Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

Women's Rights

Recommended Posts

I don't see that it detracts from that any more than taking birth control pills every day would. I mean, you had sex the night before, you take 2 seconds and click a button to indicate it. i guess it would be subject to the person remembering, and there are problems with people remembering to take a pill every day too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure we are on the same page.  I thought you were talking about charting the menstrual cycle so as to avoid sex during certain days of the month as a form of birth control.

 

And even with taking a pill everyday, there is no guarantee.  I know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do not need more sex ed.

 

Nobody ever told me anything about any of this until I was in my mid-THIRTIES for God's sake, and the women I know who are in this network who referred me to the book, nobody ever told them either.

 

Does not compute.

 

Is there any reason "sex ed" can't include things you're complaining no one ever taught you about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^My thoughts exactly.

 

We absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt need more sex education. And far earlier. People shouldn't be being taught about STDs, birth control, etc. when they're 16. Many people have already had multiple partners by that point. It needs to happen pre-puberty.

 

And literally zero methods of birth control short of flat out removing reproductive organs is 100% effective. You absolutely need to educate people on this and layer protection methods to greatly reduce risk. Charting doesn't always work, nor does the pill, nor does a condom (actually condoms only have around an 80% efficiency as used in the real world), etc. Expecting one party to be doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to pregnancy prevention is going to result in pregnancy eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, one by one.

 

Charting - via the app I use, for example, you examine your cervical mucus and (optional) put in things you're feeling, like sore boobs, ovulation pain, irritability, etc. The app can tell when your most fertile days are after you enter a couple of cycles based on your patterns and history. So when you look at the month ahead, it actually tells you with green highlights which days are the fertile days. you just avoid sex those days if you don't want to get PG. It also tells you when to expect the first day of your period. I've been using this app for approximately 8 years and it's almost never wrong about my period. I haven't had a "surprise" period in years. After you do it, you enter that you had intercourse into the app and it puts and X. It will tell you, if you include taking your temperature every day (which I did when I was TTC), exactly when you ovulated or will ovulate.

 

As a 46 year old with pretty close to zero fertility for a variety of reasons, I only use it now in that I avoid the fertile days and to record the first day of my period, so I know when the next fertile days and period will be the following month.

 

Strap - Yes, I suppose you are right, this SHOULD be sex ed. I have never, ever heard of anyone teaching women about this anywhere. The sex ed classes I had were completely ridiculous and mostly worthless. This was a long time ago of course, I have no idea what they are like now. I think sex ed is abysmal in this country and it should first and foremost give women the tools to monitor and understand their own bodies. Not just scare tactics about STDs and birth control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt need more sex education. And far earlier. People shouldn't be being taught about STDs, birth control, etc. when they're 16. Many people have already had multiple partners by that point. It needs to happen pre-puberty.

 

In my school, I think it actually did; I think we started seeing at least basic-biology videos in 4th or 5th grade.  Birth control came much later, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of TMI, which I don't particularly care about, I want to share a couple of pictures with you to show you the minimums and maximum benefits of a program like this. I am completely serious when I say I think every single woman of childbearing age should use an app like this. You can skip these posts if you want, but I really think this stuff is important.

 

The first picture I will post is last month. I have a "basic" (free) membership and it simply shows in red the days of my period. H=heavy, L=light, and then at the end when a new cycle starts, another H.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You hint on a really good point about the state of our sex ed system. Scare tactics. Every lesson I had in health class utilized scare tactics which is such BS. Giving factual data on STDs and birth control and effectively teaching these things to people before they start having sex and not trying to shame or scare people away from sex is a way more effective form of sex education. Scare tactics don't work and every second spent showing pictures of genital warts is a second that isn't being effectively used to educate people on how to prevent them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt need more sex education. And far earlier. People shouldn't be being taught about STDs, birth control, etc. when they're 16. Many people have already had multiple partners by that point. It needs to happen pre-puberty.

 

In my school, I think it actually did; I think we started seeing at least basic-biology videos in 4th or 5th grade.  Birth control came much later, though.

 

My school had super basic stuff in 6th grade, but nowhere near enough to actually create a long lasting understanding of sex and everything that surrounds it. It wasn't until 11th grade health that we actually dove into the details and by that point half my class had already had sex and multiple people had had kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't click on the attachment unless you want your head to spin. But this is an example of the full use of the tool. I had a paid membership so could access all of it. This is the month I did IVF, and there's a place to enter everything, all the meds, when you do different steps, all of it. The + + + at the end are positive pregnancy tests. The crosshairs show ovulation, etc. Everything was timed and done with meds, which is how IVF works. But this shows the full scope of a tool like this.

 

With tools out there like this, I think it really brings fertility into science and I think a lot of women would love to have this kind of information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You hint on a really good point about the state of our sex ed system. Scare tactics. Every lesson I had in health class utilized scare tactics which is such BS. Giving factual data on STDs and birth control and effectively teaching these things to people before they start having sex and not trying to shame or scare people away from sex is a way more effective form of sex education. Scare tactics don't work and every second spent showing pictures of genital warts is a second that isn't being effectively used to educate people on how to prevent them.

 

Even my first year of college, I took a sex class and it was nothing but people snickering and making fun of what we learned. I think it's a very hard subject to teach and get through to people about. And so much of it is scare tactic based, which I hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strap - Yes, I suppose you are right, this SHOULD be sex ed. I have never, ever heard of anyone teaching women about this anywhere. The sex ed classes I had were completely ridiculous and mostly worthless. This was a long time ago of course, I have no idea what they are like now. I think sex ed is abysmal in this country and it should first and foremost give women the tools to monitor and understand their own bodies. Not just scare tactics about STDs and birth control.

 

I'm with you. Instead of "more" sex ed, it should probably be "better" sex ed. That's usually a completely unhelpful thing to say, but for something like this, there probably is a pretty decent empirical track record for different approaches and room to experiment and evaluate with new approaches. The real problem is from the opposition wholly uninterested in results, due to ideological objections. Plus all the inertia that makes anything new hard.

 

Also relevant to this wider discussion: news broke this summer of the results from what looks like a tremendously successful experiment in Colorado making certain kinds of birth control available free of charge:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?_r=0

 

The birthrate among teenagers across the state plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school.

 

These are eye-popping results. People who are sincerely interested in reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancy should be all over things like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely agree. If you combined this approach to birth control with giving women the info to manage and understand their cycles, it would be a huge, huge change.

 

Yep. And if we jump ahead X years into the future with a male birth control pill, well, we could be looking at some ridiculously low pregnancy rates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian M. Rosenthal ‏@brianmrosenthal  24m24 minutes ago

BREAKING: Houston grand jury investigating fetal tissue videos declines to indict Planned Parenthood, indicts videographers instead. #txlege


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt need more sex education. And far earlier. People shouldn't be being taught about STDs, birth control, etc. when they're 16. Many people have already had multiple partners by that point. It needs to happen pre-puberty.

 

In my school, I think it actually did; I think we started seeing at least basic-biology videos in 4th or 5th grade.  Birth control came much later, though.

 

Sixth grade, during the mid seventies.  Again, birth control was later, I am not sure how much later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian M. Rosenthal ‏@brianmrosenthal  24m24 minutes ago

BREAKING: Houston grand jury investigating fetal tissue videos declines to indict Planned Parenthood, indicts videographers instead. #txlege

 

The irony is that the Texas republican tea party governor pushed for a grand jury to investigate Planned Parenthood.  And the grand jury not only cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing, but indicted the hidden camera trapsters instead!  Sometimes irony is ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian M. Rosenthal ‏@brianmrosenthal  24m24 minutes ago

BREAKING: Houston grand jury investigating fetal tissue videos declines to indict Planned Parenthood, indicts videographers instead. #txlege

 

The irony is that the Texas republican tea party governor pushed for a grand jury to investigate Planned Parenthood.  And the grand jury not only cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing, but indicted the hidden camera trapsters instead!  Sometimes irony is ironic.

 

And sometimes the grand jury process is politicized.  Houston has elected some strange people to office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ So has the State of Texas!!!

 

LOL true enough, but it's hard to beat a Congresswoman who asked the Mars Rover crew if they had found the flag the Apollo astronauts left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I don’t think this is intended to punish women, in fact quite the opposite. The intent is to find a spouse or other family member who is responsible for financially supporting the child, so that burden doesn’t fall on the taxpayer. The vast majority of custodial parents receive some support – either child support from another person, and/or support from the state. It’s always been in the state’s best interest to ensure that children are being born into families that can afford to raise them. The state needs to avoid paying for child support if there’s someone in the family that can afford to do so, but is purposely avoiding it. The only question I have about this proposal is – is it the best way to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is absolutely a way of punishing women. It punishes someone who may have gotten pregnant by someone they have no contact with, don't know the name of, etc. It's BS. It's a form of slut-shaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is absolutely a way of punishing women. It punishes someone who may have gotten pregnant by someone they have no contact with, don't know the name of, etc. It's BS. It's a form of slut-shaming.

 

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't do that at all. It rightfully punishes men who can afford to support their children but attempt to avoid to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also blatantly says women cannot support a child alone, which is horse s__t.

 

No, it doesn't do that either because all it does is make the child ineligible for state support. If the woman can afford to support a child and doesn't want to name a father she is free to do so. If public assistance is sought, that's when the state wants to be certain there isn't a father out there that can afford to support the child and is refusing to do so. If the child needs public assistance, the state always tries to go after the father first. Obviously there's a father some place. If the woman doesn't want anything to do with him, that's fine, but the state is going to take his money to pay for his kid if the mother needs assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what happens if you are estranged from your family and were raped by a stranger? How do you get a birth certificate for your child that the GOP wants you to have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Exactly. How screwed is that kid going to be without a birth certificate if there is no way to find the father? This is designed to punish women who didn't have a relationship with the father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of reasons someone would want to or be able to name the father. This is nothing but an attempt at shaming women for having sex and getting pregnant. It's put forth as a Minority Report type excuse that in some FUTURE time, the mother might want to seek support from the state, and thus they would require a father to go after for support, but it's really just sex shaming.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what happens if you are estranged from your family and were raped by a stranger? How do you get a birth certificate for your child that the GOP wants you to have?

 

That's a rare exception and would obviously need to be addressed if this were to become a law. Given the mention of paternity testing, if the rapist had a record or had DNA on file for some reason it might even help catch him, put him in jail, and provide support for the child with whatever assets he may have.

 

My point is that the intent here isn't necessarily nefarious and anti-woman because it came from Republicans.  The intent is to make sure deadbeat dads are paying for their children if the mother needs the money, so that burden isn't put unnecessarily on the taxpayer. I don't understand why people are opposed to that concept, though I understand the opposition to this proposed implication even if I disagree with it. My question is - what's the better alternative? If assistance is needed by the mother, the first step is to make sure the mother isn't trying to hide or protect the father, the second is to make sure the state can't identify the father by other means, and the final step is to provide that assistance when a father truly can't be identified or can't afford to help support the child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're opposed because it DOESN'T stop "dead beat dads" from skimping on supporting their child, it stops a single mother from being able to raise their child correctly. If the father can't be found he's in no way affected. But the mother and child sure as hell are affected. It's going about trying to penalize men by punishing women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the injustice in such a plan would be on the child.  Even with state support, these children don't have much to flourish.  Without it, they have no chance.  It's not the child's fault the mother might be a whore and the father might be a dead beat.  While I agree with the principle that some burden should be placed on the mother to identify the dad if she indeed does seek child support, the punishment for failure to do so should not be placed on the innocent child.

 

Obviously there's a father some place.

 

Except in Bethlehem circa 0000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about the circumstance where the mother knows very well who the father is but wants to make it harder for the state to locate him because it makes it easier for her to get welfare?

 

Also, I recognize that I'm a lonely traditionalist here in a sea of proud citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, but the state does not have an unlimited obligation to accommodate destructive lifestyle choices like having children out of wedlock.  Yes, that is a different question if rape was involved, but the vast majority of out-of-wedlock children are the product of consensual sex.  Call it "slut-shaming" or call it whatever you want, but there is nothing inherently wrong with making poor lifestyle decisions more legally consequential, at least at the state and local levels where the government is vested with general police powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always advocated for ways to clean up the fraud in the system.  Ferreting out the single mothers who are not really single mothers is one example, just like the workers comp frauds, the disability frauds, the unemployment frauds, etc.  I think we all agree with the spirit of wanting to chase down deadbeat dads (and moms) to hold them accountable.  But withholding a birth certificate is going too far.  Withholding aid to the child is going too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^People have kids out of wedlock. It has always happened and will always happen. Pretending this is some new "destructive" lifestyle that never happened in more "traditional" times is laughable.

 

Realize this issue isn't about government support, it's about birth certificates. Stop pretending this conversation is about government welfare. It's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're opposed because it DOESN'T stop "dead beat dads" from skimping on supporting their child, it stops a single mother from being able to raise their child correctly. If the father can't be found he's in no way affected. But the mother and child sure as hell are affected. It's going about trying to penalize men by punishing women.

 

It does, though. If the mother is forced to name the dad, the dad can be forced to pay if needed. If he can’t be found, he isn’t affected, but how rare is that? How many mothers can’t name the father, or at least have a short list? I’d wager not many, and that more simply don’t want to name the father in order to maximize the potential benefits from the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always advocated for ways to clean up the fraud in the system.  Ferreting out the single mothers who are not really single mothers is one example, just like the workers comp frauds, the disability frauds, the unemployment frauds, etc.  I think we all agree with the spirit of wanting to chase down deadbeat dads (and moms) to hold them accountable.  But withholding a birth certificate is going too far.  Withholding aid to the child is going too far.

 

Agreed.  There is zero reason to punish the child.

 

One area where I differ from conservative dogma involves child support, and I felt this way long before Ardyn was born so it's not just because her bio-dad is useless and is about a month less than her age behind.  If the state is already getting involved in collecting support and going after the deadbeats, they should make up arrears as well, and collect from same.  The current system is the worst combination imaginable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always advocated for ways to clean up the fraud in the system.  Ferreting out the single mothers who are not really single mothers is one example, just like the workers comp frauds, the disability frauds, the unemployment frauds, etc.  I think we all agree with the spirit of wanting to chase down deadbeat dads (and moms) to hold them accountable.  But withholding a birth certificate is going too far.  Withholding aid to the child is going too far.

 

The issue with the latter is that there is no such thing as "aid to the child."  It's money to the mother to cover the consequences of her own irresponsibility.

 

The issue with the former is harder to square.  I don't understand the purpose of denying the birth certificate.  I'd be interested in hearing from the actual supporters of this policy directly, rather than just as filtered through a clearly hostile media.  If it's just to save on the paper costs of a revised birth certificate, that's petty, not to mention that it really doesn't seem like it could possibly do a thing to discourage single motherhood.  If there's some argument that it actually would discourage single motherhood, to put it charitably, it's not immediately obvious to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Dude, get over yourself. People have kids out of wedlock. It has always happened and will always happen. Pretending this is some new "destructive" lifestyle that never happened in more "traditional" times is laughable.

 

Saying that something has always happened is shallow and ducks the issue; there were out of wedlock births in the 1950s and today, but the difference in the numbers (especially among the black community, and if you can't acknowledge that, then it's not me who's living in a pretend world here) between then and now is dramatic.

 

Realize this issue isn't about government support, it's about birth certificates. Stop pretending this conversation is about government welfare. It's not.

 

The plain text of the legislation was clearly about both.  That said, I acknowledge that they are separate issues, and I already said above that I don't quite get the point of the birth certificate part of it.  I disagree with you that it's about punishing the mother (because what punishment is inflicted on the mother by the child being denied a birth certificate?), but that doesn't mean that I think it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you believe it's your place to call out other people's decisions as "irresponsible." Not every person that wants kids wants to also be married and committed to a father or wants the father's name on the birth certificate at all.

 

And not every situation where a person becomes pregnant was due to negligence. No form of birth control is 100% effective. Except abstinence. Which gets us back to the route of the problem, sex-shaming women for doing something all humans are naturally inclined to want to do.

 

And calm it with things like, "and if you can't acknowledge that bla bla bla" about things that were never even spoke about. The topic you brought up was never even spoken about. Don't put words into others' mouths to make your argument work.

 

I find it comical that you think a child not being given a birth certificate doesn't cause any problems for the mother. How many things require a birth certificate early on in childhood? The consequences are passed onto the mother as well as the kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many children do not have a father on their birth certificate? Is this a problem as rampant as voter fraud (almost nonexistent) or drunk driving (very common)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you believe it's your place to call out other people's decisions as "irresponsible." Not every person that wants kids wants to also be married and committed to a father or wants the father's name on the birth certificate at all.

 

Because their actions have socially destructive effects on the community and country of which I also am a part.  Because it's simply wrong.  Neither of those to the level that would justify criminalizing it, but both to the level at which the rest of the community has no obligation to simply tolerate it or, worse, endorse it.

 

And not every situation where a person becomes pregnant was due to negligence. No form of birth control is 100% effective. Except abstinence. Which gets us back to the route of the problem, sex-shaming women for doing something all humans are naturally inclined to want to do.

 

No, shaming both parties.  If you think we exempt the father from opprobrium, you really are fighting strawmen.

 

I find it comical that you think a child not being given a birth certificate doesn't cause any problems for the mother. How many things require a birth certificate early on in childhood? The consequences are passed onto the mother as well as the kid.

 

I didn't say "doesn't cause any problems."  Not to mention you and I are close to the same position on that policy, with the exception of the fact that I'd still be willing to listen with an open mind to an argument I'd likely disagree with, whereas I can see you've got your mind made up already.

 

How many children do not have a father on their birth certificate?

 

I'm not sure, but either way, where are you going with that?  Just a general societal interest in ensuring that accurate records of family ancestry are maintained, analogous to preserving the integrity of census records?  I'd still think there ought to be an easier way of going about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to respond more heavily but the first paragraph you wrote is just so delusional I don't even know how to respond so I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mkay bud. Or it's that I don't believe it's my place to tell others how to live their lives and therefore can see beyond my own nose and understand that the definition of "family" is incredibly varied and that there isn't one "right" answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure, but either way, where are you going with that?  Just a general societal interest in ensuring that accurate records of family ancestry are maintained, analogous to preserving the integrity of census records?  I'd still think there ought to be an easier way of going about that.

 

If the problem is almost nonexistent (like voter fraud) the people proposing this are doing it to punish people they don't agree with. If it's a problem that is rampant in the state (like drunk driving) then the state could actually be saving a lot of money.

 

But just because a father is named doesn't mean they can afford to pay child support. The most likely scenario for someone who doesn't name the father (in my guess) is that the mother knows the father can't pay child support and doesn't want the father involved in the child's life. The only result out of naming the person is that the mother has to interact with this person (that they clearly don't want to interact with) and the father goes to prison for failing to pay child support, thus costing the state more money incarcerating someone at the going rate of jailing someone (something like $40,000/year?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...