|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make this case by using statistics and real life examples of the untied states.
but the right never paid attention in school to begin with and they don't belive in science anyway.
|
On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler +
On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions.
|
On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler + On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions.
Is the implication here that the majority of abortions are pre-high/middle school?...
|
On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler + On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions.
I would like to see the statistics you're citing. I also want to point out that sex ed was not the only thing mentioned in Jimmi's post, but also increased access to birth control. I tend to think both would substantially increase the feeling of empowerment among people with a uterus, when it comes to making their own healthcare decisions.
|
|
|
Comprehensive sex education without a doubt reduces abortions as JimmiC argues. Sex education reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies which results in fewer abortions which also has other important public health benefits (e.g., reduction in STIs, safer sex).
From HHS:
The declines in national teen pregnancy rates have been reflected in declines in birth rates as well as abortion rates. In 2017, the majority—an estimated 58 percent—of pregnancies to adolescent females ages 15-17 ended in a birth and 28 percent ended in an abortion; for teens ages 18-19, 62 percent of pregnancies ended in a birth and 23 percent ended in an abortion. The abortion rates for ages 15-17 and 18-19 are at their lowest since abortion was legalized in 1973 and are 88 and 79 percent lower than their 1988 peaks, respectively.3 In 2011 (the most recent year data are available), 75 percent of teen pregnancies were unintended (pregnancies that were unwanted entirely or at the time they occurred).
From a peer reviewed study:
The effect of presenting inadequate or incorrect information to teenagers regarding sex and pregnancy and STD protection is long-lasting as uneducated teens grow into uneducated adults: almost half of all pregnancies in the U.S. were unplanned in 2001 [38]. Of these three million unplanned pregnancies, ∼1.4 million resulted in live births, ∼1.3 million ended in abortion, and over 400,000 ended in a miscarriage [36], [37] at a financial cost (direct medical costs only) of ∼$5 billion in 2002 [39].
Combine that with increased access to birth control and even more abortions can be reduced.
A landmark report from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment two years ago credited IUDs, which are T-shaped pieces of plastic inserted into the uterus, for a major decrease in unwanted pregnancies among teenagers. The birth rate for girls ages 15 to 19 in Colorado dropped by more than half in an eight-year period, falling 59% from 2009 to 2017. The abortion rate among Colorado teens fell by 60% during those eight years.
States that have more comprehensive sex education and easier/greater access to birth control have some of the lowest teen birthrates and teen abortion rates as well.
Birth rates for females ages 15-19 by state, 2020
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler + On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions.
Not only are you wrong with regards to sex education, but you've conveniently ignored the fact that contraception can easily be 95-99% effective at preventing pregnancy, which means an enormous amount of abortions would be prevented.
|
On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler + On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions.
What age range do you think is influenced by education?
Because it is all of the ages past the point you have had the education. If i learn to write letters in 1st grade, i am influenced by that from the age of 6 to the age i die. That is how education works. It stays with you.
Unrelated, i like to think about the question "What would happen if men were the ones getting pregnant? Especially old men?" My guess is if that were the case, it would not take long for abortion to be legally available for everyone, probably free.
|
|
|
Uhm, what should the Dems have done? It's not like they are doing the attacking.
The republicans never saw Abortion/Roe vs Wade as a settled issue and would have attacked it the first chance they got no matter what?
|
Presumably write protection for it explicitly into law through the legislature. Think that ship has sailed though until some less partisan era in the future.
|
On May 04 2022 14:27 plasmidghost wrote:
I don't really post here because I am far too high-strung for political debate, but it's just so unbelievably frustrating that the trans community has been trying to tell the Dems for years that attacks on our bodily autonomy were going to escalate into attacks on reproductive rights, contraception, and the like, but we weren't listened to. Voting won't help us, so I encourage y'all to get in touch with local reproductive rights orgs and communities and support one another however y'all can
I hear ya. Potentially pregnant people are yet another sacrificial population for the supposedly eminently sensible centrists to extort votes from by threatening them with losing even more rights (and/or lives) even faster.
|
On May 04 2022 14:27 plasmidghost wrote:
I don't really post here because I am far too high-strung for political debate, but it's just so unbelievably frustrating that the trans community has been trying to tell the Dems for years that attacks on our bodily autonomy were going to escalate into attacks on reproductive rights, contraception, and the like, but we weren't listened to. Voting won't help us, so I encourage y'all to get in touch with local reproductive rights orgs and communities and support one another however y'all can
By all means do all of that.
But I seriously don't get the conclusion that voting does not help.
You are in this position because Republicans want to take away your rights. They are able to do that because not enough people got off their asses to vote Clinton in 2016 or do you think the SC would look like this if Trump hadn't won? Probably for similar reasons to yours.
So essentially you vote dem are disappointed that they cannot get anything done, stop voting dem leading to them not being able to do anything and so on. That does not sound very smart to me. Especially when the alternative is the party that actively wants to harm you.
If I were you and bound to the US I would try to push progressive candidates in primaries and use the elections to try and prevent Republicans. The choice to pack up and leave to Belgium is probably even better though (for yourself at least).
|
On May 04 2022 18:28 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 14:27 plasmidghost wrote:
I don't really post here because I am far too high-strung for political debate, but it's just so unbelievably frustrating that the trans community has been trying to tell the Dems for years that attacks on our bodily autonomy were going to escalate into attacks on reproductive rights, contraception, and the like, but we weren't listened to. Voting won't help us, so I encourage y'all to get in touch with local reproductive rights orgs and communities and support one another however y'all can By all means do all of that. But I seriously don't get the conclusion that voting does not help. You are in this position because Republicans want to take away your rights. They are able to do that because not enough people got off their asses to vote Clinton in 2016 or do you think the SC would look like this if Trump hadn't won? Probably for similar reasons to yours. So essentially you vote dem are disappointed that they cannot get anything done, stop voting dem leading to them not being able to do anything and so on. That does not sound very smart to me. Especially when the alternative is the party that actively wants to harm you. If I were you and bound to the US I would try to push progressive candidates in primaries and use the elections to try and prevent Republicans. The choice to pack up and leave to Belgium is probably even better though (for yourself at least).
The problem is that the US system sucks donkey balls. You can only vote for two parties, and if you are sane, you can only vote for one party. It is frustrating if the only party you can vote for is totally lackluster, never gets anything done, and the things it gets done are kind of half-assed too.
In a reasonable system, you would have more choices than "vote democrat" and "accept republican bigoted fascism". Sadly, in the US, that choice does not exist. So yes, people should vote democrat, but they should also be pissed off at the democrats and at the system which leaves them no choice but one they are not really happy with.
|
On May 04 2022 13:35 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler + On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions. What age range do you think is influenced by education? Because it is all of the ages past the point you have had the education. If i learn to write letters in 1st grade, i am influenced by that from the age of 6 to the age i die. That is how education works. It stays with you. Unrelated, i like to think about the question "What would happen if men were the ones getting pregnant? Especially old men?" My guess is if that were the case, it would not take long for abortion to be legally available for everyone, probably free.
it would not take long for abortion to be legally available for everyone, probably free.
This is an interesting thought experiment and i think you are right with this.
My own position is similar to a poster on the previous page. I do think abortion is wrong but i have accepted that it is a complicated issue that everyone should decide upon for themselves.
That roe would get overturned i would never have thought but apearently here we are. For the democrats this is a disaster.
The democrats have mostly profiled themselves on beeing progressive when it comes to these issues,and not so much as a traditional working class party. (There is conservative neo-liberals and there is progressive neo-liberals and thats the only 2 options there are in the USA. though in all fairnes this isnt all that different in europe).
And to then lose on such a big issue,after the whole ordeal with the nomination of Obama,s candidate,must be a huge disapointment for many voters because these type of issues are i guess one of the main reasons to vote democratic in the first place.
Voters will now think,what is the democratic party good for if they cant even defend this. Like they might think obama care and free healthcare was a long shot to begin with. It hurts not getting it through but it was probably expected.
This is not expected,which makes it a sort of existential thread to the democratic party.
I saw analists on tv mention that this is beneficial for the democratic party when it comes to upcoming elections. It would be an issue to mobilize the base. This i see different,i think this issue is not beneficial for the democratic party and beneficial for the republican party.
The republican party now has the momentum. The conservatives will want to go further and feel this is their change to do so. The succes will mobilize the conservative republican base while at the same time beeing a huge disapointment for the democrats. The democrats have no real hope of undoing this verdict even if they would win the election (though it would be an important signal). It could very well be that many democrats stay home out of disapointment of losing on such a core issue.
Another quote (dont know how to quote properly,my appologies).
So essentially you vote dem are disappointed that they cannot get anything done, stop voting dem leading to them not being able to do anything and so on. That does not sound very smart to me. Especially when the alternative is the party that actively wants to harm you.
This is an important aspect. This is the opinion i have held for a long time. Its always better to chose the lesser of two evils.
This goes for most voters i guess but the reality is that there is a breaking point.There is a point at which the lesser of two evils is no longer good enough. There is a point at which most voters will stop making rational decissions.
This point,where the lesser of two evils is no longer good enough, has already been reached for the far left part of the spectrum. Represented on this forum by posters like Green Horizons.
And now with Roe overturned it might be that this will now go for a bigger part of the potential democratic base.
Will have to see how it goes in the midterms but i dont see this development as beeing positive for the democrats,not even the slightest.
|
I certainly have a hard time seeing a good spin on this for Democrats.
"Vote for us to protect Roe v Wade!" doesnt work to energize voters since Roe v Wade is basically dead in the water already
Their best case scenario is that this doesn't energize Republicans, but I get the feeling Republicans are going to see this and make a push for more and more, and the more they do the more their base will get fired up and it'll snowball into longer term wins.
|
Northern Ireland27344 Posts
I know I rarely, rarely draw Brexit parallels but I think there’s some similarities in complacency on one side, and a more motivated and emotionally invested minority position winning the day.
Granted I thought Brexit was emminently possible, where actually striking down Roe would be something the GOP would make political hay rhetorically on but never actually do.
Could it be galvanising and jot people out of complacency? I don’t know, I don’t think it’s impossible, I also don’t think it’s impossible that it is held up as a Dem failure for those who feel strongly on it and they are punished at the polls.
And if Roe v Wade is repealed as federal law, well those who feel really strongly on this specific issue have more incentive to vote in those state or even local elections.
|
On May 04 2022 18:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 18:28 justanothertownie wrote:On May 04 2022 14:27 plasmidghost wrote:
I don't really post here because I am far too high-strung for political debate, but it's just so unbelievably frustrating that the trans community has been trying to tell the Dems for years that attacks on our bodily autonomy were going to escalate into attacks on reproductive rights, contraception, and the like, but we weren't listened to. Voting won't help us, so I encourage y'all to get in touch with local reproductive rights orgs and communities and support one another however y'all can By all means do all of that. But I seriously don't get the conclusion that voting does not help. You are in this position because Republicans want to take away your rights. They are able to do that because not enough people got off their asses to vote Clinton in 2016 or do you think the SC would look like this if Trump hadn't won? Probably for similar reasons to yours. So essentially you vote dem are disappointed that they cannot get anything done, stop voting dem leading to them not being able to do anything and so on. That does not sound very smart to me. Especially when the alternative is the party that actively wants to harm you. If I were you and bound to the US I would try to push progressive candidates in primaries and use the elections to try and prevent Republicans. The choice to pack up and leave to Belgium is probably even better though (for yourself at least). The problem is that the US system sucks donkey balls. You can only vote for two parties, and if you are sane, you can only vote for one party. It is frustrating if the only party you can vote for is totally lackluster, never gets anything done, and the things it gets done are kind of half-assed too. In a reasonable system, you would have more choices than "vote democrat" and "accept republican bigoted fascism". Sadly, in the US, that choice does not exist. So yes, people should vote democrat, but they should also be pissed off at the democrats and at the system which leaves them no choice but one they are not really happy with.
I know. No disagreement here.
|
Northern Ireland27344 Posts
On May 04 2022 13:35 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler + On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions. What age range do you think is influenced by education? Because it is all of the ages past the point you have had the education. If i learn to write letters in 1st grade, i am influenced by that from the age of 6 to the age i die. That is how education works. It stays with you. Unrelated, i like to think about the question "What would happen if men were the ones getting pregnant? Especially old men?" My guess is if that were the case, it would not take long for abortion to be legally available for everyone, probably free.
It’s a simplistic way to look at it that also happens to be completely true IMO.
It’s why the ‘pro-life’ position, which I don’t have a huge problem with as an abstract moral position, ends up being effectively an anti-woman position in implementation.
Will the government pay for these unwanted children to be raised in a way that doesn’t hinder their later chances? Well no, but in fairness that’s not a giant departure from the sensibilities of many conservatives in general on the state’s role.
Personal responsibility, family values etc are things that conservatives preach, and many practice.
On a legislative, or even rhetorical level where is the ‘it takes two to tango if you create a life you better step up’?
If the state isn’t the body to do it, surely more robust mechanisms to force errant fathers into contribution should be a major talking point, and in a wider sense it should be culturally instilled anyway.
Such considerations are really conspicuous by their absence, and that is rather telling.
|
On May 04 2022 12:06 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler + On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions. I would like to see the statistics you're citing. I also want to point out that sex ed was not the only thing mentioned in Jimmi's post, but also increased access to birth control. I tend to think both would substantially increase the feeling of empowerment among people with a uterus, when it comes to making their own healthcare decisions.
CDC 2019 Abortion. 0-19 accounted for 8.8% of total abortions. According to www.guttmacher.org about half of adolescents received the minimum standard of sex ed, with over 90% receiving instruction on STIs.
On May 04 2022 12:12 Dknight wrote:
Comprehensive sex education without a doubt reduces abortions as JimmiC argues. Sex education reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies which results in fewer abortions which also has other important public health benefits (e.g., reduction in STIs, safer sex).
That is not what JimmiC argues. Reread what he wrote and my objection. It's pretty straight forward.
On May 04 2022 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler + On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions. Not only are you wrong with regards to sex education, but you've conveniently ignored the fact that contraception can easily be 95-99% effective at preventing pregnancy, which means an enormous amount of abortions would be prevented.
Ignoring your comment about sex ed, which I didn't expand on beyond that it's effectiveness would not change that the overall numbers are too small to accomplish what he purports, let's get to contraception. It is readily available to the VASSSST majority looking to use it. 91% of abortions are in the 20 and above age range, all of which have the ability to get contraception.
On May 04 2022 13:35 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler + On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions. What age range do you think is influenced by education? Because it is all of the ages past the point you have had the education. If i learn to write letters in 1st grade, i am influenced by that from the age of 6 to the age i die. That is how education works. It stays with you. Unrelated, i like to think about the question "What would happen if men were the ones getting pregnant? Especially old men?" My guess is if that were the case, it would not take long for abortion to be legally available for everyone, probably free.
If you are 20 years and above and have no additional information gained in regards to sex and protection since you learned about it for a month in health class for 45 mins a day in 9th grade, I assume you went into a coma immediately after and have just come out of it. Much like what you learned in 1st grade was not the end of your education in those subjects. I don't know why people need others to defy all reasonable logic to make a case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/cdc-teen-birth-rates-2020-by-state-map-full_0.png)
