Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-17-2019, 08:10 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Anti abortion activists are to a good degree motivated by misogyny and religious fundamentalism. If they truly opposed abortion they'd favor sex education and easy access to contraception since these things lower abortion rates.
Do you have a cite that, in the USA, sex education lowers abortion rates? TIA.

Regards,
Shodan
  #52  
Old 05-17-2019, 08:10 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
Vasectomies are irreversible, and many horny young men want children later. That's not a great solution. IUDs on the other hand, are reversible, and last for years of they aren't removed. They have a bad reputation in the US, because the ones used 50 years ago were dangerous. But the ones currently on the market have a good safety record.

Rehabilitating and subsidizing IUDs would go a long way to reducing the demand for abortions. They don't do anything to slow the spread of STIs, of course, but neither do vasectomies.
Some religious folks are against IUDs because of the (mistaken?) belief that they prevent implantation of fertilized eggs and so cause abortions.
  #53  
Old 05-17-2019, 08:34 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,030
Ah. They do prevent the implantation of the egg. But I think there's a lot more political support for "don't actively kill a thing with a heart beat" than for "don't allow a fertilized egg to pass through the system without implanting". Some huge fraction of fertilized eggs don't make it in the best of circumstances. That's why it typically takes more than one try to get a "test tube baby", and why they often implant more than one fertilized egg at a time.

But, from the perspective of at least some pro life people I've talked with, it's like the difference between murdering your house guest and refusing to open the door to a stranger. I think a lot of young women and their loved ones would be comfortable with IUDs if they got better press, and if they were cheaper and easier to get.

You'd mostly see opposition from the "people shouldn't have sex unless they are married and open to babies" camp, not the pro-life camp.
  #54  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:01 AM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
Ah. They do prevent the implantation of the egg. But I think there's a lot more political support for "don't actively kill a thing with a heart beat" than for "don't allow a fertilized egg to pass through the system without implanting". Some huge fraction of fertilized eggs don't make it in the best of circumstances. That's why it typically takes more than one try to get a "test tube baby", and why they often implant more than one fertilized egg at a time.

But, from the perspective of at least some pro life people I've talked with, it's like the difference between murdering your house guest and refusing to open the door to a stranger. I think a lot of young women and their loved ones would be comfortable with IUDs if they got better press, and if they were cheaper and easier to get.

You'd mostly see opposition from the "people shouldn't have sex unless they are married and open to babies" camp, not the pro-life camp.
Same camp.
  #55  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:05 AM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Do you have a cite that, in the USA, sex education lowers abortion rates? TIA.

Regards,
Shodan
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2016/...ecent-abortion
  #56  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:07 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,457
I don’t see how offering easy vasectomies to men addresses in any way the self-determination of women.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #57  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:11 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
-Wanting to have children or not is something many people drastically change their mind about during their life. In both directions.
So what?
  #58  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:23 AM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
Same camp.
Yeah, I think there's a lot of overlap between them. It's like gay marriage: Would those who oppose gay marriage really settle for civil unions given that the bulk of those who oppose gay marriage also opposed civil unions and, before that, the legalization of homosexual sex? It's a mistake to just take them at their word and think that if you solve the problem they're ostensibly complaining about, they'll be appeased.



This picture from an Economist article made me wonder: https://www.economist.com/united-sta...nge-roe-v-wade It makes it look like the bulk of anti-abortion activists are white middle-aged women past the age of having an abortion.

I've seen stats of abortion opinion tolls split according to gender or age but not gender and age combined. Is there any data like that?

It reminds me of a report I saw of a middle-aged guy with no education who spent the time he could otherwise have spent looking for work doing armed vigilante patrols of the US-Mexico borders, like he needed a cause to fill the gap where the rest of his life should be.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 05-17-2019 at 09:24 AM.
  #59  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:29 AM
Maastricht is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Dutch in the Netherlands
Posts: 9,286
Quote:
originally posted by Maastricht
Anyway, I think most women should stock up for such medication in case they or a friend need it. The hassle and delay of buying it in a drugstore, or waiting for on-line delivery might be enough to miss an important pregnancy deadline. Such medication can be bought for around 100 dollars, free for people who can't afford it. Buying the medication can be done safely through sites like these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_on_the_Web
The same goes for morning after pills. If I were a woman in a Red State, I'd have a supply of those in my medicine cabinet. Even in Alabama those would be legal, as the woman takes them the morning after, not six weeks after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
If women should stock up in case a friend needs it, men should too. No reason to let dudes off the hook.
Very good point, Left Hand of Dorkness. If I lived in Alabama and had a son, I would encourage him to stock up on both. Even if there's a small chance having those might encourage intercourse without proper anticonception.
  #60  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:58 AM
red fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
"nm" means "no message", or possibly "never mind"
Yes, I found that googling it.... but still I don't see it fitting. Why someone would write ''nm'' rather that ignoring it and passing by?
  #61  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:03 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,797
The main problem with the OP's proposal is that it doesn't account for situations where the man wants children and the woman doesn't, or the man doesn't care about whether sex leads to pregnancy or not.
  #62  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:26 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by red fish View Post
Yes, I found that googling it.... but still I don't see it fitting. Why someone would write ''nm'' rather that ignoring it and passing by?
Ē posted in error, realized while the edit window was still open, and changed it to "nm" because you can't just delete a post on your own.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #63  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:31 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Ē posted in error, realized while the edit window was still open, and changed it to "nm" because you can't just delete a post on your own.
In other words, NM means, I posted in error please ignore this.
  #64  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:45 AM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
In other words, NM means, I posted in error please ignore this.
Or I said something but now I regret it.

Developing ANY sort of long-term, reversible, non-hormonal BC method would go a long way toward improving quality of life for everyone. I HATE hormonal BC. It warps my personality drastically. I don't feel like myself. It also has real costs and risks. I get so upset when people basically treat hormonal bc as so simple and so easy that it's perfectly reasonable that women shoulder the burden--it's no big deal. I get that in the 60s when the alternative was celibacy or a chain of babies, it was revolutionary. But it's not a perfect system.
  #65  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:58 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,745
You must have posted the wrong link, that study does not mention sex education at all.
  #66  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:00 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
People who are determined to "Make America A White Christian Nation Again" are not going to be in favor of letting white men opt out of their duty to make more white babies.
Can you provide one instance of a state legislature banning any form of birth control besides abortion in the last 50 years?
  #67  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:02 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
I'm not understanding this age requirement. If I can get an orchiectomy at 18, y'all should be able to get vasectomies at 18.
Either the doctor refused to do it on principle or the insurance wouldn't pay for it.

ETA: Most likely the doctor refused to perform the vasectomy on principle.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 05-17-2019 at 11:06 AM.
  #68  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:25 AM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Either the doctor refused to do it on principle or the insurance wouldn't pay for it.

ETA: Most likely the doctor refused to perform the vasectomy on principle.

~Max
Yup. When I went into having a consult for mine, the doc wouldn't even let me get a word in and spent the whole time basically lecturing me about how supposedly wrong my decision was. I'm going to try again in a couple years when I hit 30, but there's definitely a high likelihood that I'll run into the same issue.

And that's the practice that I'm talking about either banning or making illegal. I just think it would go a long way towards alleviating some of the tension on the anti-abortion crisis.
  #69  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:38 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,204
WADR I didn't see any references to education in your cite. It seemed to say that the decline was due to differing patterns of usage in contraceptive methods. Assuming for the moment that this is the case, what were the changes in sex education that brought about those differing patterns in 2008-2011? If they were in fact brought about by sex education.

So again, I would like to see a cite that lists
  • What form of sex education you mean, and
  • that it reduced abortion overall.

Regards,
Shodan
  #70  
Old 05-17-2019, 12:39 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
Yup. When I went into having a consult for mine, the doc wouldn't even let me get a word in and spent the whole time basically lecturing me about how supposedly wrong my decision was. I'm going to try again in a couple years when I hit 30, but there's definitely a high likelihood that I'll run into the same issue.

And that's the practice that I'm talking about either banning or making illegal. I just think it would go a long way towards alleviating some of the tension on the anti-abortion crisis.
You can't force a doctor to perform an operation they consider unethical or medically unnecessary. Not even legislation can do that. Vasectomy is considered permanent and I can sympathize with doctors who think you may come to regret your decision. It is their right to refuse to endorse/perform a medically unnecessary operation and it is your right to find another doctor. I am not a doctor but my opinion is that merely wanting to be sterilized does not constitute medical necessity or an ethical obligation for the doctor.

Orchiectomies on the other hand are carried out as treatment for testicular cancer, advanced prostate cancer, or as part of sex reassignment surgery. It would be unethical for the doctor to let you die of cancer because the operation is irreversible. Some doctors (or insurances) still refuse to recognize sex reassignment as medically necessary.

~Max
  #71  
Old 05-17-2019, 12:58 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
You must have posted the wrong link, that study does not mention sex education at all.
Take that studies find about reduced unwanted pregnancy. Google a study about sex education leading to reduced unwanted pregnancy. It shouldn't be difficult.
  #72  
Old 05-17-2019, 01:14 PM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
You can't force a doctor to perform an operation they consider unethical or medically unnecessary. Not even legislation can do that. Vasectomy is considered permanent and I can sympathize with doctors who think you may come to regret your decision. It is their right to refuse to endorse/perform a medically unnecessary operation and it is your right to find another doctor. I am not a doctor but my opinion is that merely wanting to be sterilized does not constitute medical necessity or an ethical obligation for the doctor.

Orchiectomies on the other hand are carried out as treatment for testicular cancer, advanced prostate cancer, or as part of sex reassignment surgery. It would be unethical for the doctor to let you die of cancer because the operation is irreversible. Some doctors (or insurances) still refuse to recognize sex reassignment as medically necessary.

~Max
Well again, my proposal is to just change that practice. Obviously I think the simplest solution is to just ban it, but there could be other avenues as well. Maybe the state governments could provide some sort of incentives for docs who agree to do it on younger men? I.e., compiling a statewide database of docs who are willing to do it, offering those docs higher Medicaid reimbursement rates, possible student loan forgiveness, etc.
  #73  
Old 05-17-2019, 01:25 PM
aruvqan is offline
Embracing the Suck
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 16,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
Footnote: I heard recently that many gynecologists are removing tubes, not tying them, because it doesn't take much longer, and it's believed that a lot of ovarian cancer actually originates in the tubes.
<waves hand> I joke about it but I had 2 losses before getting my tubes tied the old fashioned way, loop and rubber band the tubes. The first one could have been named OrthoNovum Didn't Work and the second OrthoNovum Didn't Work, Rubber Broke ... the main reason they are removing the tubes now is the THIRD kid should have been named You Have Got To Be Fucking Me, I Had My Tubes Tied 10 Years Ago after what I screamed at the poor lab tech calling me to tell me I needed to set up prenatal visits [the Navy used to bunny test every woman of reproductive age that walked into the hospital for any reason.] *I* am one of the reasons they cut and burn now =)
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I'm much more in favor of throwing men in prison if they don't pay child support once their fetus has a heart beat, including picking up their part of the tab for medical bills.

If women are going to be thrown in prison for doing bad things to "precious life", then so should men.
I love the idea. Someone on facebook posted something aboutnot suing for child support, but for loss of income and opportunities related to being saddled with a pregnancy and subsequent 'glass cielings' thanks to dragging around a kid that women get ... though I would also add on perpetual medical coverage for the mother as well, pregnancy can have some permanent problems if things go wrong - destroyed pelvic musculature leading to permanent incontinence, nerve damage from episiotomies, c-section nightmares .... people don't always realize that pregnancy can be not just life threatening but physically damaging as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
If women should stock up in case a friend needs it, men should too. No reason to let dudes off the hook.
excellent idea. I can also forsee a reproductive underground railroad of people willing to drive women out of state for abortions or to obtain sterilizations or IUDs/implants/shots not available legally locally. If I didn't live so far north, I would be more than willing to drive a couple friends somewhere 'for a vacation'
  #74  
Old 05-17-2019, 01:32 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
Take that studies find about reduced unwanted pregnancy. Google a study about sex education leading to reduced unwanted pregnancy. It shouldn't be difficult.
I did a little Googling and I couldn't find anything about sex education reducing abortions overall, which is what was alleged. But then again, the burden of proof doesn't lie with me.

But you're right - if it is really true that sex education reduces abortions overall, it shouldn't be difficult to show. So, go ahead.

Regards,
Shodan
  #75  
Old 05-17-2019, 01:53 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,370
Quote:
If they ever come up with a reliably reversible vasectomy, this might work out, but probably not otherwise.
They don't have "reliably reversible" rapes, either, for the women who are impregnated by them.

To me, the issue is simple. Any man or group of men who think they can legislate and control my reproductive rights as if I were some kind of breeding heifer can go fuck themselves. They should move to the Middle East instead where they can treat women like garbage to their hearts' content.
  #76  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:15 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
...Developing ANY sort of long-term, reversible, non-hormonal BC method would go a long way toward improving quality of life for everyone. I HATE hormonal BC. It warps my personality drastically. I don't feel like myself. It also has real costs and risks. I get so upset when people basically treat hormonal bc as so simple and so easy that it's perfectly reasonable that women shoulder the burden--it's no big deal. I get that in the 60s when the alternative was celibacy or a chain of babies, it was revolutionary. But it's not a perfect system.
Ask your doctor if you are a candidate for an IUD. There are two types, one leaches progesterone (a hormone) into the uterus, and the other is copper, and probably works by producing very low-grade inflammation around it. But even the hormone one doesn't leach enough progesterone to have noticeable systemic effects for most women.

I had issues with the birth control pill, too, and really wish I'd never taken it. But once I got past the first month or two of "adapting" to the progesterone IUD, I've had no issues with it at all. Plus, the added bonus that my periods became so minor I didn't really need to use feminine hygiene products. (Maybe a pantiliner for a day. Or maybe not.) My obstetrician tried to talk me into trying one after the birth of my second child, and I said "no". Years of wasted opportunity.
  #77  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:57 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
Well again, my proposal is to just change that practice. Obviously I think the simplest solution is to just ban it, but there could be other avenues as well. Maybe the state governments could provide some sort of incentives for docs who agree to do it on younger men? I.e., compiling a statewide database of docs who are willing to do it, offering those docs higher Medicaid reimbursement rates, possible student loan forgiveness, etc.
You can add all the incentives or disincentives you want, but ideally that would not affect the doctor's ethical obligation or assessment of medical necessity. Expect a lot of resistance when the legislature tries to dictate what is or is not medically necessary or medically ethical.

~Max
  #78  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:00 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
Ask your doctor if you are a candidate for an IUD. There are two types, one leaches progesterone (a hormone) into the uterus, and the other is copper, and probably works by producing very low-grade inflammation around it. But even the hormone one doesn't leach enough progesterone to have noticeable systemic effects for most women.

I had issues with the birth control pill, too, and really wish I'd never taken it. But once I got past the first month or two of "adapting" to the progesterone IUD, I've had no issues with it at all. Plus, the added bonus that my periods became so minor I didn't really need to use feminine hygiene products. (Maybe a pantiliner for a day. Or maybe not.) My obstetrician tried to talk me into trying one after the birth of my second child, and I said "no". Years of wasted opportunity.
IUDs seemed to work or not work differently depending on the woman. My wife loved hers, much better than birth control pills. But when we had our second child in 1986 (planned) they were almost impossible to get in the US. That's when I got my vasectomy.
The only problem we had with the IUD was that sometimes I felt the string.
  #79  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:09 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I did a little Googling and I couldn't find anything about sex education reducing abortions overall, which is what was alleged. But then again, the burden of proof doesn't lie with me.

But you're right - if it is really true that sex education reduces abortions overall, it shouldn't be difficult to show. So, go ahead.

Regards,
Shodan
Here is a good paper on it, though it is about abstinence only education.
Teen pregnancy rates are highly elevated in states with more abstinence only education. (See Figure 1) Teen abortion rates are roughly comparable across all levels of abstinence-only education, which means that teen birth rates are also highly elevated.
But this doesn't take into account that abortions are harder to get in abstinence education only states, and I suspect social pressures against them are greater. All things being equal, if abortion rates are correlated to unwanted pregnancy rates (not a stretch) you'd get higher abortion rates, I think.
ETA: I'd suspect that abortion would be treated very negatively, if at all, in classes on abstinence, so that might be another reason.

Last edited by Voyager; 05-17-2019 at 03:10 PM.
  #80  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:26 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
... I think even if SCOTUS overrules Roe you'll just start seeing a bunch of Blue states openly ignoring that decision anyway. But still, something I keep thinking is that *maybe* a world with vastly restrictive abortion laws would be more bearable *if* laws & operational norms regarding vasectomies in men were massively liberalized.
To me mainly interesting mindset of some people who seem believe there's a solution to every problem by the govt providing things for less than they cost (at the margin and taxing other people to pay for it). My own caveat, I'm no Libertarian or small govt extremist. I think the total size of govt now in the US, federal state and local should get at least somewhat smaller, then again I accept it's more likely to get bigger (even the GOP pays less lip service to smaller govt than it used to), though I seriously oppose it getting a lot bigger. But lots of complicated situations or problems come as a result of people's own decisions only marginally affected by govt subsidies and abortion would be one of them. I doubt you could directly change the rate of abortion more than a few % by any program of subsidies. People are free to argue that a fundamentally more collectivist society would eventually lead to improved social welfare which would reduce the need for abortions; I don't agree but perhaps a plausible argument could be made for that. But the idea subsidizing vasectomies would have any real effect on abortions is again an interesting mindset, to me.

Condoms aren't perfect in preventing unwanted pregnancies but vastly reduce the rate per act of heterosexual intercourse compared to no condom. But I'd guess a large proportion of unwanted pregnancies occur from sex without condoms. So making condoms free would solve that, for all the people who can't afford condoms? Obviously not, condoms aren't used when they should be because the men involved don't want to use them. I don't see how vasectomies are fundamentally different, except that lots of men have a much more valid reason not to get a vasectomy (as in, they anticipate eventually wanting to father children their mates will want to keep) than they usually do to not use a condom. Nor do I see it as wise in general for men in their 20's to get vasectomies. I wouldn't want laws prohibiting that (there aren't AFAIK) but that doesn't strike me as much of an idea.

Seems the proposal would have more internal logic to it, though no chance of happening, if it was *forcing* men to get vasectomies. The main reason they don't now is they don't want to, not cost. Although OTOH some people are always up for one more thing the govt should pay for. I guess a single payer health plan would probably make them 'free', but I doubt change the rate a whole lot.

Also just a footnote overturning RvW would not make abortion illegal, and there would be nothing for 'blue' states to 'ignore'. They simply would not enact state laws making abortion illegal (or remove 'dead letter' anti-abortion laws they still have on their books from pre-Roe), and it would remain legal. Also their state supreme courts might find their state constitutions to contain an unwritten right to an abortion like Roe, or if not their legislatures and governors could pass amendments to their state constitutions explicitly granting such a right making it more difficult to reverse than just a future state anti-abortion law. Also they could pass legislation prohibiting their municipalities from enacting local abortion bans. Overturning Roe would only remove the right to an abortion for women living in states which elect legislators and governors which pass and sign abortion bans. I'm not saying that's a non-event nationally, but in states where the electorate is strongly in favor of abortion rights it would be.
  #81  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:32 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Here is a good paper on it, though it is about abstinence only education.
Teen pregnancy rates are highly elevated in states with more abstinence only education. (See Figure 1) Teen abortion rates are roughly comparable across all levels of abstinence-only education, which means that teen birth rates are also highly elevated.
But this doesn't take into account that abortions are harder to get in abstinence education only states, and I suspect social pressures against them are greater. All things being equal, if abortion rates are correlated to unwanted pregnancy rates (not a stretch) you'd get higher abortion rates, I think.
ETA: I'd suspect that abortion would be treated very negatively, if at all, in classes on abstinence, so that might be another reason.
The paper you linked to was not about sex education generally, only one type, so it did not show that sex education is effective on preventing abortions. The paper does show that while state with higher levels of abstinence only sex education had higher levels of teen pregnancies, they did not have lower levels of teen abortions. The states that had sex education that did not mention abstinence had the least abortions, the states that mention abstinence in context of a comprehensive sex education had the most teen abortions, the states that emphasized abstinence had slightly fewer abortions than states that only mentioned it, and states that stressed abstinence had the second lowest rate of teen abortions.

This strengthens my opinion that sex education has no effect on teen pregnancy or abortion rates.
  #82  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:37 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,030
Yes, if Roe is overturned, abortion law will be governed by the states. And several blue states have already enacted legislation that would maintain legal abortions in the event Roe goes away. A few had legalized abortion prior to Roe, at it will remain legal there, too.

This is an issue for women in red states, especially women who can't leave the state to obtain an abortion. So, mostly for young and poor women in red states.
  #83  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:46 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The paper you linked to was not about sex education generally, only one type, so it did not show that sex education is effective on preventing abortions. The paper does show that while state with higher levels of abstinence only sex education had higher levels of teen pregnancies, they did not have lower levels of teen abortions. The states that had sex education that did not mention abstinence had the least abortions, the states that mention abstinence in context of a comprehensive sex education had the most teen abortions, the states that emphasized abstinence had slightly fewer abortions than states that only mentioned it, and states that stressed abstinence had the second lowest rate of teen abortions.

This strengthens my opinion that sex education has no effect on teen pregnancy or abortion rates.
I haven't read the whole thread so maybe it's mentioned, but teenagers get only around 10% of the abortions in the US
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-po...2:%22asc%22%7D

So to make any argument that sex education has a big effect on abortion rates you have theorize that abortion rates in a woman's 20's (59%) or after (32%, doesn't add to 100 from rounding see link) are greatly affected by what she learned in school as a teenager. And that's going to be just torturing statistics till they confess what you want to hear, which is what the 'studies' on teen abortion probably are to begin with, along with most 'social science'. If it was really clear that what schools told kids was a major influence in their sexual behavior while still kids...it would be clear, which it's not. And even it that were clear, unwanted pregnancy of girls is a small % of all unwanted pregnancies of adult women plus girls.

'Education' (either in the general sense or the sense of delivering a certain message about a certain topic) like public subsidies is a potentially useful social tool in some cases but it's very easy to overestimate the potential for either to change social phenomena and patterns with deep and complicated causes.

Last edited by Corry El; 05-17-2019 at 03:48 PM.
  #84  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:16 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
Take that studies find about reduced unwanted pregnancy. Google a study about sex education leading to reduced unwanted pregnancy. It shouldn't be difficult.
You've been here long enough to know that's not how Great Debates works.

You make a claim, the burden on you is to back it up.

"Just Google it" is very poor form.
  #85  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:25 PM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
You've been here long enough to know that's not how Great Debates works.

You make a claim, the burden on you is to back it up.

"Just Google it" is very poor form.
On the other hand, were I to say "the earth is round" and someone were to say, "source", the accusation of "sealioning" would seem not entirely unwarranted, no?
  #86  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:44 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 13,164
I started a thread a while back about spousal "permission" and ethics WRT sterilization.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=817317
  #87  
Old 05-17-2019, 06:40 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
You've been here long enough to know that's not how Great Debates works.

You make a claim, the burden on you is to back it up.

"Just Google it" is very poor form.

I didn't make the claim. I was just helping out someone with a google deficit. If you don't my help, don't accept it.
  #88  
Old 05-17-2019, 08:37 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
I didn't make the claim. I was just helping out someone with a google deficit. If you don't my help, don't accept it.
NOBODY wants your so-called "help." Please back your posts up with actual facts, not "google it".
  #89  
Old 05-18-2019, 02:23 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The paper you linked to was not about sex education generally, only one type, so it did not show that sex education is effective on preventing abortions. The paper does show that while state with higher levels of abstinence only sex education had higher levels of teen pregnancies, they did not have lower levels of teen abortions. The states that had sex education that did not mention abstinence had the least abortions, the states that mention abstinence in context of a comprehensive sex education had the most teen abortions, the states that emphasized abstinence had slightly fewer abortions than states that only mentioned it, and states that stressed abstinence had the second lowest rate of teen abortions.

This strengthens my opinion that sex education has no effect on teen pregnancy or abortion rates.
Jesus frog. Why don't you try reading my post. You basically repeated what I said.
Since everyone pretends to do sex education these days, comparing abstinence based education with other types is as close as you're going to get to comparing sex ed to non-sex ed.

Now, assuming that you went back and read my post, what do you think of my contention that the lack of abortions - despite the higher pregnancy rate - could be due to the increased difficulty of getting them and the increased social pressure against them?
  #90  
Old 05-18-2019, 12:00 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Here is a good paper on it, though it is about abstinence only education.
Teen pregnancy rates are highly elevated in states with more abstinence only education. (See Figure 1) Teen abortion rates are roughly comparable across all levels of abstinence-only education, which means that teen birth rates are also highly elevated.
But this doesn't take into account that abortions are harder to get in abstinence education only states, and I suspect social pressures against them are greater. All things being equal, if abortion rates are correlated to unwanted pregnancy rates (not a stretch) you'd get higher abortion rates, I think.
ETA: I'd suspect that abortion would be treated very negatively, if at all, in classes on abstinence, so that might be another reason.
AFAICT this works against the idea that sex education reduces abortions, which is what was alleged. Abstinence education doesn't reduce abortions - if there is a kind of education that does, what is it?

Regards,
Shodan
  #91  
Old 05-18-2019, 12:53 PM
aruvqan is offline
Embracing the Suck
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 16,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
They don't have "reliably reversible" rapes, either, for the women who are impregnated by them.

To me, the issue is simple. Any man or group of men who think they can legislate and control my reproductive rights as if I were some kind of breeding heifer can go fuck themselves. They should move to the Middle East instead where they can treat women like garbage to their hearts' content.
preach it =) and as to rapists, I really don't think they are interested in practicing safe sex wither, neither of mine were ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post

I had issues with the birth control pill, too, and really wish I'd never taken it. But once I got past the first month or two of "adapting" to the progesterone IUD, I've had no issues with it at all. Plus, the added bonus that my periods became so minor I didn't really need to use feminine hygiene products. (Maybe a pantiliner for a day. Or maybe not.) My obstetrician tried to talk me into trying one after the birth of my second child, and I said "no". Years of wasted opportunity.
The product I wish I had known about was the menstrual cup ... so much money on pads and tampons ... *sob* though in retrospect, I really wish instead of just the tubal ligation, I had thought to try and convince my doc to remove the uterous as well, leaving just the ovaries. Not bleeding out/skipping months/bleeding for months thanks to PCOS would have been HEAVENLY!!!!!!! I had one stretch of bleeding that lasted 17 months the Navy OB/GYNs would do nothing about 'it isn't uncommon in PCOS' ..... they could have done what my civilian doc had done and at least given me norethindrone and stopped the menses in their tracks! Unfortunately I only managed that for about 4 years before I managed a hysterectomy [thanks ovarian cancer?] Damned Navy wouldn't even put me on the pill to regulate the menses because I had a freaking tubal ligation and 'it wasn't warrented'

Men need to get their damned heads out of reproductive rights unless they are a board certified OB/GYN ...
  #92  
Old 05-18-2019, 01:37 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
AFAICT this works against the idea that sex education reduces abortions, which is what was alleged. Abstinence education doesn't reduce abortions - if there is a kind of education that does, what is it?

Regards,
Shodan
Being on the left, the data comes first for me. As I said, sex education does not seem to decrease the number of abortions - it does decrease the teen pregnancy rate. In fact it looks like it increases the percentage of abortions for those who do get pregnant, since the number of abortions is roughly equal despite a lower pregnancy rate.
All things being equal. But they aren't. Where I live, getting an abortion is not going to be that big a deal in the sense that a woman won't have to drive hundreds of miles and get yelled at by her church. If more pregnancies are due to accidents, perhaps that makes abortion more acceptable as opposed to stupidly depending on abstinence. Like I said, making abortions harder to get is going to cut the rate.
  #93  
Old 05-18-2019, 02:29 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Being on the left, the data comes first for me. As I said, sex education does not seem to decrease the number of abortions - it does decrease the teen pregnancy rate.
Whatever it is they put in the water that reduces teen pregnancy also seems to turn people into Democrats:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...teenbirths.htm
  #94  
Old 05-18-2019, 02:48 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
On the other hand, were I to say "the earth is round" and someone were to say, "source", the accusation of "sealioning" would seem not entirely unwarranted, no?
Of course. But if someone said that sex education reduced abortion, and it turns out there is no evidence that it does, then that isn't sea lioning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager
Being on the left, the data comes first for me.
Being a pedant, the data come first for me.

Regards,
Shodan
  #95  
Old 05-18-2019, 02:51 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
So what?
So, it's not a good idea to have a vasectomy at 26.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #96  
Old 05-18-2019, 02:57 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
Well again, my proposal is to just change that practice. Obviously I think the simplest solution is to just ban it, but there could be other avenues as well. Maybe the state governments could provide some sort of incentives for docs who agree to do it on younger men? I.e., compiling a statewide database of docs who are willing to do it, offering those docs higher Medicaid reimbursement rates, possible student loan forgiveness, etc.

But why should the state encourage vasectomies? What public interest would that serve???

I said that if I were a doctor, I would refuse to do a vasectomy on a 26 yo, and if I were a legislator, I would also oppose a law encouraging doctors to do vasectomies on 26 yo, for the exact same reason
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #97  
Old 05-18-2019, 03:02 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Of course. But if someone said that sex education reduced abortion, and it turns out there is no evidence that it does, then that isn't sea lioning.
At best, sex education reduces the number of abortions and/or the number of teen pregnancies and/or the rate of STD.

At worst, it does none of these things (I find it unlikely, but well..) but inform kids about a pretty important subject (about which the parents most likely to oppose sex ed are also the most likely to poorly inform their children).
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #98  
Old 05-18-2019, 04:42 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
At best, sex education reduces the number of abortions and/or the number of teen pregnancies and/or the rate of STD.

At worst, it does none of these things (I find it unlikely, but well..) but inform kids about a pretty important subject (about which the parents most likely to oppose sex ed are also the most likely to poorly inform their children).
Actually at worst it could increase one or more of those things, or have negative non-pregnancy side effects like encouraging people to have sex when it's too early for them and negative fall out from that.

I'm not saying that's true, just pointing out how 'we know our side is right' type mental laziness can easily creep especially into tired old set piece culture war topics like sex or 'sexual abstinence' education.

But to reiterate, see link above, around 10% of abortions in the US are by women under 20 so presumably significantly less than 10% for non-adults (pre 18) and presumably much less than 10% for women/girls of an age where it would be plausible they don't know sex makes babies without schools telling them. It's not quite like constantly arguing over abortion in case of rape/incest at order of 1% of cases, but it's on the way there.

The bulk of abortions are by adult women, mainly in their 20's. It's very doubtful IMO middle/HS curricula, let alone 'liberalizing vasectomy', has or would have a noticeable impact on that.

I'm following here the implied assumption of the OP, that lowering the overall abortion rate is an important social goal. In fairness somebody could first state they don't care whatsoever what the overall abortion rate is, but abortions by minors even if a small % are a special case and the only kind they care about, or care highly disproportionately more about.

Abortion rate by state BTW from same series of pages:
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-po...:%22desc%22%7D
Not a 100% 'red v blue' correlation. Some very conservative states including with already famous/notorious indirect limitations on abortion have especially low rates, but so do some quite liberal states, OTOH NY has by a ways the highest rate, and GA which just passed a 'heartbeat' bill is tied for 4th.

Last edited by Corry El; 05-18-2019 at 04:45 PM.
  #99  
Old 05-19-2019, 09:22 PM
DocCathode's Avatar
DocCathode is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Philladelphia-Mummer city
Posts: 11,821

To Further Crap On The OP's Proposal


The Pro Life camp tends, as has been said, to be religious fundamentalists. The Lord commanded Adam and Eve 'Be fruitful and multiply'. Vasectomies violate that commandment. This proposal is a non starter in that sense. We are dealing, almost overwhelmingly, with folks who are against everything but the rythm method. They want sex only in heterosexual marriage. Everybody else should practice abstinence.

Speaking for myself- I always wanted to be a daddy. The fact that I am not is one of the great disappointments of my life. I am strongly pro choice. But, I would never get a vasectomy because it violates Jewish law. Condoms also violate Jewish law, but to a lesser degree. They aren't permanent. They are also cheaper and don't involve sitting on an ice pack for a week.

Oh and since nobody asked- Jewish law is against abortion but does NOT consider the fetus a person. A fetus is only a potential person.
__________________
Nothing is impossible if you can imagine it. That's the wonder of being a scientist!
Prof Hubert Farnsworth, Futurama
  #100  
Old 05-20-2019, 08:02 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
At best, sex education reduces the number of abortions and/or the number of teen pregnancies and/or the rate of STD.

At worst, it does none of these things (I find it unlikely, but well..)
Has sex education ever worked at its best and reduced the number of abortions? If so, can you cite where it did?

Unless this is a hypothetical that says "sex education could or should reduce the number of abortions, but has never done so in fact". Maybe it sounds like it should reduce abortions, maybe it is intended to reduce abortions. But AFAICT it doesn't.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017