Do rightwingers despise women?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That took, like, 2 minutes to find... you lazy ass .

[DinoDoc]

So far Wyoming is in the lead.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The state does intrude when it has compelling public interest. The protection of children from abuse is one such compelling public interest. Therefore, privacy is not really the issue here.

So when exactly does a fetus become a child?

It must be at the time when the the new life is capable of surviving in the hostile environment outside the womb.

I would put it another way. The state must never intrude. However the community must seek to help each individual according to his or her needs. A woman seeking an abortion is in danger of serious distress and a possible death if proper means are not employed in providing for adequate information, professional help and sanitary conditions.

The question discussed here is if it is ethical to ACTIVELY use the means of the state to counter a policy which provides the woman with what she needs. And that in foreign countries were the citizenship is not represented.

The rallying cry of third world women should be 'no anti-abortion policy without representation´.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So far Wyoming is in the lead.

It wasn't a country, so it loses on the technicality .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That took, like, 2 minutes to find... you lazy ass .

Piss off!

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
TD -

You don't have to be monastic to understand that it's generally bad for a young, unmarried woman to start having children before leaving high school/college. And if "sex education" has been so wonderful, we would see a decline in out of wedlock birth rates, not a massive increase.

Were do you get these statitistics you are refering to? I would be interested to see them. You are making the point that all 'out-of wedlock' pregnancies are fundementally unwanted. Are there not many people who willingly choose to have children outside wedlock? After all the family as we know it today /the nuclear family) is now largely a means to and end in surviving in a capitalist society.

Secondly you have made the unsubstantiated case that sex education has so far been 'wonderful'. That is not neccesarily true. I would make the suggestion that there are numerous reasons that young women are getting pregnant, which are far more complex than their incapility of staying abstanent.

Viable or not, telling young people how to have sex and not focusing on what can happen if they adopt a more promiscuous lifestyle is a recipe for disaster.

Sex education is not about 'telling young people to have sex' I am sure that young people can generally find out to do that by themselves. Sex education is about providing the information on how to protect themselves against STD and unwanted pregnacies.

To say that sex education will mean 'promiscious behavior' while the whole society through the mass media is constantly ramming home a message that is based on sex is hypocritical. Consumer goods are sold through sex.

If the abstinance message convinces some people to show some restraint, fewer people would be exposed to STD's.

Controlling the sex urge is as difficult as getting the trains to run on time. Providing information on how to protct yourself is safer, more efficient and prevents a nanny state. If the state tells you 'DO NOT HAVE SEX', that is much more intrusive than saying 'please have sex, but remember to protect yourself.' In fact tge latter is not intrusive at all.

If you say it won't convince anyone, you have to explain the rise in out of wedlock birth rates accompanying "sex education" and the elimination or reduction of the abstinance message.

I was not aware that there is a direct co-relation between sex education and 'out of wedlock' birth rates.
How can this possibly be substantiated anyway?

Would that include a message about abstinance? Are you a parent? Any children in the 13-19 age range? Do you tell them to run around having sex all they want as long as they use contraception? I'm not a social conservative but some of their views are valid...

The state has no right to tell people what their parents should tell their children. Next thing you know that parents are not allowed to tell them that racism is bad.

[Berzerker]

TD -

Were do you get these statitistics you are refering to? I would be interested to see them. You are making the point that all 'out-of wedlock' pregnancies are fundementally unwanted.

Where did I say they were unwanted? Out of wedlock births range from ~30-70% depending on the race with whites around 30 and blacks around 70. Those numbers are much higher than 40-100 years ago.

Are there not many people who willingly choose to have children outside wedlock?

Some do, most don't I suspect. If you were right, we wouldn't see so many abortions every year.

Secondly you have made the unsubstantiated case that sex education has so far been 'wonderful'.

If the goal was to reduce unwanted pregnancy and out of wedlock births, I wouldn't call it a success. But I blame the welfare state for much of this problem too.

That is not neccesarily true. I would make the suggestion that there are numerous reasons that young women are getting pregnant, which are far more complex than their incapility of staying abstanent.

Complex or not, this "inability" to refrain from getting pregnant has not been enhanced by sex education. Therefore, some people believe re-introducing a stigma and teaching abstinance might help, i.e., a return to more traditional approaches.

[Tripledoc]

Berzerker.

I need to read up on sex education in the US.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So far Wyoming is in the lead.

It wasn't a country, so it loses on the technicality .

If we're listing New Zealand and Finland, Wyoming counts.

[Berzerker]

TD -

Sex education is not about 'telling young people to have sex' I am sure that young people can generally find out to do that by themselves.

I didn't say it was.

Sex education is about providing the information on how to protect themselves against STD and unwanted pregnacies.

Where is the proof of success?

To say that sex education will mean 'promiscious behavior' while the whole society through the mass media is constantly ramming home a message that is based on sex is hypocritical. Consumer goods are sold through sex.

I didn't say it means promiscuous sex, I said it doesn't discourage promiscuity and teen sex enough. And you think the social conservatives behind the push for abstinance like the sexual messages being sent by the mass media? They don't, so they aren't guilty of hypocrisy.

Controlling the sex urge is as difficult as getting the trains to run on time. Providing information on how to protct yourself is safer, more efficient and prevents a nanny state.

Prevents a nanny state? Where did this happen?

If the state tells you 'DO NOT HAVE SEX', that is much more intrusive than saying 'please have sex, but remember to protect yourself.' In fact tge latter is not intrusive at all.

A Message is not intrusive unless it is backed up with a law prohibiting the behavior.

I was not aware that there is a direct co-relation between sex education and 'out of wedlock' birth rates.
How can this possibly be substantiated anyway?

Reducing the effectiveness of the stigmas once attached to out of wedlock births and pre-marital sex. Sure there are other factors, but they too are a result of liberal policies like welfare - effectively paying women to have babies and inducing the men to leave the mothers of their children.

The state has no right to tell people what their parents should tell their children. Next thing you know that parents are not allowed to tell them that racism is bad.

Where did I say the state should tell parents what to teach their children? Would you want the state to tell parents to refrain from teaching their children that racism is good? You consistently avoid answering my questions, would you tell your teens to run around having sex as long as they used contraceptives? Would you *gasp* try to teach them to abstain until they can afford the consequences of pregancy in case contraceptives fail?

[RGBVideo]

Wyoming Territory 1869

New Zealand, 1893.

Women were allowed to vote, but they weren't allowed to vote to women, which was the point which Chegits brought up. Learn to read.

[Tripledoc]

Here is what a study on sex education in America says, amongst other things.

Source

The succes of the abstinence movement.

Advocates of abstinence have had some success. Federal funds are now being made available for abstinence programs; in his State of the Union address President Bush called for an increase in the funding. And in spite of the fact that only 15 percent of Americans say they want abstinence-only sex education in the schools, 30 percent of the the principals of public middle schools and high schools where sex education is taught report that their schools teach abstinence-only. Forty-seven percent of their schools taught abstinence-plus, while 20 percent taught that making responsible decisions about sex was more important than abstinence.

What the public thinks of how authoritarian the state should be.

Respondents were asked to choose which of two statements was closer to their belief: (1) "When it comes to sex, teenagers need to have limits set; they must be told what is acceptable and what is not." Or (2) "ultimately teenagers need to make their own decisions, so their education needs to be more in the form of providing information and guidance." Forty-seven percent selected the first statement; 51 percent selected the second.

Now to my mind it is to provide the public in a democratic society with information it does not want, when Bush is pushing for an authoritarian abstinence policy. Why would he do that? It IS authoritarian. it is not totalitarian, because it is as of yet still legal to have sex before marriage. It DOES stigmatize women.

Read a report by Planned Parenthood on Bush's War on Women here

It is a long tangled list of various Bush initiatives to curb Women's rights worldwide.

The most atrocious initiative amongst them is the socalled gag rule. This means that countries that allows abortion will have foreign aid cut. Globally, more than 75,000 women die each year due to complications related to unsafe abortion. In the time between when Reagan intruduced the gag rule in 1984 and when Clinton killed it in 1993, NO decline in abortions was achieved.

But there is more. The present initiatives resemble the initial deploymnet of forces before the final push. The US courts are being packed with anti-abortionists. Funding is being slashed.

Now if there is no evidence that abortion will go down if funding is slashed why bother introducing anti-abortionist policies in the first place. On the contrary it will endanger the lives of more women.

Posted by Berzerker

And you think the social conservatives behind the push for abstinance like the sexual messages being sent by the mass media? They don't, so they aren't guilty of hypocrisy.

This is not a question if they like it or not. I would venture out on a limb and say that there has been NO initiative by the Bush administration to curb the flood of sexual messaging coming through the television. The FCC has even allowed people to say the F-word on televison now. Of course it can only be said when there is no sexual connotation to be made from it. WTF!
And apparently it has now become all the rage to show private body parts on prime time televison. (Janet Jackson)

[blackice]

Where is the proof of success?

Well in Canada as I posted hummm early last year, ok there it is....Heh it means squat same as before no impact at all. Dang and we pay for that, who set these goals and why do we keep paying for nothing?

How do I get a job like that?
Or better said how do I stop paying for the flakes...
Dictatorial democracy we really need to see it as it is....

lol

[Berzerker]

TD - according to your link:

7% reject sex education completely
15% want abstinence only
46% want "abstinence-plus"
36% don't want abstinence to be the highest priority

What's the problem (aside from the fuzzy math)?

What the public thinks of how authoritarian the state should be.

Why is (1) "authoritarian" and not (2)? Are the 47% demanding that it be made illegal for minors to have sex?

Now to my mind it is to provide the public in a democratic society with information it does not want, when Bush is pushing for an authoritarian abstinence policy. Why would he do that? It IS authoritarian. it is not totalitarian, because it is as of yet still legal to have sex before marriage. It DOES stigmatize women.

And you think Bush wants to make it illegal? He wants more money spent on abstinence, so what? He isn't eliminating the money for all the other sex education programs.

Read a report by Planned Parenthood on Bush's War on Women here

It is a long tangled list of various Bush initiatives to curb Women's rights worldwide.

The most atrocious initiative amongst them is the socalled gag rule. This means that countries that allows abortion will have foreign aid cut. Globally, more than 75,000 women die each year due to complications related to unsafe abortion. In the time between when Reagan intruduced the gag rule in 1984 and when Clinton killed it in 1993, NO decline in abortions was achieved.

So we're back to blaming people who don't want to pay for abortions around the world? I thought you said I was not responsible if I'm not involved with abortions or pregancies in other countries. You talk about authoritarianism and you want to force us to pay for abortions around the world? Btw, how many abortions every year worldwide? 10 millions? 20? 40? Strange, all these human beings, roughly half of them being female, don't figure into Planned Parenthood's concerns... Nope, it's the 75,000 women who die from unsafe abortions. Well, by definition abortion is unsafe and any death from that operation can be called unsafe, so how may women die every year from safe abortions?

But there is more. The present initiatives resemble the initial deploymnet of forces before the final push. The US courts are being packed with anti-abortionists. Funding is being slashed.

GOOD! While I'm hardly an ardent pro-lifer I do understand that those who are HATE the fact they are paying for abortions and it has little to do with taxes but the notion that they are helping to kill human beings. As Thomas Jefferson said, it is tyranny to compel a man to fund ideas he finds abhorent. That principle is in play here...

Now if there is no evidence that abortion will go down if funding is slashed why bother introducing anti-abortionist policies in the first place. On the contrary it will endanger the lives of more women.

Then who is paying for these abortions if the taxpayers are let off the hook? How can Planned Parenthood offer an "if" in that assertion "if" we can't see the results before reaching a conclusion? You can't reverse decades of liberalism with a cut in abortion funding or even an increase in abstinence programs. It'll take time to see results, and frankly, I think it's like trying to hold back the tide...

This is not a question if they like it or not.

It is if you're going to accuse them of hypocrisy.

I would venture out on a limb and say that there has been NO initiative by the Bush administration to curb the flood of sexual messaging coming through the television. The FCC has even allowed people to say the F-word on televison now.

What do you expect? The left would scream bloody murder and so would a bunch on the right. People all across the spectrum get ancy whenever someone starts threatening free speech and I'm not even sure Bush wants to suppress the proliferation of sexual messages since that would waste political capital...

And apparently it has now become all the rage to show private body parts on prime time televison. (Janet Jackson)

The FCC is going after that issue, are you blaming Bush for that too?

[Bereta_Eder]

The question should be do women despise right wingers.