CO teen pregancy and abortion rate down 50%... Republicans upset

[Taco Truck 🚚]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty amazing.  What government or private program has achieved results like this over the same time period?

And we have the predictable Republican response...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/opinion/winning-the-campaign-to-curb-teen-pregnancy.html

I like how when I criticize the party of Trump, no matter how absurd what their doing is, I'm accused of being a partisan hack.  The bottom line is Atlas needs to stop with the false equivalency thing.  There is clearly one party that has completely lost its collective mind.  We have partisan gridlock because one party continually rails against common freakin' sense.  I mean where exactly is the bipartisan "middle ground" on this issue?

[Green Line]

I like how when I criticize the party of Trump, no matter how absurd what their doing is, I'm accused of being a partisan hack.  The bottom line is Atlas needs to stop with the false equivalency thing.  There is clearly one party that has completely lost its collective mind.  We have partisan gridlock because one party continually rails against common freakin' sense.  I mean where exactly is the bipartisan "middle ground" on this issue?

You're usually just accused of being a huge ***hole, actually, not partisan.  It's one of the few things on here that cuts across partisan lines.  Congrats!

[Taco Truck 🚚]

You're usually just accused of being a huge ***hole, actually, not partisan.  It's one of the few things on here that cuts across partisan lines.  Congrats!

This is what I mean.  There is simply no defense for Republicans' positions on many issues.  There isn't any logic.  It is just foaming at the mouth and hurling profanity just for the sake of being partisan.  Why would you be against almost 50% fewer teen pregnancies and abortions?!  What is the point of fighting just to fight?  It is particularly sad when you think of the number of teenage lives that have been ruined while the Republicans obstructed progress.  How do people do stuff like this and sleep at night?

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is why, even though I respect the reasons that lead many people to oppose abortion and think that's a perfectly valid position to take, I have nothing but contempt for conservative politicians who claim to champion these views. Preserving the sanctity of life is just a pretext to them (indeed, some of them have no problem forcing women to abort when it's convenient to them, as a certain TN Congressman well knows). In the end, it's all about preserving male control over women's sexuality and life choices.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is why, even though I respect the reasons that lead many people to oppose abortion and think that's a perfectly valid position to take, I have nothing but contempt for conservative politicians who claim to champion these views. Preserving the sanctity of life is just a pretext to them (indeed, some of them have no problem forcing women to abort when it's convenient to them, as a certain TN Congressman well knows). In the end, it's all about preserving male control over women's sexuality and life choices.

Isn't the stated policy goal of keeping teenage girls from getting pregnant a desire for control over women's sexuality and life choices, as much as is the desire not to promote birth control?   

In any case, the decline in teenage pregnancy in CO is in largely line with the rest of the nation.  There's a good chance this policy of funding LARCs makes some difference, but it looks like this is being oversold.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Isn't the stated policy goal of keeping teenage girls from getting pregnant a desire for control over women's sexuality and life choices, as much as is the desire not to promote birth control?

No.  The option is OFFERED to the girls.  They are given a FREE option to either utilize it or turn it down.  No Democrat is actively BLOCKING funds from the girls... That's the Republicans you are thinking of.

In any case, the decline in teenage pregnancy in CO is in largely line with the rest of the nation.

What does that mean?  That's one of those waffle things people say when they don't want to acknowledge a statistically significant number.  Colorado's drop in teen pregnancy is several percentage points bigger than Texas' drop.  And keep in mind the program in CO was hobbled by being chronically underfunded.  In a way I agree with you.  Imagine the results if Republicans agreed to fund it correctly.

[Cory]

Let's be real: The reason they oppose it is because Conservative Christians believe things like pregnancy and STD's are God's punishment for pre-marital sex.

[hurricanehink]

Great job Colorado for being a "laboratory for democracy", as Republicans like to call states. Of course, when they experiment on programs that are successful and a Democrat comes up with them, they lose their minds that government *can* work properly.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is why, even though I respect the reasons that lead many people to oppose abortion and think that's a perfectly valid position to take, I have nothing but contempt for conservative politicians who claim to champion these views. Preserving the sanctity of life is just a pretext to them (indeed, some of them have no problem forcing women to abort when it's convenient to them, as a certain TN Congressman well knows). In the end, it's all about preserving male control over women's sexuality and life choices.

Isn't the stated policy goal of keeping teenage girls from getting pregnant a desire for control over women's sexuality and life choices, as much as is the desire not to promote birth control?

I hate to say this but... Schadenfreude is right. Nobody's talking about stopping teenage girls who wish to have children. The State should simply offer them the possibility to make their own choices and wrestle control of their bodies away from men, regardless of income. To be clear, I do think that families and communities have an important role to play in helping everybody involved handle these issues in a caring, sensitive and nonpatriarchal manner that focuses on the girl's welfare, happiness, and the fulfillment of her moral values. But if they try to take away this choice from her, then at the very least it must be based on a compelling moral interest (like I understand protecting life would be to some). Opposing choice as a matter of principle, when no life is on the line, is just wrong.

A long time ago there was a thread where some creep (was it Cory? I think it might but I'm not sure) proposed forcibly administering birth control to High School girls. That's an absolutely disgusting idea and I'm sure most progressives would never sign off to that.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The idea is that contraceptives/birth control is simply "abortion by another name". I don't believe that, but there are plenty of religious people that do.

[they don't love you like i love you]

This is why, even though I respect the reasons that lead many people to oppose abortion and think that's a perfectly valid position to take, I have nothing but contempt for conservative politicians who claim to champion these views. Preserving the sanctity of life is just a pretext to them (indeed, some of them have no problem forcing women to abort when it's convenient to them, as a certain TN Congressman well knows). In the end, it's all about preserving male control over women's sexuality and life choices.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12369912/hillary-clinton-pro-life

(The author is a very well known hipster Christian blogger and author, so I was really happy to see her on my favorite news site.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12369912/hillary-clinton-pro-life

(The author is a very well known hipster Christian blogger and author, so I was really happy to see her on my favorite news site.)

That's an excellent piece, thanks.

The idea is that contraceptives/birth control is simply "abortion by another name". I don't believe that, but there are plenty of religious people that do.

So life begins before conception? That is just not a legitimate position to hold. And it's very obviously a pretext.

[Joe Republic]

The idea is that contraceptives/birth control is simply "abortion by another name". I don't believe that, but there are plenty of religious people that do.

So life begins before conception? That is just not a legitimate position to hold. And it's very obviously a pretext.

Didn't you grow up in a Catholic country?  I'm surprised you're only just finding out about this concept now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The idea is that contraceptives/birth control is simply "abortion by another name". I don't believe that, but there are plenty of religious people that do.

So life begins before conception? That is just not a legitimate position to hold. And it's very obviously a pretext.

Didn't you grow up in a Catholic country?  I'm surprised you're only just finding out about this concept now.

No one in France seriously opposes contraception. Even in the conservative Catholic High School I went to, it never came up as an issue. And when it was legalized back in 1967, the arguments against were either natalist or very obviously misogynistic.

[Joe Republic]

I recognize that few Catholic countries have kept a hardline view on anything for decades, but you seemed to be surprised to learn that the belief itself exists, when its one of the most well-known elements of Catholic doctrine.

(Not to imply any kind of connection between Catholic purism and Colorado, obviously.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, I'm aware of Humanae Vitae, but I thought it was widely understood as a moral obligation placed on the faithful rather that as a call to outlaw contraception as a matter of public policy (as is the Church's opposition to divorce, sex out of wedlock, etc.). It's a very important distinction to make.

[DC Al Fine]

This is why, even though I respect the reasons that lead many people to oppose abortion and think that's a perfectly valid position to take, I have nothing but contempt for conservative politicians who claim to champion these views. Preserving the sanctity of life is just a pretext to them (indeed, some of them have no problem forcing women to abort when it's convenient to them, as a certain TN Congressman well knows). In the end, it's all about preserving male control over women's sexuality and life choices.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12369912/hillary-clinton-pro-life

(The author is a very well known hipster Christian blogger and author, so I was really happy to see her on my favorite news site.)

I'm not very impressed with RHE's reasoning. She seems to view abortion as something like car accidents; a bad thing we should try to decrease at the margins, not a crime against the most innocent among us that cries out to heaven for justice!

This in turn informs her whole argument. For instance she cites countries that have banned abortion but have a relatively high abortion rate as a reason we should focus on reducing poverty and unwanted pregnancies. This is an incredibly misguided argument that only seems to get trotted out for abortion and never holds up elsewhere.

Wage theft is both illegal and widely practiced, but I can't imagine if one party was pro-welfare state and another was anti wage theft, that RHE would be writing a case to vote for an pro-legal wage theft candidate. Even though poverty and unwanted pregnancy matter here, the form of the law is also important, not just cold utilitarianism.

"Pro-lifers should vote for Hillary because Donald Trump is a reprobate who is fundamentally unsuited for office" is a much more plausible argument.* I guess that wouldn't make for a very good piece for Vox to publish so I won't hold that against her.

*Personally I think that's only shows you shouldn't vote for Trump, not that you should vote for Hillary, but hey I can at least see the point there.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The idea is that contraceptives/birth control is simply "abortion by another name". I don't believe that, but there are plenty of religious people that do.

So life begins before conception? That is just not a legitimate position to hold. And it's very obviously a pretext.

Well, yes, sort of.  "Life" as we know it began 14 billion years ago, and under Catholic doctrine (and I would ask any of the Catholics here to please correct me if I'm wrong on this), it follows that everything else is a mere continuation of that.  Ergo, attempting to prevent the creation of life using artificial means (i.e. anything other than having intercourse when a woman is not ovulating) is to get in the way of God's Divine plan.  Birth control pills are considered abortifacients because they cause the uterus to eject potentially fertilized eggs, which is tantamount to ending a life.

Obviously this is something that most Catholics don't adhere to, especially in the West and in Europe where the RCC's lost the most influence.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Yes, I'm aware of Humanae Vitae, but I thought it was widely understood as a moral obligation placed on the faithful rather that as a call to outlaw contraception as a matter of public policy (as is the Church's opposition to divorce, sex out of wedlock, etc.). It's a very important distinction to make.

This has always been my understanding as well. You're not wrong.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The idea is that contraceptives/birth control is simply "abortion by another name". I don't believe that, but there are plenty of religious people that do.

So life begins before conception? That is just not a legitimate position to hold. And it's very obviously a pretext.

Well, yes, sort of.  "Life" as we know it began 14 billion years ago, and under Catholic doctrine (and I would ask any of the Catholics here to please correct me if I'm wrong on this), it follows that everything else is a mere continuation of that.  Ergo, attempting to prevent the creation of life using artificial means (i.e. anything other than having intercourse when a woman is not ovulating) is to get in the way of God's Divine plan.

As far as I know--and I'd love it if TJ or one of our other Catholics in good standing could either back me up or correct me on this, since I'm speaking as somebody who's doing intensive but somewhat haphazard research in preparation for potentially starting RCIA--this is basically correct but isn't taken so far as to claim that contraception is morally tantamount to abortion. Or, at least, it isn't any more; I think in the catechism that emerged from the Council of Trent it may have been (partially since iirc that catechism was operating from a pre-Mendelian understanding of reproduction in which the 'seed' was thought to contain the complete eventual child whereas the womb was just an incubator), but I read recently (I wish I could remember where) in the context of a discussion of premarital sex that contraception doesn't actually further aggravate that particular sin unless it involves intent to abort in the event that the contraception fails. This strikes me as unpleasantly casuistic but it doesn't seem like the sort of conclusion the Church would come to if the teaching was that prophylactic contraception and abortion were actually morally equivalent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't this depend on the type of birth control pill? I was under the impression that this was part of the stated objection to emergency contraception (which itself may be based on an outmoded scientific understanding of how these drugs work), as opposed to your common or garden oral contraceptive. I don't know enough about either the mechanics of chemical contraception or the extent to which the Church understands the mechanics of chemical contraception to be sure, though.

If normal, non-emergency oral contraceptives can have post-fertilization effects, then that strikes me as the sort of fact that should be much more widely publicized. It strikes me as an informed consent issue, since there are a ton of Catholic women who dissent from Church teaching on prophylactic contraception but not on abortion (or who might be prescribed these drugs for any of their various other effects), to say nothing of pro-life Protestants, Orthodox/Conservadox Jews, et cetera.

[Devout Centrist]

Another example as to why I can't vote for these people. Arnold would be kicked out of the GOP for being too foreign.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As far as I know--and I'd love it if TJ or one of our other Catholics in good standing could either back me up or correct me on this, since I'm speaking as somebody who's doing intensive but somewhat haphazard research in preparation for potentially starting RCIA--this is basically correct but isn't taken so far as to claim that contraception is morally tantamount to abortion. Or, at least, it isn't any more; I think in the catechism that emerged from the Council of Trent it may have been (partially since iirc that catechism was operating from a pre-Mendelian understanding of reproduction in which the 'seed' was thought to contain the complete eventual child whereas the womb was just an incubator), but I read recently (I wish I could remember where) in the context of a discussion of premarital sex that contraception doesn't actually further aggravate that particular sin unless it involves intent to abort in the event that the contraception fails. This strikes me as unpleasantly casuistic but it doesn't seem like the sort of conclusion the Church would come to if the teaching was that prophylactic contraception and abortion were actually morally equivalent.

Is that so?  Something must have changed, then.  My mom, who had a reasonably strict Catholic upbringing but is lapsed now, said that contraceptives were no-go, period, in some circles.  I don't see why contraception would be any less sinful in the context of pre-marital sex than between a man and his wife.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't this depend on the type of birth control pill? I was under the impression that this was part of the stated objection to emergency contraception (which itself may be based on an outmoded scientific understanding of how these drugs work), as opposed to your common or garden oral contraceptive. I don't know enough about either the mechanics of chemical contraception or the extent to which the Church understands the mechanics of chemical contraception to be sure, though.

If normal, non-emergency oral contraceptives can have post-fertilization effects, then that strikes me as the sort of fact that should be much more widely publicized. It strikes me as an informed consent issue, since there are a ton of Catholic women who dissent from Church teaching on prophylactic contraception but not on abortion (or who might be prescribed these drugs for any of their various other effects), to say nothing of pro-life Protestants, Orthodox/Conservadox Jews, et cetera.
[/quote]

As far as I know, there are two types of pills - those that keep the ovaries from releasing an egg and thicken the cervical lining to prevent the sperm from joining the egg, and others which suppress ovulation.  Or both.  But my understanding is that the RCC would oppose the use of either because so-called "artificial birth control" overrides God's plan, even if it's not an "abortifacient."

They would probably be permitted for non-contraceptive purposes, but nothing beyond that.  I'm not sure.  I also don't know of any Protestant sects that oppose abortion as well as contraceptives, but I'm sure some exist.

[Devout Centrist]

As far as I know--and I'd love it if TJ or one of our other Catholics in good standing could either back me up or correct me on this, since I'm speaking as somebody who's doing intensive but somewhat haphazard research in preparation for potentially starting RCIA--this is basically correct but isn't taken so far as to claim that contraception is morally tantamount to abortion. Or, at least, it isn't any more; I think in the catechism that emerged from the Council of Trent it may have been (partially since iirc that catechism was operating from a pre-Mendelian understanding of reproduction in which the 'seed' was thought to contain the complete eventual child whereas the womb was just an incubator), but I read recently (I wish I could remember where) in the context of a discussion of premarital sex that contraception doesn't actually further aggravate that particular sin unless it involves intent to abort in the event that the contraception fails. This strikes me as unpleasantly casuistic but it doesn't seem like the sort of conclusion the Church would come to if the teaching was that prophylactic contraception and abortion were actually morally equivalent.

Is that so?  Something must have changed, then.  My mom, who had a reasonably strict Catholic upbringing but is lapsed now, said that contraceptives were no-go, period, in some circles.  I don't see why contraception would be any less sinful in the context of pre-marital sex than between a man and his wife.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't this depend on the type of birth control pill? I was under the impression that this was part of the stated objection to emergency contraception (which itself may be based on an outmoded scientific understanding of how these drugs work), as opposed to your common or garden oral contraceptive. I don't know enough about either the mechanics of chemical contraception or the extent to which the Church understands the mechanics of chemical contraception to be sure, though.

If normal, non-emergency oral contraceptives can have post-fertilization effects, then that strikes me as the sort of fact that should be much more widely publicized. It strikes me as an informed consent issue, since there are a ton of Catholic women who dissent from Church teaching on prophylactic contraception but not on abortion (or who might be prescribed these drugs for any of their various other effects), to say nothing of pro-life Protestants, Orthodox/Conservadox Jews, et cetera.

As far as I know, there are two types of pills - those that keep the ovaries from releasing an egg and thicken the cervical lining to prevent the sperm from joining the egg, and others which suppress ovulation.  Or both.  But my understanding is that the RCC would oppose the use of either because so-called "artificial birth control" overrides God's plan, even if it's not an "abortifacient."

They would probably be permitted for non-contraceptive purposes, but nothing beyond that.  I'm not sure.  I also don't know of any Protestant sects that oppose abortion as well as contraceptives, but I'm sure some exist.
[/quote]
You hit the nail on the head. The Catholic Church currently considers the use of any form of contraceptive as anathema and in opposition to God's will.

[RI]

The idea is that contraceptives/birth control is simply "abortion by another name". I don't believe that, but there are plenty of religious people that do.

So life begins before conception? That is just not a legitimate position to hold. And it's very obviously a pretext.

Well, yes, sort of.  "Life" as we know it began 14 billion years ago, and under Catholic doctrine (and I would ask any of the Catholics here to please correct me if I'm wrong on this), it follows that everything else is a mere continuation of that.  Ergo, attempting to prevent the creation of life using artificial means (i.e. anything other than having intercourse when a woman is not ovulating) is to get in the way of God's Divine plan.

As far as I know--and I'd love it if TJ or one of our other Catholics in good standing could either back me up or correct me on this, since I'm speaking as somebody who's doing intensive but somewhat haphazard research in preparation for potentially starting RCIA--this is basically correct but isn't taken so far as to claim that contraception is morally tantamount to abortion. Or, at least, it isn't any more; I think in the catechism that emerged from the Council of Trent it may have been (partially since iirc that catechism was operating from a pre-Mendelian understanding of reproduction in which the 'seed' was thought to contain the complete eventual child whereas the womb was just an incubator), but I read recently (I wish I could remember where) in the context of a discussion of premarital sex that contraception doesn't actually further aggravate that particular sin unless it involves intent to abort in the event that the contraception fails. This strikes me as unpleasantly casuistic but it doesn't seem like the sort of conclusion the Church would come to if the teaching was that prophylactic contraception and abortion were actually morally equivalent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't this depend on the type of birth control pill? I was under the impression that this was part of the stated objection to emergency contraception (which itself may be based on an outmoded scientific understanding of how these drugs work), as opposed to your common or garden oral contraceptive. I don't know enough about either the mechanics of chemical contraception or the extent to which the Church understands the mechanics of chemical contraception to be sure, though.

If normal, non-emergency oral contraceptives can have post-fertilization effects, then that strikes me as the sort of fact that should be much more widely publicized. It strikes me as an informed consent issue, since there are a ton of Catholic women who dissent from Church teaching on prophylactic contraception but not on abortion (or who might be prescribed these drugs for any of their various other effects), to say nothing of pro-life Protestants, Orthodox/Conservadox Jews, et cetera.

Contraception isn't generally denounced by the Catholic Church because of anything to do with abortion directly (unless we're talking abortifacients). Contraception use (with the intent to contracept) is a mortal sin because it artificially severs the two mutual purposes of sex as designed by God, the unitive and the procreative. It has nothing to do with killing a life as abortion or abortifacients do. There is no individual life prior to conception.

If a married couple wishes to space their children for whatever (serious) reason, they are allowed to use methods that only use the natural bodily processes designed by God: i.e. a woman's natural cycle of fertility through NFP. It's actually quite effective in what it sets out to do (generally speaking). It's worked for my wife and I for several years now.

Birth control pills are not emergency contraception and are not designed to eject a fertilized egg. However, the general argument seems to be that birth control use can make it so fertilized eggs fail to implant in the first place by thinning the endometrium.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Contraception isn't generally denounced by the Catholic Church because of anything to do with abortion directly (unless we're talking abortifacients). Contraception use (with the intent to contracept) is a mortal sin because it artificially severs the two mutual purposes of sex as designed by God, the unitive and the procreative. It has nothing to do with killing a life as abortion or abortifacients do. There is no individual life prior to conception.

Yeah, that's what I meant with that post Scott took issue with. Life as a holistic process has to be distinguished from life as the property of a specific being, and I would have been very surprised to find out that such distinction wasn't present in Catholic thought (I also think it's crucial to distinguish the latter from personhood, but obviously I don't expect Catholic posters to agree). My point is, if you take the position that the fertilized egg is a living human being, then it's obvious that the State has a compelling interest in protecting the fundamental rights of such person. But that compelling interest cannot reasonably be argued to exist in the case of (preventive) contraception, and thus claiming that it's "abortion by other means" really proves my point. What bothers the largely upper-class, middle-aged, Protestant White men who dictate the Conservative agenda about both these issues has nothing to do with the taking of a life - it's the fact that women are taking control of their own bodies away from men.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That strikes me as a somewhat specious distinction, to be honest. What makes one type of means "natural" and the other "artificial"? Literally every human action is made possible through the means God gives us, isn't it? The fabrication of contraceptives, like any chemical, uses materials that exist in nature. Conversely, while abstaining from sex during ovulation doesn't require external materials, it still requires some form of knowledge and manipulation of natural processes. That doesn't strike me as qualitatively different from the type of knowledge and manipulation of natural processes necessary to make a contraceptive - the difference of degree is obvious, but would it be sufficient to justify the moral distinction?