Right to Contraception Under Attack

[Ramo]

What's worse is that this probably means less funding for contraception in the third world (not that the US isn't cutting that already).

Are these people idiots? Don't they realize that the world simply cannot continue to sustain the present rate of population growth?

And, of course, contraception is absolutely essential for the liberty of women in the thrid world. Thus, those against reproductive freedom in the Islamic world, are helping the terrorists.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo
those against reproductive freedom in the Islamic world, are helping the terrorists.

That's scary, good point.

[:) Smiley]

Not to mention that without contraception, there will be more of them.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm going to have to call BS che.

You have fun.

In the early 1990s, Time magazine had an article about how abortion was unavailable in 86% of U.S. counties. Basically, outside the large cities, it's almost impossible to get an abortion, not because it's illegal, but because anti-women's groups have bullied suburban and rural providers into no longer providing them. It may not be dejure abolition, but that really doesn't mater to the women who need them when they can't get them.

[MrFun]

Che -- that is somewhat parallel then to the disfranchisement of blacks after the 1880s -- the Constitution guaranteed the right to vote regardless of race, but the Southern states had dejure disfranchisement through literacy laws, understanding clause, and so forth.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In the early 1990s, Time magazine had an article about how abortion was unavailable in 86% of U.S. counties. Basically, outside the large cities, it's almost impossible to get an abortion, not because it's illegal, but because anti-women's groups have bullied suburban and rural providers into no longer providing them. It may not be dejure abolition, but that really doesn't mater to the women who need them when they can't get them.

Interesting...has this resulted in more problem children in those areas? Or do most people just travel to an area that does offer abortion?

[Az]

And, of course, contraception is absolutely essential for the liberty of women in the thrid world. Thus, those against reproductive freedom in the Islamic world, are helping the terrorists.

since when having kids in the Islamic world had anything to do with freedom?

[MrFun]

I think he meant that having the choice of when to conceive or to give birth is freedom that women in all parts of the world should be entitled to, and that Islamic terrorists want to restrict that freedom.

[Az]

I think he meant that having the choice of when to conceive or to give birth is freedom that women in all parts of the world should be entitled to,

I am standing by my point.

[Whaleboy]

So abortion is still legal, but they're trying to ban an abortifacient?

Either way to the measures. I don't think it's an anti-women thing though, since there are women and men on both sides of the debate, and not being able to get contraceptives harms men as well as women - it takes two to have a baby.

Whether or not there are women on both sides is largely irrelevant. We are dealing with a situation where policy is justified on a matter of faith, and some people are quite happy to blow themselves up on a question of faith, so advocating the restriction of their own freedom is no biggy. All indicative of the necessity of the separation of religion and state. Atheistic democracy is bad enough .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Interesting...has this resulted in more problem children in those areas? Or do most people just travel to an area that does offer abortion?

Travel costs money. So middle class and wealthy women can travel to a big city, even in a state that requires a consultation and then waiting period, and get their abortions. Poor women can't take that much time off work and drive across the state (twice) or stay in a cheap hotel. As to your original question, I can't answer that.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Travel costs money. So middle class and wealthy women can travel to a big city, even in a state that requires a consultation and then waiting period, and get their abortions. Poor women can't take that much time off work and drive across the state (twice) or stay in a cheap hotel.

That sucks because poor people who have more children wil only get poorer and they are basically producing more children who will get a bad start in life.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Travel costs money. So middle class and wealthy women can travel to a big city, even in a state that requires a consultation and then waiting period, and get their abortions. Poor women can't take that much time off work and drive across the state (twice) or stay in a cheap hotel. As to your original question, I can't answer that.

Good.

If people have money and are willing to pay for something, they are going to be able to get it. If you can afford to hire a hit man, you will be able to do it. But by criminalizing activites we can make them harder to accomplish.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Whether or not there are women on both sides is largely irrelevant. We are dealing with a situation where policy is justified on a matter of faith, and some people are quite happy to blow themselves up on a question of faith, so advocating the restriction of their own freedom is no biggy. All indicative of the necessity of the separation of religion and state.

All very true, but I doesn't change my point that anti-contraception legislation is not just anti-women.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You have fun.

Just as I thought. Pure BS fed hysteria. If you insist on lieing about a subject at least have the courtesy to do it in a manner that isn't so blatant.