantly delayed due to the indecision of the pregnant woman. On the other hand it’s not an easy decision and there’s already a deadline (before 3rd trimester), though I don’t know if that’s nationwide.
Yeah, that’d go over really well with women. They just love it when men get all up in their business like that. “My body my choice”, right?
I have a hard time believing this too. I think it’s most likely another case of the 5% extremists on either side polarizing the 90% in the middle for no practical reason.
The delays are usually financial and roadblocks people throw up in their way.
Yeah more than half of abortions are due to these oops unwanted pregnancies. Free low-cost contraceptives - including for uninsured - would go much much longer than ineffective laws.
Where is teaching about the reproductive mechanics an endorsement of teen or premarital sex? And when is it too young? You mean in high-school like my kids had it even though some had that health class after they were old enough to get emancipated by marriage? IMO it should happen when many girls start menstruating (6th grade maybe) so they cannot claim to not know what’s going on and know their options. Delaying more is just being in denial that teen sex happens whether they get a sex ed class or not.
Our Church religious education actually has a class for 7-8th graders to promote abstinence before marriage (I know it’s not popular these days but someone has to advocate it). Anyway, sex ed class or not, I never saw any of the kids, surprised or unaware about what the topic was about. Just like they know full well what’s going on with - to quote my middle school son - “the nonsense of hot tub streams on Twitch”.
Point is promoting abstinence is not contradictory to having early enough sex ed. Like I put it to my daughters, I’d prefer you’d abstain but I’m not judging and I’m not in charge of your body so if you absolutely have to sin, please use protection. (and also if you do have a kid, you’re paying for it, not me).
I can’t say exactly what school districts may endorse it, but I would be surprised if there weren’t schools that an use an implicitly sex positive curriculum for sex ed. But we know for a fact there are teachers that put their personal spin on it (see below).
Check out @libsoftiktok on twitter for videos of teachers bragging to the world they are indoctrinating their preschool and elementary school students on the leftist viewpoints of sex and gender.
I get you. Those darn women that grow up disadvantaged, get an abortion, and then accept Jesus later in life. You have to watch out for them.
Then again, maybe if she’s a nun with darker skin, you’ll get confused and think she’s wearing a hijab and give her the benefit of the doubt. So I guess there’s still hope you won’t discriminate against Christian women.
Note that abstinence education is associated with a higher rate of oopses. They plan on not needing contraception, things get out of hand. And there’s also the issue of splash conceptions.
I haven’t watched it but sure it’s not false flag stuff?
Watch some.
As far as I can tell, they are real. Most of the teachers get doxxed. Some get fired. The days of parents not caring about the ideology of their kids’ teachers are over.
Oh, so my amendment = “men get all up in their business like that”, but the original:
is not??? It’s one of the reasons I proposed my change! Men discussing women’s issues and passing laws about them. Both versions are ridiculous, but the original puts an undue burden on women, while my amendment shifts the burden entirely on the men, which I think makes it more fair. The women don’t have to do anything at all.
That’s a really wierd and twisted (and rather baffling) way of looking at it. Knowing if you’re pregnant and sharing it with your male companion(s) is less invasive and more fair than knowing if you’re pregnant?
Constantly framing this as “men verses women” is a complete farce and an attempted deflection of the actual issue, which is quite clearly “women verses babies”. Either you are speaking for the women, or you are speaking for the baby. No one has to like it, but this burdon on women is a reality necessitated by biology, not something being arbitrarily imposed by men for their own amusement. It’s rather disgusting that you’d even try to imply as much.