|
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 05 2022 01:43 JimmiC wrote:
It probably should also be pointed out that my proposed "solution" will have the benefit of reducing overall unwanted pregnancies, which lead to all sorts of issues for the people directly involved (most notably the children) as well as society as a whole.
That's definitely an additional bonus, being proactive and safe during sex, rather than not being educated or using protection and then just having to deal with an abortion ban after already becoming pregnant.
|
On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion.
How many people in a state that bans abortion are even going to be able to be known to have an abortion anyways? How does one even get data when a typical punishment for admitting the crime is often comparable to murder charges? I know I’d sure as fuck never admit having an abortion to anything that even seems like it might collect data. I don’t even like to admit to having depression on forms, and depression isn’t something that’ll get me sent to prison, lol.
|
On May 05 2022 01:56 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion. How many people in a state that bans abortion are even going to be able to be known to have an abortion anyways? How does one even get data when a typical punishment for admitting the crime is often comparable to murder charges? I know I’d sure as fuck never admit having an abortion to anything that even seems like it might collect data. I don’t even like to admit to having depression on forms, and depression isn’t something that’ll get me sent to prison, lol.
That's a fair point. Perhaps they're surveyed anonymously, or responding that they know of someone else who had an illegal abortion. There might also be some extrapolations based on related data (average number of pregnancies/abortions in a given state before a ban starts, pregnancy/abortion trends based on demographics like socioeconomic status or race, etc.). I'd imagine that most things with social stigma and/or legal consequences will tend to be underreported though.
|
On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion.
I don't think that's a fair characterization of dp's point, which was that banning abortions is a better way to reduce abortions than investing more money in sex ed and making contraceptives more available.
I won't go into the sex ed point, because I don't think there is good data for either side of this debate, but if there is, Drone's is probably closest and supports dp's point. That said, I have serious questions about the numbers in Drone's statistics, because getting numbers for something that is legal is inherantly far easier than getting numbers for something that is illegal. Abortion clinics in Norway are obviously quite happy to give their numbers in a survey. Girls performing coathanger abortions on themselves because there is no such clinic are obviously (1) harder to find, and (2) less likely to give accurate numbers. Fewer abortions being reported does not actually mean fewer abortions were performed.
He stated that spending on making contraceptives more available is nonsensical, because adults already have easy access to contraceptives. I don't know if that is true or not, but at face value it isn't an absurd argument. I know that contraceptives are fairly easy to get in western Europe, even for kids (aged 12+, I think under 12s the doctor will notify the parents if a girl asks for the pill, and pharmacies might also refuse to sell condoms to people who look very young), and furthermore, contraceptive implants, IUDs and other longer-term contraceptives are also generally subsidized by public healthcare. That said, I have no clue about the US. I could imagine the greater inequality and non-public healthcare means contraceptives might be prohibitively expensive for some people? Whether making contraceptives cheaper would actually lead to a significantly lower number of abortions? I don't know.
|
Norway28631 Posts
On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion.
Sweden does have widely available contraception too. Norway and Sweden tend to be very similar on issues like these and, from casual conversations, seems like every sexually active teenage girl in one of the high school classes I teach is using some form of contraception. Some fraction of those will become pregnant (and probably have a first trimester abortion) simply because of bad luck and math. Especially if people are sexually active for like a decade before they actually want children - that's a whole lot of opportunities for whatever contraceptive they're using to fail, even if they know about contraceptives and have them readily available. (To be fair, regarding condoms specifically, it seems like better education would make a big difference in how efficient they are).
The one girl I'm confident won't have an abortion is the one girl who is deeply religious and who thinks abortion is wrong and that you should wait with sex until marriage because you should not have sex unless you're willing to risk pregnancy. (This is not a popular opinion among Norwegian teenagers, so for her to utter it publicly, I'm quite certain she's serious. I'm also not using her as an example of 'how most religious teenagers are', because I don't think she is.)
Tbh I'd really like to see some reliable numbers for how many illegal abortions happen in countries where abortion is illegal. The estimates I see vary from between 5% and 20% of pregnancies depending on country and estimate, and there doesn't seem to be a reliable way of distinguishing miscarriages from illegal induced abortions (if somehow I were a pregnant girl living in a country where abortion was illegal and I became pregnant and I had an illegal abortion, I'd certainly claim that it was a miscarriage if somebody somehow noticed that I was no longer pregnant). Either way I'll happily admit that the number seems to be a bit higher than what I assumed was the case.
|
On May 05 2022 02:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion. I don't think that's a fair characterization of dp's point, which was that banning abortions is a better way to reduce abortions than investing more money in sex ed and making contraceptives more available. I won't go into the sex ed point, because I don't think there is good data for either side of this debate, but if there is, Drone's is probably closest and supports dp's point. That said, I have serious questions about the numbers in Drone's statistics, because getting numbers for something that is legal is inherantly far easier than getting numbers for something that is illegal. Abortion clinics in Norway are obviously quite happy to give their numbers in a survey. Girls performing coathanger abortions on themselves because there is no such clinic are obviously (1) harder to find, and (2) less likely to give accurate numbers. Fewer abortions being reported does not actually mean fewer abortions were performed. He stated that spending on making contraceptives more available is nonsensical, because adults already have easy access to contraceptives. I don't know if that is true or not, but at face value it isn't an absurd argument. I know that contraceptives are fairly easy to get in western Europe, even for kids (aged 12+, I think under 12s the doctor will notify the parents if a girl asks for the pill, and pharmacies might also refuse to sell condoms to people who look very young), and furthermore, contraceptive implants, IUDs and other longer-term contraceptives are also generally subsidized by public healthcare. That said, I have no clue about the US. I could imagine the greater inequality and non-public healthcare means contraceptives might be prohibitively expensive for some people? Whether making contraceptives cheaper would actually lead to a significantly lower number of abortions? I don't know.
JimmiC didn't talk about making contraception cheaper in the original comment that dp replied to, nor did JimmiC restrict his mention of contraception to only children (which dp tried to assert, later on). The only way dp's point makes sense is if we retcon what JimmiC said. It appears as if dp eventually conceded that contraception (one of JimmiC's two points) beats out dp's original position (simply banning abortion), as dp started to try to move the topic of contraception onto their own side.
Also, from Drone's article:
"Perhaps surprisingly, studies show that abortion rates are often higher in nations where abortion is illegal than they are in nations where it is legal. This is because abortion tends to be more readily available in wealthier, more developed nations, where women are less likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy—in large part because birth control and proper sexual education are also widely available and sexual crimes are less common.
Conversely, women in developing and least-developed countries, who tend to have decreased access to birth control and education, but who are more often the victims of sexual crimes, are three times more likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy. Yet, 93 percent of the countries with the most restrictive abortion laws are developing nations."
It's clearly not just about merely banning abortion, and more about all the other quality-of-life factors in play, such as socioeconomic status, birth control / contraception, sex education, and sex crimes. I don't think Drone's source makes a super strong argument one way or another, but it definitely doesn't establish that banning abortion wins against contraception + sex education (which, again, was the original 1 vs. 2 comparison).
Edit: @Drone too, since that's your source ^^ There are certainly a lot of variables to consider!
|
Norway28631 Posts
On May 05 2022 02:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion. I don't think that's a fair characterization of dp's point, which was that banning abortions is a better way to reduce abortions than investing more money in sex ed and making contraceptives more available. I won't go into the sex ed point, because I don't think there is good data for either side of this debate, but if there is, Drone's is probably closest and supports dp's point. That said, I have serious questions about the numbers in Drone's statistics, because getting numbers for something that is legal is inherantly far easier than getting numbers for something that is illegal. Abortion clinics in Norway are obviously quite happy to give their numbers in a survey. Girls performing coathanger abortions on themselves because there is no such clinic are obviously (1) harder to find, and (2) less likely to give accurate numbers. Fewer abortions being reported does not actually mean fewer abortions were performed. He stated that spending on making contraceptives more available is nonsensical, because adults already have easy access to contraceptives. I don't know if that is true or not, but at face value it isn't an absurd argument. I know that contraceptives are fairly easy to get in western Europe, even for kids (aged 12+, I think under 12s the doctor will notify the parents if a girl asks for the pill, and pharmacies might also refuse to sell condoms to people who look very young), and furthermore, contraceptive implants, IUDs and other longer-term contraceptives are also generally subsidized by public healthcare. That said, I have no clue about the US. I could imagine the greater inequality and non-public healthcare means contraceptives might be prohibitively expensive for some people? Whether making contraceptives cheaper would actually lead to a significantly lower number of abortions? I don't know.
I definitely agree that the numbers in my post (for countries where abortion is illegal) seem untrue. I spent quite some time just now trying to figure out how common illegal abortions are in countries where abortion is illegal but honestly numbers are hard to find. I did see that at at least 34k polish women sought illegal abortions / abortions abroad in one year after their most recent restriction, which would be roughly 10% of actual births for 2020. This is more than I expected and tbh, close to a validation of the 'contraceptives+sex ed is better than making abortions illegal for reducing abortions' point of view (which to me seemed wrong). (I'm guessing this is also highly dependent on how easy it is to travel to another country to get it done is, but travelling to a different state should be no harder for most americans than going to a different country is for most europeans.)
|
On May 05 2022 01:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 01:07 dp wrote:On May 05 2022 00:30 JimmiC wrote:On May 05 2022 00:24 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 23:54 Simberto wrote:On May 04 2022 23:43 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 12:06 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:
[quote]
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:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:
[quote]
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:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:
[quote]
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. If you think the people who live in areas with abstinence-only education get better education outside of school, then i got a bridge to sell to you. I don't even know what exactly your point is here. School education is one of the few ways to actually get good information to all of the population (well, unless they are homeschooled, which somehow is a thing in the US). We have an institution which is literally designed to give education to people. Why would we not use that institution to give education to people? What i learned in 1st grade is not all there is to know. But the later stuff builds on top of that. By giving children the necessary baselines early on, you improve and enable everything they learn thereafter. Also, do you seriously have sex ed in 9th grade? And only 45 minutes? That sounds like your sex ed already sucks. I think the people that live in areas with abstinence-only education are far more influenced by what they learn outside of school than what is taught inside it in regards to sex. It's why I dislike these simplistic solutions to complex problems that everyone just assumes would make a difference. And yes, even in backwards parts of the countries with poor education in general, let alone sex, people will gain far more knowledge by their 20's than they learned in health class in their teens. If you don't believe that, I can't relate to how you reached that conclusion. As for sex ed for me, I was pushing forward a minimalistic amount to make the point for those that have the least exposure. I had it in middle school and a couple times in high school, maybe 10 classes in any given year, 45 mins a class or so. Which is really all you can dedicate to the subject if you think about it. Couple a days going over sti's. Couple days going over contraception. More time spent on body parts and their functions. Then a birthing video and you're done. On May 05 2022 00:00 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 23:43 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 12:06 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:
[quote]
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:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:
[quote]
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:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:
[quote]
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. You are a fountain of miss-information and it really helps to make my point better than I ever could. So thank you. My point is what DK thought it was, and also making abortions illegal does not bring them down to 0 we already know this. The poor will get them illegally and the rich will travel for them. I am glad you concede that what you said is an inaccurate exaggeration and you mainly wanted to say that sex ed could reduce some abortions. As for my miss-information, please point out where it is. It's easy to just throw that out there but being specific would actual be useful if you truly believe that. Heads up though, disagreeing with something does not make it misinformation. Nope I clarified that I agreed with what I said and that what you are saying is wrong. edit: for one thing you seem stuck on the false premises outlawing abortion brings the number that happens down to 0, everyone knows that to be false. The other is that sex-education only impacts teens, which we also know is false (contraceptives' work your whole life for example!). There is a bunch of others by why rehash what others have discussed and you have ignored. Show me where I've stated anything that could even been confused with that underline. It doesn't exist. I simply disagreed with your premise that sex ed would reduce abortions by more than a ban. I stated why statistically I don't believe it possible. Even if sex ed was 100% effective, and over half of adolescents currently receive it with contraception info included, providing it to the other half could only reduce the total by 4.4% in a perfect scenario. You believe a total abortion ban would minimize abortion by less than that? As for sex educations impact through life, you are going to have to cite something that would convince me. I simply don't believe a 30 year old's sex and contraception use is even vaguely reliant on the sex ed class they took in high school. Infantilizing adults is becoming way too common place, especially when it comes to major life actions and decisions. I never said the contraception would end in school, neither for the sex-ed to be honest. There is a lot of programs for adults as well. Also, why are you asking me to show things you will not? How much does prohibiting abortions stop abortions? Prohibition has a long history of creating black markets if has almost no issue of stopping whatever its intended target is.
I don't even know what that is suppose to mean to be honest. Somehow we are not reaching some level of understanding of each others underlying point. As for data on lowering rates, I will look for better data but it is not exactly abundant.
On May 05 2022 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 23:43 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. I guess we can all accept your apology then, since now you're trying to steal away JimmiC's original point of both sex ed *and* contraception. You don't get to claim contraception now, whether it's for older people or for younger people. JimmiC very clearly included contraception, and you very clearly responded with a dismissal. The opposing side, which you took, was simply banning abortion. Not banning abortion + contraception. Perhaps if you hadn't been so overly eager to make a flippant rejection of JimmiC's original point, you wouldn't need to backpedal.
What are you talking about. I am directly refuting his additional point about contraceptives, not acknowledging it as accurate.
On May 05 2022 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 02:06 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion. I don't think that's a fair characterization of dp's point, which was that banning abortions is a better way to reduce abortions than investing more money in sex ed and making contraceptives more available. I won't go into the sex ed point, because I don't think there is good data for either side of this debate, but if there is, Drone's is probably closest and supports dp's point. That said, I have serious questions about the numbers in Drone's statistics, because getting numbers for something that is legal is inherantly far easier than getting numbers for something that is illegal. Abortion clinics in Norway are obviously quite happy to give their numbers in a survey. Girls performing coathanger abortions on themselves because there is no such clinic are obviously (1) harder to find, and (2) less likely to give accurate numbers. Fewer abortions being reported does not actually mean fewer abortions were performed. He stated that spending on making contraceptives more available is nonsensical, because adults already have easy access to contraceptives. I don't know if that is true or not, but at face value it isn't an absurd argument. I know that contraceptives are fairly easy to get in western Europe, even for kids (aged 12+, I think under 12s the doctor will notify the parents if a girl asks for the pill, and pharmacies might also refuse to sell condoms to people who look very young), and furthermore, contraceptive implants, IUDs and other longer-term contraceptives are also generally subsidized by public healthcare. That said, I have no clue about the US. I could imagine the greater inequality and non-public healthcare means contraceptives might be prohibitively expensive for some people? Whether making contraceptives cheaper would actually lead to a significantly lower number of abortions? I don't know. JimmiC didn't talk about making contraception cheaper in the original comment that dp replied to, nor did JimmiC restrict his mention of contraception to only children (which dp tried to assert, later on). The only way dp's point makes sense is if we retcon what JimmiC said. It appears as if dp eventually conceded that contraception (one of JimmiC's two points) beats out dp's original position (simply banning abortion), as dp started to try to move the topic of contraception onto their own side.
Why do I have to continuously paste what JimmiC actually said until some of you read it.
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.
There IS easy access to various forms of birth control. When I talk about age ranges, I am giving the possibility that those under a certain range will have a more difficult time obtaining it, but because of their much lower % of the overall abortion rate, it is still not going to be a huge factor. Again, 91% of abortions are in the over 20 year old population. Access is overwhelmingly simple for them. A condom is 1$, available at pretty much anywhere you can buy bread, milk or gas. Unless you want to tell me that 20 year olds are starving to death because they can't access food, I do not believe you when you say they are having abortions because they could not access contraception.
|
On May 05 2022 01:56 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion. How many people in a state that bans abortion are even going to be able to be known to have an abortion anyways? How does one even get data when a typical punishment for admitting the crime is often comparable to murder charges? I know I’d sure as fuck never admit having an abortion to anything that even seems like it might collect data. I don’t even like to admit to having depression on forms, and depression isn’t something that’ll get me sent to prison, lol.
There are actually some really cool methodologies used to collect data like this (generally by creating completely random noise so that no one's record is accurate, even if someone were to get access to the original research files). It's part of how we have accurate numbers on how many therapists have sexual relationships with their patients and other illegal actions.
It's not perfect-you still require some trust, and the participants need to understand the process-but boils down to saying "flip a coin. If it's heads, check the "no" box. If it's tails, let me know if you did (insert illegal/unacceptable action here)." As long as the investigator never sees the coin, they can't identify what your action was, but they can still deduce the population rate of the illegal/unacceptable action.
|
On May 05 2022 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 02:06 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion. I don't think that's a fair characterization of dp's point, which was that banning abortions is a better way to reduce abortions than investing more money in sex ed and making contraceptives more available. I won't go into the sex ed point, because I don't think there is good data for either side of this debate, but if there is, Drone's is probably closest and supports dp's point. That said, I have serious questions about the numbers in Drone's statistics, because getting numbers for something that is legal is inherantly far easier than getting numbers for something that is illegal. Abortion clinics in Norway are obviously quite happy to give their numbers in a survey. Girls performing coathanger abortions on themselves because there is no such clinic are obviously (1) harder to find, and (2) less likely to give accurate numbers. Fewer abortions being reported does not actually mean fewer abortions were performed. He stated that spending on making contraceptives more available is nonsensical, because adults already have easy access to contraceptives. I don't know if that is true or not, but at face value it isn't an absurd argument. I know that contraceptives are fairly easy to get in western Europe, even for kids (aged 12+, I think under 12s the doctor will notify the parents if a girl asks for the pill, and pharmacies might also refuse to sell condoms to people who look very young), and furthermore, contraceptive implants, IUDs and other longer-term contraceptives are also generally subsidized by public healthcare. That said, I have no clue about the US. I could imagine the greater inequality and non-public healthcare means contraceptives might be prohibitively expensive for some people? Whether making contraceptives cheaper would actually lead to a significantly lower number of abortions? I don't know. JimmiC didn't talk about making contraception cheaper in the original comment that dp replied to, nor did JimmiC restrict his mention of contraception to only children (which dp tried to assert, later on). The only way dp's point makes sense is if we retcon what JimmiC said. It appears as if dp eventually conceded that contraception (one of JimmiC's two points) beats out dp's original position (simply banning abortion), as dp started to try to move the topic of contraception onto their own side. Also, from Drone's article: "Perhaps surprisingly, studies show that abortion rates are often higher in nations where abortion is illegal than they are in nations where it is legal. This is because abortion tends to be more readily available in wealthier, more developed nations, where women are less likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy—in large part because birth control and proper sexual education are also widely available and sexual crimes are less common. Conversely, women in developing and least-developed countries, who tend to have decreased access to birth control and education, but who are more often the victims of sexual crimes, are three times more likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy. Yet, 93 percent of the countries with the most restrictive abortion laws are developing nations." It's clearly not just about merely banning abortion, and more about all the other quality-of-life factors in play, such as socioeconomic status, birth control / contraception, sex education, and sex crimes. I don't think Drone's source makes a super strong argument one way or another, but it definitely doesn't establish that banning abortion wins against contraception + sex education (which, again, was the original 1 vs. 2 comparison). Edit: @Drone too, since that's your source ^^ There are certainly a lot of variables to consider!
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree 100% that improving sex ed and availability of contraceptives make infinitely better policy than banning abortions. But that wasn't the statement, and while dp started off so flippantly and trolly that it's amazing he wasn't actioned, he actually came back with arguments at later points and got bashed for it. Here was the initial exchange:
On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:Show nested quote +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.
JimmyC was very vague about both aspects and notably left it to others, including yourself, to actually make that case, I don't think it is at all settled either way. In Jimmy's defense, it seems more like he was spitballing ideas than speaking from a point of certainty, whereas dp does seem very certain that the reverse is true. I personally so far think the data, insofar as there is much going around, is very much a toss up. What I took exception over was attacking dp over his follow-up point:
On May 04 2022 23:43 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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.
which seems like an entirely reasonable counter-argument to the idea that easier access to birth control would reduce the number of abortions.
Edit: yup, so pretty much what dp expanded on above me
|
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes.
|
|
|
On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes.
Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself.
|
I don't view that as too far-fetched. The pro-forcing-people-to-bear-children people are usually also violently anti-trans. They are also rarely deeply invested in facts.
I can absolutely see the scenario that plasmidghost described play out exactly like that. Remember that we are talking about republicans here, not people who make rational decisions based on empirical data.
|
On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself.
Forcibly detransitioned in this context means that if you want to have anything done medically in the context of gender transition, such as getting on testosterone, and you're on it, the state could make it illegal to take it like they're trying here in Texas and in dozens of other states. It doesn't mean that the person isn't trans, of course, it's that they're losing the opportunity to transition
|
On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself.
Being pregnant is (1) a psychological barrier to "being a man", but also releases a crapload of hormones which do things like make your breasts swell and wreak havoc on your body. No doubt those hormones undo whatever hormone treatment the person has already undergone and is undergoing. That would mean you are forcibly de-transitioned.
|
On May 05 2022 02:59 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 01:23 JimmiC wrote:On May 05 2022 01:07 dp wrote:On May 05 2022 00:30 JimmiC wrote:On May 05 2022 00:24 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 23:54 Simberto wrote:On May 04 2022 23:43 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 12:06 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:[quote] 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:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:[quote] 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:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:[quote] 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. If you think the people who live in areas with abstinence-only education get better education outside of school, then i got a bridge to sell to you. I don't even know what exactly your point is here. School education is one of the few ways to actually get good information to all of the population (well, unless they are homeschooled, which somehow is a thing in the US). We have an institution which is literally designed to give education to people. Why would we not use that institution to give education to people? What i learned in 1st grade is not all there is to know. But the later stuff builds on top of that. By giving children the necessary baselines early on, you improve and enable everything they learn thereafter. Also, do you seriously have sex ed in 9th grade? And only 45 minutes? That sounds like your sex ed already sucks. I think the people that live in areas with abstinence-only education are far more influenced by what they learn outside of school than what is taught inside it in regards to sex. It's why I dislike these simplistic solutions to complex problems that everyone just assumes would make a difference. And yes, even in backwards parts of the countries with poor education in general, let alone sex, people will gain far more knowledge by their 20's than they learned in health class in their teens. If you don't believe that, I can't relate to how you reached that conclusion. As for sex ed for me, I was pushing forward a minimalistic amount to make the point for those that have the least exposure. I had it in middle school and a couple times in high school, maybe 10 classes in any given year, 45 mins a class or so. Which is really all you can dedicate to the subject if you think about it. Couple a days going over sti's. Couple days going over contraception. More time spent on body parts and their functions. Then a birthing video and you're done. On May 05 2022 00:00 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 23:43 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 12:06 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:[quote] 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:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:[quote] 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:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:[quote] 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. You are a fountain of miss-information and it really helps to make my point better than I ever could. So thank you. My point is what DK thought it was, and also making abortions illegal does not bring them down to 0 we already know this. The poor will get them illegally and the rich will travel for them. I am glad you concede that what you said is an inaccurate exaggeration and you mainly wanted to say that sex ed could reduce some abortions. As for my miss-information, please point out where it is. It's easy to just throw that out there but being specific would actual be useful if you truly believe that. Heads up though, disagreeing with something does not make it misinformation. Nope I clarified that I agreed with what I said and that what you are saying is wrong. edit: for one thing you seem stuck on the false premises outlawing abortion brings the number that happens down to 0, everyone knows that to be false. The other is that sex-education only impacts teens, which we also know is false (contraceptives' work your whole life for example!). There is a bunch of others by why rehash what others have discussed and you have ignored. Show me where I've stated anything that could even been confused with that underline. It doesn't exist. I simply disagreed with your premise that sex ed would reduce abortions by more than a ban. I stated why statistically I don't believe it possible. Even if sex ed was 100% effective, and over half of adolescents currently receive it with contraception info included, providing it to the other half could only reduce the total by 4.4% in a perfect scenario. You believe a total abortion ban would minimize abortion by less than that? As for sex educations impact through life, you are going to have to cite something that would convince me. I simply don't believe a 30 year old's sex and contraception use is even vaguely reliant on the sex ed class they took in high school. Infantilizing adults is becoming way too common place, especially when it comes to major life actions and decisions. I never said the contraception would end in school, neither for the sex-ed to be honest. There is a lot of programs for adults as well. Also, why are you asking me to show things you will not? How much does prohibiting abortions stop abortions? Prohibition has a long history of creating black markets if has almost no issue of stopping whatever its intended target is. I don't even know what that is suppose to mean to be honest. Somehow we are not reaching some level of understanding of each others underlying point. As for data on lowering rates, I will look for better data but it is not exactly abundant. Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2022 23:43 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. I guess we can all accept your apology then, since now you're trying to steal away JimmiC's original point of both sex ed *and* contraception. You don't get to claim contraception now, whether it's for older people or for younger people. JimmiC very clearly included contraception, and you very clearly responded with a dismissal. The opposing side, which you took, was simply banning abortion. Not banning abortion + contraception. Perhaps if you hadn't been so overly eager to make a flippant rejection of JimmiC's original point, you wouldn't need to backpedal. What are you talking about. I am directly refuting his additional point about contraceptives, not acknowledging it as accurate. Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 05 2022 02:06 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion. I don't think that's a fair characterization of dp's point, which was that banning abortions is a better way to reduce abortions than investing more money in sex ed and making contraceptives more available. I won't go into the sex ed point, because I don't think there is good data for either side of this debate, but if there is, Drone's is probably closest and supports dp's point. That said, I have serious questions about the numbers in Drone's statistics, because getting numbers for something that is legal is inherantly far easier than getting numbers for something that is illegal. Abortion clinics in Norway are obviously quite happy to give their numbers in a survey. Girls performing coathanger abortions on themselves because there is no such clinic are obviously (1) harder to find, and (2) less likely to give accurate numbers. Fewer abortions being reported does not actually mean fewer abortions were performed. He stated that spending on making contraceptives more available is nonsensical, because adults already have easy access to contraceptives. I don't know if that is true or not, but at face value it isn't an absurd argument. I know that contraceptives are fairly easy to get in western Europe, even for kids (aged 12+, I think under 12s the doctor will notify the parents if a girl asks for the pill, and pharmacies might also refuse to sell condoms to people who look very young), and furthermore, contraceptive implants, IUDs and other longer-term contraceptives are also generally subsidized by public healthcare. That said, I have no clue about the US. I could imagine the greater inequality and non-public healthcare means contraceptives might be prohibitively expensive for some people? Whether making contraceptives cheaper would actually lead to a significantly lower number of abortions? I don't know. JimmiC didn't talk about making contraception cheaper in the original comment that dp replied to, nor did JimmiC restrict his mention of contraception to only children (which dp tried to assert, later on). The only way dp's point makes sense is if we retcon what JimmiC said. It appears as if dp eventually conceded that contraception (one of JimmiC's two points) beats out dp's original position (simply banning abortion), as dp started to try to move the topic of contraception onto their own side. Why do I have to continuously paste what JimmiC actually said until some of you read it. Show nested quote +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. There IS easy access to various forms of birth control. When I talk about age ranges, I am giving the possibility that those under a certain range will have a more difficult time obtaining it, but because of their much lower % of the overall abortion rate, it is still not going to be a huge factor. Again, 91% of abortions are in the over 20 year old population. Access is overwhelmingly simple for them. A condom is 1$, available at pretty much anywhere you can buy bread, milk or gas. Unless you want to tell me that 20 year olds are starving to death because they can't access food, I do not believe you when you say they are having abortions because they could not access contraception.
Let X be the number of abortions that could be prevented by sex ed.
Let Y be the number of abortions that could be prevented by birth control.
Let Z be the number of abortions that could be prevented by banning abortion.
JimmiC: It might be the case that X + Y > Z.
You: No.
Multiple people, responding to you: ...What!?
You: If I ignore all the abortions currently being prevented by those 3 options, also temporarily ignore contraception while I understate sex education by merely asserting that abstinence-only education is better, and then just focus on the children when it comes to contraception, then I think I've made my point.
You're all over the place imo, and while I agree with Acrofales that you eventually elaborated after your first one-liner that everyone rightly questioned, I don't know if my opinion on your perspectives has improved. If you want to ignore all the abortions already being prevented - and would continue to be prevented with the same levels of contraception + sex education vs. those who are banned from aborting - and simply focus on who's left, then okay, but that's setting up the goalpost in a very, very specific position, to the point where you're basically just penalizing contraception for already being so successful at doing what we're debating in the first place (and then arbitrarily dismissing proper sex education). Taking contraception today (or simply having access to contraception today, and actually buying/using it) doesn't necessarily mean that you should be excluded from the pool of individuals who might have a pregnancy/abortion prevented next year. If 99% of people currently use contraception, that doesn't mean that we only need to focus on the 1% left; we always need to focus on 100%. You seem to think that we ought to be able to simply subtract out people who are already in a group, and focus just on who isn't. I disagree with that premise.
If your entire thesis comes down to something akin to saying (and I'm just picking arbitrary numbers here, but the point is about proportion vs. raw numbers) "99% of 100 people being helped through Option A is mathematically fewer than 5% of 1,000,000 people being helped through Option B", then okay, you've successfully hijacked what could have been a more substantive conversation that actually addressed the entire population at any given time, since what really matters is comparing 99% of everyone to 5% of everyone.
Anyways, I don't have much left to say about the descriptive statistics of these abortion-prevention options, and I think the whole "greater than / less than" topic may have run its course (at least, without discussing the ethical pros and cons of each option).
|
On May 05 2022 04:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 04:10 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 05 2022 02:06 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion. I don't think that's a fair characterization of dp's point, which was that banning abortions is a better way to reduce abortions than investing more money in sex ed and making contraceptives more available. I won't go into the sex ed point, because I don't think there is good data for either side of this debate, but if there is, Drone's is probably closest and supports dp's point. That said, I have serious questions about the numbers in Drone's statistics, because getting numbers for something that is legal is inherantly far easier than getting numbers for something that is illegal. Abortion clinics in Norway are obviously quite happy to give their numbers in a survey. Girls performing coathanger abortions on themselves because there is no such clinic are obviously (1) harder to find, and (2) less likely to give accurate numbers. Fewer abortions being reported does not actually mean fewer abortions were performed. He stated that spending on making contraceptives more available is nonsensical, because adults already have easy access to contraceptives. I don't know if that is true or not, but at face value it isn't an absurd argument. I know that contraceptives are fairly easy to get in western Europe, even for kids (aged 12+, I think under 12s the doctor will notify the parents if a girl asks for the pill, and pharmacies might also refuse to sell condoms to people who look very young), and furthermore, contraceptive implants, IUDs and other longer-term contraceptives are also generally subsidized by public healthcare. That said, I have no clue about the US. I could imagine the greater inequality and non-public healthcare means contraceptives might be prohibitively expensive for some people? Whether making contraceptives cheaper would actually lead to a significantly lower number of abortions? I don't know. JimmiC didn't talk about making contraception cheaper in the original comment that dp replied to, nor did JimmiC restrict his mention of contraception to only children (which dp tried to assert, later on). The only way dp's point makes sense is if we retcon what JimmiC said. It appears as if dp eventually conceded that contraception (one of JimmiC's two points) beats out dp's original position (simply banning abortion), as dp started to try to move the topic of contraception onto their own side. Also, from Drone's article: "Perhaps surprisingly, studies show that abortion rates are often higher in nations where abortion is illegal than they are in nations where it is legal. This is because abortion tends to be more readily available in wealthier, more developed nations, where women are less likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy—in large part because birth control and proper sexual education are also widely available and sexual crimes are less common. Conversely, women in developing and least-developed countries, who tend to have decreased access to birth control and education, but who are more often the victims of sexual crimes, are three times more likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy. Yet, 93 percent of the countries with the most restrictive abortion laws are developing nations." It's clearly not just about merely banning abortion, and more about all the other quality-of-life factors in play, such as socioeconomic status, birth control / contraception, sex education, and sex crimes. I don't think Drone's source makes a super strong argument one way or another, but it definitely doesn't establish that banning abortion wins against contraception + sex education (which, again, was the original 1 vs. 2 comparison). Edit: @Drone too, since that's your source ^^ There are certainly a lot of variables to consider! Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree 100% that improving sex ed and availability of contraceptives make infinitely better policy than banning abortions. But that wasn't the statement, and while dp started off so flippantly and trolly that it's amazing he wasn't actioned, he actually came back with arguments at later points and got bashed for it. Here was the initial exchange: 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. JimmyC was very vague about both aspects and notably left it to others, including yourself, to actually make that case, I don't think it is at all settled either way. In Jimmy's defense, it seems more like he was spitballing ideas than speaking from a point of certainty, whereas dp does seem very certain that the reverse is true. I personally so far think the data, insofar as there is much going around, is very much a toss up. What I took exception over was attacking dp over his follow-up point: On May 04 2022 23:43 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. which seems like an entirely reasonable counter-argument to the idea that easier access to birth control would reduce the number of abortions. Edit: yup, so pretty much what dp expanded on above me I disagree, being able to buy condoms at the store does not equal easy access to methods of birth control. For one thing it is only for the male and there is tons of information out there about how ineffective that can be do to social pressure and so on. This is before we get into all the various sexual assualts that happen. For example with the pill you would need to pay a doctor to persribe you the pill and given how it is in many of the places where abortion will illegal it is a legitimate fear that a doctor will either not perscribe or shame the unmarried woman from asking. There are many other examples as well, keep in mind small town Texas, Florida is not similar to places you have been. Even drug stores/convient stores will put the cobdoms behind the counter forcing people yo ask for them and the people will spread rumors, make comments and on and on about the unmarried women purchasing them. Next Drones article and it is not alone in this regard, suggests that places with illegal abortion have more abortions, not 0 abortions. This is not surprising as it is true in other versions of prohibition as well. I proposed that access and sex ed would likely reduce more thab outlawing. DP agrees that those measures would reduce abortions, he has not shown or even attempted to show that outlawing them will. And as you stated I was npt concrete, because I was not certain, and he is. Where is the data or proof for tgis certainity? So far he has just argued that the measures I suggest will not bring abortions to 0, which I never suggested.
Where in any of these posts do you see anyone talking about only condoms? Women have easy access to pills, pessariums, implants and IUDs over here. As I said, I don't have a clue how that is in the US. So far I have dp's word that access is easy and your word that access is not easy in some red states. More statistics please and less anecdotes if you want to *actually* make your case.
As for the numbers, there are 3 countries there that might be remotely comparable to the US in terms of socio-economic status that ban abortion: Ireland, Poland and Mexico. Of those, only Mexico had numbers in Drone's post, and it was stupidly (unbelievably) low. Meanwhile comparing the numbers of abortions per capita in Indonesia or Sudan with the US just doesn't seem at all interesting or say anything about what banning abortions might do to number of abortions. You'd need actually comparable data and that doesn't seem to exist.
|
On May 05 2022 05:22 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself. Forcibly detransitioned in this context means that if you want to have anything done medically in the context of gender transition, such as getting on testosterone, and you're on it, the state could make it illegal to take it like they're trying here in Texas and in dozens of other states. It doesn't mean that the person isn't trans, of course, it's that they're losing the opportunity to transition
I see. I hadn't heard of any push to restrict a person's access to hormone treatment (aside from the issue of minors, which is a different situation.)
On May 05 2022 05:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself. Being pregnant is (1) a psychological barrier to "being a man", but also releases a crapload of hormones which do things like make your breasts swell and wreak havoc on your body. No doubt those hormones undo whatever hormone treatment the person has already undergone and is undergoing. That would mean you are forcibly de-transitioned.
I understand, thank you both for clarification
|
This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt?
NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS
If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
