Planned Parenthood Attack

[myDeaconmyhand]

We have that. I took the class. It will never replace parental authority because your home room teacher doesn't wait up for you to come home at night.

Just to be clear. I am for all reasonable sex education in the school. But merely stating that is insufficient without parental involvement.

Now that I have a smidgen of relevant data from the poll I created on the Pit, where was all the parental involvement and influence for all the unplanned babies who are posting on this board right now? Are we to assume that all of these accidental pregnancies were just the result of people lacking personal responsibility?

 

[Wrangor]

I'm not trying to rip on Wrangor when I say this, but facts only go so far if you're competing with the literal word of God and its interpretation which leads you to believe sex before marriage is a sin.

I haven't made a single Biblical reference in any of my posts. You are inferring an argument I haven't made. My argument has been strictly utilitarian. It is best for society and for the individual to wait for sex until the person has decided upon a lifelong mate.

It is not repressive or telling people what to do to evaluate what is best for the individual or society. I am not saying you shame people into monogamy. I am saying you promote it as the best alternative for the individual and for society. We don't do that. It is not an equal choice to be presented as such to a 15 year old. Choosing to live a sexually active lifestyle with numerous partners introduces massive risks that are unnecessary. The act of sex itself is more enjoyable when the person you giving yourself to is committed to you emotionally and physically for life.

It is the best scenario possible and we need to as a society come to grips with that and promote it. That is my POV. That doesn't mean I want to force me POV on everyone until they obey. I would like the facts to speak for themselves which they pretty much do.

Squash disease, squash single teenage parenting, increase economic ability to care for children by even in the case of a surprise baby having two parents to share the economic and physical burden, and increase the enjoyment and longevity of the act of sex by having a partner who not only knows your every move but is committed to you despite your faults.

I'll exit star right because I feel like I am repeating myself. I am not against sex education, handing out condoms, or any of that. I think we should. I am simply arguing for a new narrative in sex. The facts are pretty obvious, but we simply aren't rational when it comes to evaluate sex. We allow our basest instincts rule us and in my opinion we demean the joy, while at the same time cause ourselves massive pain due to massive negative consequences we willingly submit ourselves to. 88% of AIDS transmission occurs in a sexual act. We have hundreds of thousands of children born to teen mothers that have no means to care for the child.

We need to out band aids in the issue by issuing condoms and teaching about birth control with great vigor, but more importantly we need to address the root of the fruit. The cause for all this is a skewed view of sex. Until we address the root we will always deal with the consequences.

 

[vadimivich]

It is best for society and for the individual to wait for sex until the person has decided upon a lifelong mate.

There is no basis for this statement other than your moral views grounded in your religion. If you don't recognize this, there is no conversation to be had on the subject because you are establishing a starting line for yourself that the rest of simply cannot agree to.

 

[Wrangor]

There is no basis for this statement other than your moral views grounded in your religion. If you don't recognize this, there is no conversation to be had on the subject because you are establishing a starting line for yourself that the rest of simply cannot agree to.

Sorry. I have laid out my points very clearly. A society of 100% monogamous relationships would have no single parents attempting to raise children on their own, and could eradicate STD's in a few generations. The sex is better is definitely an opinion, but it is no more of an opinion than someone who says sex is better when you sleep with multiple partners. You are interjecting biases into an argument that aren't there. I have given a strict utilitarian argument for the promotion of monogamous sex. It is a very sound argument.

 

[Junebug]

There is no basis for this statement other than your moral views grounded in your religion. If you don't recognize this, there is no conversation to be had on the subject because you are establishing a starting line for yourself that the rest of simply cannot agree to.

Read his posts you dolt. His view is utilitarian. Whether they are correct from a utilitarian standpoint is debatable, but engage that debate. Don't try to tell him the basis of his belief is A when he has expressly said it was B.

 

[Junebug]

I haven't made a single Biblical reference in any of my posts. You are inferring an argument I haven't made. My argument has been strictly utilitarian. It is best for society and for the individual to wait for sex until the person has decided upon a lifelong mate.

It is not repressive or telling people what to do to evaluate what is best for the individual or society. I am not saying you shame people into monogamy. I am saying you promote it as the best alternative for the individual and for society. We don't do that. It is not an equal choice to be presented as such to a 15 year old. Choosing to live a sexually active lifestyle with numerous partners introduces massive risks that are unnecessary. The act of sex itself is more enjoyable when the person you giving yourself to is committed to you emotionally and physically for life.

It is the best scenario possible and we need to as a society come to grips with that and promote it. That is my POV. That doesn't mean I want to force me POV on everyone until they obey. I would like the facts to speak for themselves which they pretty much do.

Squash disease, squash single teenage parenting, increase economic ability to care for children by even in the case of a surprise baby having two parents to share the economic and physical burden, and increase the enjoyment and longevity of the act of sex by having a partner who not only knows your every move but is committed to you despite your faults.

I'll exit star right because I feel like I am repeating myself. I am not against sex education, handing out condoms, or any of that. I think we should. I am simply arguing for a new narrative in sex. The facts are pretty obvious, but we simply aren't rational when it comes to evaluate sex. We allow our basest instincts rule us and in my opinion we demean the joy, while at the same time cause ourselves massive pain due to massive negative consequences we willingly submit ourselves to. 88% of AIDS transmission occurs in a sexual act. We have hundreds of thousands of children born to teen mothers that have no means to care for the child.

We need to out band aids in the issue by issuing condoms and teaching about birth control with great vigor, but more importantly we need to address the root of the fruit. The cause for all this is a skewed view of sex. Until we address the root we will always deal with the consequences.

This is a great post.

 

[vadimivich]

Sorry. I have laid out my points very clearly. A society of 100% monogamous relationships would have no single parents attempting to raise children on their own, and could eradicate STD's in a few generations. The sex is better is definitely an opinion, but it is no more of an opinion than someone who says sex is better when you sleep with multiple partners. You are interjecting biases into an argument that aren't there. I have given a strict utilitarian argument for the promotion of monogamous sex. It is a very sound argument.

Read his posts you dolt. His view is utilitarian. Whether they are correct from a utilitarian standpoint is debatable, but engage that debate. Don't try to tell him the basis of his belief is A when he has expressly said it was B.

It's not utilitarian. We have plenty of scientific literature which covers the role of sexuality in human health and happiness, and none of it finds what he's claiming. Does what Wrangor is proposing lessen the number of uncared for children and sexually transmitted diseases? Yes, but it creates new issues and thus is not utilitarian and is solely based on his moral view of sex. There is no basis in any form of scientific study, we're just now arguing religion.

 

[vadimivich]

Let's put it this way - there's nobody arguing that some form of society that only has monogamous relationships is a utilitarian ideal other than those doing so from religious grounds. That's not an argument that we can even have, since it is not based on scientific study but on religion.

 

[Junebug]

Have you never read a work of political philosophy in your life? It is possible to opine as to the "best" society (without invoking social science studies) without calling it "religion."

This meta-discussion is not worth having. Address Wrangor's post on its merits.

Good day.

 

[TownieDeac]

A society of 100% monogamous relationships would have no single parents attempting to raise children on their own, and could eradicate STD's in a few generations. .

Spouses die and some STDs span generations.

 

[TownieDeac]

Have you never read a work of political philosophy in your life? It is possible to opine as to the "best" society (without invoking social science studies) without calling it "religion."

This meta-discussion is not worth having. Address Wrangor's post on its merits.

Good day.

Its merits are too few to address. It lacks the firm logical ground on which to begin.

 

[Les Grossman]

It's not utilitarian. We have plenty of scientific literature which covers the role of sexuality in human health and happiness, and none of it finds what he's claiming. Does what Wrangor is proposing lessen the number of uncared for children and sexually transmitted diseases? Yes, but it creates new issues and thus is not utilitarian and is solely based on his moral view of sex. There is no basis in any form of scientific study, we're just now arguing religion.

What issues?

 

[vadimivich]

What issues?

The fact that many people do not find sexual health or happiness in a single monogamous relationship for their entire life and that forcing them into those relationships as their only option within which to express their sexuality would have other long term and possibly traumatic effects?

 

[TownieDeac]

I haven't made a single Biblical reference in any of my posts. You are inferring an argument I haven't made. My argument has been strictly utilitarian. It is best for society and for the individual to wait for sex until the person has decided upon a lifelong mate.

It is not repressive or telling people what to do to evaluate what is best for the individual or society. I am not saying you shame people into monogamy. I am saying you promote it as the best alternative for the individual and for society. We don't do that. It is not an equal choice to be presented as such to a 15 year old. Choosing to live a sexually active lifestyle with numerous partners introduces massive risks that are unnecessary. The act of sex itself is more enjoyable when the person you giving yourself to is committed to you emotionally and physically for life.

It is the best scenario possible and we need to as a society come to grips with that and promote it. That is my POV. That doesn't mean I want to force me POV on everyone until they obey. I would like the facts to speak for themselves which they pretty much do.

Squash disease, squash single teenage parenting, increase economic ability to care for children by even in the case of a surprise baby having two parents to share the economic and physical burden, and increase the enjoyment and longevity of the act of sex by having a partner who not only knows your every move but is committed to you despite your faults.

I'll exit star right because I feel like I am repeating myself. I am not against sex education, handing out condoms, or any of that. I think we should. I am simply arguing for a new narrative in sex. The facts are pretty obvious, but we simply aren't rational when it comes to evaluate sex. We allow our basest instincts rule us and in my opinion we demean the joy, while at the same time cause ourselves massive pain due to massive negative consequences we willingly submit ourselves to. 88% of AIDS transmission occurs in a sexual act. We have hundreds of thousands of children born to teen mothers that have no means to care for the child.

We need to out band aids in the issue by issuing condoms and teaching about birth control with great vigor, but more importantly we need to address the root of the fruit. The cause for all this is a skewed view of sex. Until we address the root we will always deal with the consequences.

Bolded all the statements that are either untrue, not true by necessity, or unfalsifiable.

The cause for all this is a skewed view of sex.

This was the truest statement you made, but not for the reasons you made it.

 

[PhDeac]

Again, Wrangor's argument greatly oversimplifies the process of finding and staying in a monogamous relationship.

 

[RChildress107]

1. My argument has been strictly utilitarian. It is best for society and for the individual to wait for sex until the person has decided upon a lifelong mate.

2. I would like the facts to speak for themselves which they pretty much do.

3. The cause for all this is a skewed view of sex. Until we address the root we will always deal with the consequences.

Come on man.

1. You did not reach the view that its best for society and for the individual to wait for sex through a utilitarian analysis. Zero people are buying that. You reached that view because you believe it is dictated by the Bible. That's OK, but at least admit that's what you are doing.

And if you did reach that conclusion based on a utilitarian analysis then you are a shitty utilitarian. As vad pointed out we don't need to go through the usual utilitarian guesswork to determine what maximal utility is in the sex education context. We know what works and what doesn't. Even if monogamous relationships are best for society in the abstract (which is debatable) promoting those relationships is not what is best for society in the context of preventing disease and unplanned pregnancies.

2. If you want the facts to speak for themselves then maybe you should actually listen to the facts. The facts are pretty clear, we shouldn't be pushing lifelong monogamous relationships on teens in order to prevent disease and unplanned pregnancies. Instead we should take a comprehensive approach to sex education starting at a young age and provide incredibly easy access to contraception. Again this has been proven to work.

3. Sex, like eating, drinking water, and breathing, has always been a necessary part of human existence. It's a pretty simple concept. Like eating, drinking, and breathing it feels good. Also like eating, drinking, and breathing, if not done correctly it can lead to disastrous consequences. The only skewed view of sex is treating it as something taboo, that's bad for you unless you have entered into an artificial social construct, and that most definitely should not be talked about. Until we address the reasons for this skewed view I agree that we will deal with the consequences.

 

[vadimivich]

Here's the thing - there are a number of countries who have much lower teen birth rates, much lower abortion rates and much higher reported satisfaction with their sexual health. The "problem" is that Wrangor and his ilk do not approve of the steps taken to achieve those successes on a moral/religious level and thus invent a new series of "utilitarian" arguments which have no basis in fact.

Relaxed attitudes towards sexual activity with high quality sexual education from a young age which includes an encouragement to explore your sexuality on your own terms while providing easy access safe and effective birth control and protection from sexually transmitted diseases works. It just does. It flat out fucking works, and it works fantastically. It's the "best for society and the individual".

There is no argument against that. There's far too much proof, long term, in the real world to argue otherwise. If you are going to argue against it from a religious basis, feel free to be completely wrong. Religious people do that on a large number of subjects (hi young earth creationists, how has arguing against science gone for you so far?) and that's ok - makes it easy to ignore them and their comments and put them in the basket of "crazy people we don't need participating in defining public policy".

 

[RChildress107]

It's not utilitarian. We have plenty of scientific literature which covers the role of sexuality in human health and happiness, and none of it finds what he's claiming. Does what Wrangor is proposing lessen the number of uncared for children and sexually transmitted diseases? Yes, but it creates new issues and thus is not utilitarian and is solely based on his moral view of sex. There is no basis in any form of scientific study, we're just now arguing religion.

You give him to much credit. He actually has two "proposals".

The first is that in an ideal society people would only have sex in lifelong monogamous relationships. That one is as harmless as it is unprovable.

The second is that the ideal way to prevent disease and unplanned pregnancies is to vigorously promote the view above as the best alternative. This is demonstrably false.

 

[vadimivich]

I sincerely wish we could just abolish religion and any viewpoint that arises from religion when it comes to discussing social policy. Worship on your own time, in your own way, believe whatever you want. But don't make laws or contribute to the making of laws based on it.

I get that is impossible to actually accomplish, but religion is an abjectly shitty way to make policy. The funny thing is that every religion can see that when it comes to other religions (Christians view basing policy on Islam as bad policy, the same with Muslims in reverse) ... but the fucking log in their own eyes they just can never notice.

 

[MysteryMen]

Slate coming out strong on how Republicans bear responsibility for this for their lies about Planned Parenthood and refusal to address gun control

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...about_planned_parenthood_incite_violence.html

Let’s say that—as is apparently the case in every massacre that takes place on U.S. soil—there is nobody and nothing to blame. And indeed that nobody causes bad things to happen, and—more importantly for argument’s sake—nothing in fact even contributes to bad things happening. They just happen, and then the liberal media politicizes it.

But might one not then question whether the same rules of zero causation/zero responsibility should be applied to other issues? For instance, just as these GOP contenders would tell us that nobody caused or contributed to the clinic shootings other than an “evil guy,” can’t we also just accept that nobody caused or contributed to the events of Benghazi, beyond some “evil guys?” And certainly the cause of the Paris terror attacks (terrorism? ISIL? Religious fundamentalism?) is awfully hard to isolate. Too many circuit breakers. Can’t we just agree to agree that this too was the act of “evil guys?” Sept. 11? Evil guys. If we are really going to go through the ritual disclaiming of responsibility for any and every domestic act of terror, can’t we do the same for all of them?
Or is it as simple as this: When foreigners do it, it’s evil; when Americans do it, it’s just too reductive to name a cause or even a contributing factor.