NationStates Jolt Archive

I know I've been harping on this a lot lately, but that's because it's been in the news and because it's important to me, since I have a teenage daughter who will be sexually active sooner rather than later and I want her to have the full range of birth control options available to her.

It's been argued by me and many others on this site that there's a solid link between the anti-abortion forces and the desire to control how and when women have sex. One of the ways that they do so is by trying to control choice, not only in abortion (which they couch in "the fetus is a person" terms), but in the use of birth control. Some groups are open in their opposition to birth control (http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/03/20/anti_contraception/index.html). But even I didn't realize to what extent the anti-abortion crowd is linked to the anti-birth control movement,
until I read this little piece from Salon (http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/index.html?blog=/mwt/broadsheet/2006/03/23/editorials/index.html) that was dealing with a different subject--the lack of female voices on the nation's editorial pages. Here are the relevant paragraphs:
The further absence of women's advocates from the conversation means that broad factual distortions and questionable assumptions about our political life have flourished and become conventional wisdom. How many times in recent years have we heard calls for pro-choice advocates to work with pro-life ones to reduce abortion? I too thought it might be possible, until I read Cristina Page's recently published "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America," where she reports that "there is not one pro-life group in the United States that supports the use of birth control."

At best, such groups, like the National Right to Life Committee, take no position on the question. At worst, pro-life groups have been actively working to redescribe traditional means of birth control, such as the pill, as "abortifacients," and have been fighting state laws mandating insurance coverage for birth control by falsely saying they fund abortions.
This is all about controlling who has sex and when, and about continuing the oppression of women, because there was no greater technological ally in the women's rights movement than the birth control pill. The moment women could decide when they would become pregnant, they had an extraordinary amount of power that they'd never held before. The ability to get an abortion was just icing on the cake, because that took care of the situations where the pill didn't work.

So why does this matter to the USians on this board? To look at it pragmatically, if you're a sexually active woman, you ought to be nervous because your birth control options are under attack, especially the pill. If you're a sexually active male, you ought to be nervous because this means that you will potentially be trying to score with a group of women who either 1)aren't on birth control and may get pregnant (and you'll be on the hook for it) or 2) are hostile to men because men took away their birth control options--either way, that seriously limits the pool of sexually receptive females.

I'd like to think that the demographics are with the women in this one--at least two generations of women have grown to adulthood with the idea that they can achieve anything men have in the past, and that they have control over their sexuality and their reproductive cycles, and I seriously doubt that they'll give that up without a fight. I hope so, at least, for the sake of my daughter and the women of her generation.

Although my family's history of bloodclots prevents me from wanting to risk using the pill, I'm glad the nutjobs who oppose it aren't a political power here.

So why does this matter to the USians on this board? To look at it pragmatically, if you're a sexually active woman, you ought to be nervous because your birth control options are under attack, especially the pill. If you're a sexually active male, you ought to be nervous because this means that you will potentially be trying to score with a group of women who either 1)aren't on birth control and may get pregnant (and you'll be on the hook for it) or 2) are hostile to men because men took away their birth control options--either way, that seriously limits the pool of sexually receptive females.Not quite. US laws don't apply where I live :D

Not quite. US laws don't apply where I live :D
You'll come back someday. ;) You may be at the head of a "liberation force" but you'll come back someday.

You'll come back someday. ;) You may be at the head of a "liberation force" but you'll come back someday.Silly notion. It wouldn't be "back", since I've been born and raised outside the US. I have to explain that to a lot of Military folks I meet when they drop the word "back" around me... ;)

I'm probably heading over to the States for my semester abroad, but that's a bit iffy right now (and it would only be for half a year. I could live without sex for half a year, if need be :p)

I'm not in favour of 'lifestyle' abortions, ie abortions of convenience, as I've said many times on this forum. I am strongly in favour of birth control, however. To me, to be opposed to both is something of a contradictuary absurdity; if more woman (and men) use birth control as effectively as possible, then the need for lifestyle abortions is drastically reduced.

For me, the abortion issue is nothing to do with the sexual activities of the parents; however much you may disagree with me, I simply cannot accept that a newly created and growing life is not a life. I am not promoting babies at every opportunity; simply that when a life has already been created, it shouldn't be destroyed. As such, birth control is, in my mind, a perfect way of balancing the sexual desires and activities of people with responsibility regarding new life.

I'm a Catholic so I should be going on and on about how the pill should be illegal but as far as I'm concerned women should have the right to use it. I don't sleep around but if I am in a sexual relationship with somebody I think I'd be a lot more secure knowing she was on the pill.

I'm not in favour of 'lifestyle' abortions, ie abortions of convenience, as I've said many times on this forum. I am strongly in favour of birth control, however. To me, to be opposed to both is something of a contradictuary absurdity; if more woman (and men) use birth control as effectively as possible, then the need for lifestyle abortions is drastically reduced.

Here's the thing, though--the only way to ensure that you do away with "abortions of convenience" (which are never convenient, mind you) is to do away with abortions altogether, because there will always be doctors willing to squeeze patients through whatever loophole is available to give them the care the patient desires. Personally, I'm willing to keep the freedom as open as possible, and allow karma or fate or God or whatever handle the cosmic side of it.

Here's the thing, though--the only way to ensure that you do away with "abortions of convenience" (which are never convenient, mind you) is to do away with abortions altogether, because there will always be doctors willing to squeeze patients through whatever loophole is available to give them the care the patient desires. Personally, I'm willing to keep the freedom as open as possible, and allow karma or fate or God or whatever handle the cosmic side of it.
I'm not living in cloud cuckoo land - what good would banning abortion altogether do? It would mean a lot of people with genuine cause for an abortion would go through unnecessary suffering, while, like you say, those desperate for one will still find a way, whether it be a friendly doctor or a backstreet clinic with a coathanger.

My view on abortions is, really, what I would like in an ideal world. But the world is not ideal; far from it. Indeed, I would go so far as to say I know I would be a total hypocrite myself; my girlfriend is on birth control, but should something ever happen, would I want an abortion at this point in out lives? You betcha.

I'm willing to stand up for what I believe should be the case, were we all perfect, but I know that it is ultimately just a dream; a hypothetical defence of an incredibly difficult issue.

I'm not living in cloud cuckoo land - what good would banning abortion altogether do? It would mean a lot of people with genuine cause for an abortion would go through unnecessary suffering, while, like you say, those desperate for one will still find a way, whether it be a friendly doctor or a backstreet clinic with a coathanger.

My view on abortions is, really, what I would like in an ideal world. But the world is not ideal; far from it. Indeed, I would go so far as to say I know I would be a total hypocrite myself; my girlfriend is on birth control, but should something ever happen, would I want an abortion at this point in out lives? You betcha.

I'm willing to stand up for what I believe should be the case, were we all perfect, but I know that it is ultimately just a dream; a hypothetical defence of an incredibly difficult issue.
I appreciate that ideal, honestly. I don't quite agree with it, since I'm very much a believer in the notion that if there's some higher power, it will take care of dishing out whatever retribution needs to be dished out and so I don't worry about it. I wish more people were honest about it the way you are.

...>
If you're a sexually active male, you ought to be nervous because this means that you will potentially be trying to score with a group of women who either 1)aren't on birth control and may get pregnant (and you'll be on the hook for it) or 2) are hostile to men because men took away their birth control options--either way, that seriously limits the pool of sexually receptive females.
...

So in the end, what you are saying is that the social implementation of birth control and the modern-day abortion choice, are really male sponsored resolutions to pregnancy problems, developed and supported by males simply to increase the pool of women that will have one night stands with them, giving them ammunition against the arguments for reasons to say no? Interesting.

Im atheist-Pro-Life


...
Errm
Pro-life POST actual pregnancy.
Before hand im real liberal.

Condoms
The Pill
(Double dutch 99.999% rate.)
The Coil
The Needle (Injections)
Withdrawel method. (ONLY USE IF ALSO USING CONDOM)
ect ect ect

And not all pro-life groups believe that B.C. should be outlawed. I certainly don't.

I'm prolife, so to speak, but I couldn't really care less if people use contraception.

I wish I could say I'm surprised but I can't.

So in the end, what you are saying is that the social implementation of birth control and the modern-day abortion choice, are really male sponsored resolutions to pregnancy problems, developed and supported by males simply to increase the pool of women that will have one night stands with them, giving them ammunition against the arguments for reasons to say no? Interesting.
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is the pill, and by extension, the right to control one's pregnancy, were two major factors in the rise of women's rights. The piece you quoted was my way of stating why men who want to enjoy the sexual freedoms that the pill has brought ought to be worried about the attempt by many in the anti-abortion movement to put women back into the role of breeders, to make them barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, as it were.

And not all pro-life groups believe that B.C. should be outlawed. I certainly don't.
But none of them--and by them, I'm referring to the organizations, not you personally--advocate for birth control. The best you get is a non-commital "meh" from one group. Shouldn't people who want to reduce abortions be actively lobbying to reduce unwanted pregnancies by making birth control and sex-ed more available? Maybe you could start up a group that makes the case.

So in the end, what you are saying is that the social implementation of birth control and the modern-day abortion choice, are really male sponsored resolutions to pregnancy problems, developed and supported by males simply to increase the pool of women that will have one night stands with them, giving them ammunition against the arguments for reasons to say no? Interesting.
lol

no he is saying that there are downsides for men in restricting birth control and abortion. its not "none of men's business" no matter how often we say "her body her choice". her choice, especially when restricted by rules against bc and abortion, have immense impact on the men she is (or is not) involved with.

the importance they hold for women is obvious.

But none of them--and by them, I'm referring to the organizations, not you personally--advocate for birth control.

Now there you do have a distinct point that I will willingly give to you.

The best you get is a non-commital "meh" from one group. Shouldn't people who want to reduce abortions be actively lobbying to reduce unwanted pregnancies by making birth control and sex-ed more available? Maybe you could start up a group that makes the case.

Maybe I should but alas, I'm really busy.

I'm pro-choice, but I certainly understand the point of pro-lifers who want to illegalize abortion. They believe that a child gains a soul at the moment of conception. To them -- a small collection of cells that hasn't even gained differentiation yet, is a human being.

I..disagree. But I certainly can't support my claim that a person gains the intangible quality we call a 'soul' when the frontal cortex forms with actual evidence, so all I can do is vote my conscience and allow them to vote theirs.

When it comes to birth control though, I completely don't understand. All I can think of is, they believe they have a right to tell people whether or not to have sex, and how to have it. Which they have absolutely no right to do.

The morning after pill is a gray area. I don't know the exact timeline, but if the sperm has already joined the egg, they believe a soul has been created. But, at that point, a baby is just, to my knowledge (Correct me if I'm wrong), an undifferentiated grouping of cells.

I agree completely. I am sick and tired of these anti-pill nuts. I can almost understand being against abortion (even though I actually can't) but it is really incomprehensible to oppose the pill too.

NO! NOT THIS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

I'm willing to stand up for what I believe should be the case, were we all perfect, but I know that it is ultimately just a dream; a hypothetical defence of an incredibly difficult issue.
Abortion is an easy issue. It has no adverse effects on society as a whole. I don't know if it's murder and frankly I don't care. I am never going to be murdered by abortion, and neither will anyone else out there.

So in the end, what you are saying is that the social implementation of birth control and the modern-day abortion choice, are really male sponsored resolutions to pregnancy problems, developed and supported by males simply to increase the pool of women that will have one night stands with them, giving them ammunition against the arguments for reasons to say no? Interesting.
No. We're in favour of female sexual liberation, which is the freedom to say yes or no. It is also the freedom to be sexually assertive, and not waiting for a man to approach her if she wants him.

So yes I think that female sexual emancipation is in the best interests of both women and men.

NO! NOT THIS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-smiley snip-
You know, no one forces you to click on the thread.

You know, no one forces you to click on the thread.

I know.

But there's only so many times you can go the dizzying rounds. It's very tiresome.

I can't believe you guys never get sick of hearing the same arguments over and over.

And not all pro-life groups believe that B.C. should be outlawed. I certainly don't.
Since when are you a "group"?

Since when are you a "group"?

Since I made myself a member of my own little group that just has me in it :D

Well most of the problem seems to be with the radical Catholics, who think sex is a naughty, naughty, thing and that it should ONLY be used to have kids, therefore to do it for enjoyment without risk of kids, (AKA Birth Control) Is wrong, you must have sex with your wife so she'll have kids and stay home as your slave like a good little woman. Hey where have I heard that, Oh yeah Sharia law. Nice to know that extremist Christians and Extremist Musilims think alike.