An article at the Wall Street Journal today describes Pres. Obama's efforts to find common ground among leaders from both sides of the abortion debate, in order to gain input to craft a comprehensive policy to decrease unwanted pregnancies and demand for abortions in the U.S. The groups, which include representatives from both anti-abortion and pro-choice organizations, have already begun meeting and will continue to meet for another two months. For the sake of reaching concrete solutions, the group members are not allowed to discuss whether they believe abortion should be legal.
As we can imagine, the discussions are contentious. Anti-abortion reps are arguing for policies that encourage women to continue their pregnancies to term, which they hope to accomplish by increased funding for "crisis pregnancy centers" (which are usually faith-based and not run by medical professionals). Pro-choice advocates are arguing for policies to decrease rates of unplanned pregnancies through better access and use of contraceptives.
Obama's reps are asking for policy recommedations from participants in multiple areas including "sex education; responsible use of contraception; maternal and child health; pregnancy discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere; and adoption ". So far suggestions have included "improving education about use of contraception; better access to emergency contraception (which can be used after sex); improving education about sex, relationships and the "sacredness of sex"; stamping out employment discrimination against pregnant women; improving family-leave policies; and encouraging adoption".
I am very pleased with Pres. Obama's honest attempts to find common grounds amongst people with entrenched beliefs. From the article it seems like most participants find the idea of dialoging useful and positive in tha abstract, but are very skeptical that they will all come to any unanimous agreement. The dialogue in a way just for show, because Obama does not need consensus to make policy or pass legislation, but I think its a positive gesture in the least. It's pretty obvious what sort of policy would decrease rates of unplanned pregnancies and what policies would make it easier for women to give birth to and raise children if they so desire, and they're almost all mentioned in the quotes above.
The short list is:
Preventing unplanned pregnancies
- increasing access to and education about contraceptives which we can accomplish by
- have medical insurance providers, both public and private, cover contraception (wow, that would be helpful)
- comprehensive sex education
- increasing access to and awareness of emergency contraception which we accomplish by
- making sure pharmacies don't refuse to sell it or harass people who try to purchase it
- making it the public aware that it is not an abortion pill and that it is as safe as other oral contraceptives
Make giving birth to a child a more positive and feasible choice
- have better family leave policies
- either make federal policies or encourage or incentivise businesses or states to create policies
- encourage businesses to create flexible hours, telecommuting, or part-time w/ benefits plans
- have state-sponsered pre-schools and/or more subsidies for child care
- make federal policies that illegalizes employment discrimination against pregnant woman and mothers
- get rid of the pay gap
- encourage private medical insurance providers to cover midwives and doulas and home births or birthing center births
- make public insurance providers cover midwives and doulas and home births or birthing center births
- create federal policy that illegalizes discriminating against breast feeding women
I would love it if people could also start a dialogue here where we don't argue about the legality of abortion, but where we suggest and debate ideas about how to decrease rates of unplanned pregnancies and reduce the demand for abortions.
Lots of good ideas are listed there. Unfortunately, we can't legislate morality.
I don't take either side of this situation. I feel that abortion is acceptable in certain circumstances like rape. I don't feel that the two persons who have unprotected sex on a whim should have the option of abortion, again... just MY opinion. There are hundreds of couples who would kill to have a baby and can't. If you don't want it, give it up for adoption and for the love of the Gods.... use protection next time. I still think that it is a woman's right to decide.
I do think that education is of extreme importance in dealing with this. It should fall back on the parents to properly educate. Parents are not very good at it. My father's "sex talk" consisted of the following statement, "Keep it in your pants, and if it gets loose, keep it covered." But it shouldn't fall upon the school system either... they can't even keep up with teaching the three Rs anymore.
--------
Respectfully,
Adam L. Labonoski
Perhaps I'm confused, so what sorts of strategies then, are you advocating in order to decrease rates of unplanned pregnancies and decrease demand for abortions? Because it sounds as if you're throwing up your hands and saying there's nothing we can do, it's impossible.
And I'm not understanding you're position on sex education. You think parents should educate their own children, but then imply that they have neither the knowledge nor the skills to do it effectively. Plus, what if children or teens have parents who refuse to teach them, or they're in the foster care system, or other such cases where parents/guardians aren't necessarily willing or responsible to educate young people? At least schools can employ trained and experienced people to teach about sex and relationships, they haven't really done so so far, but they could if they were allowed and willing.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Abortion was legalized in 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting it violated a 'right to privacy' implied within the US Constitution. I wish that right was more often applied against victimless crimes and other intrusions into our privacy by our benevolent masters in Government.
Many of the ideas on your list would make fine personal decisions and equally horrific invasions of privacy and personal freedom if dictated by the Government with the force of law.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
Many of the ideas on your list would make fine personal decisions and equally horrific invasions of privacy and personal freedom if dictated by the Government with the force of law.
Some specifics would be nice. Like which ones and why.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
have (REQUIRE) medical insurance providers, both public and private, cover contraception
---
comprehensive sex education (porn in class? or just somewhat 'comprehensive' so only a minority feels that their kids are being taught immorality?)
---
increasing access to and awareness of emergency contraception which we accomplish by
* making sure (force them to carry it) pharmacies don't refuse to sell it or harass people who try to purchase it (Are you proposing an exact display or script for pharmacists to follow to avoid prosecution or lawsuits?)
* making it the public aware that it is not an abortion pill and that it is as safe as other oral contraceptives(one official position propagandized at tax payer expense?)
---
have better family leave policies
* either make federal policies or encourage or incentivise businesses or states to create policies
(each federal intrusion into the relationship between employer and employee is an additional hindrance to job creation. Give any specific and I'll specify how it decreases economic efficiency and freedom.)
---
encourage businesses to create flexible hours, telecommuting, or part-time w/ benefits plans
(have government tell business how to operate)
---
have state-sponsered pre-schools and/or more subsidies for child care
(There is no more worthwhile goal than improving the early development of children. With that in mind, the phrase 'state-sponsered pre-schools' horrifies me. Vouchers so parents can be empowered to pick the best private school or pre-school and I can support this one.)
---
make federal policies that illegalizes employment discrimination against pregnant woman and mothers
(more foolish federal regulation Woo! Hoo! Can you think of a few jobs where discrimination in these cases is there for a reason?)
---
get rid of the pay gap
(Federal wage controls)
---
encourage private medical insurance providers to cover midwives and doulas and home births or birthing center births
(if you want to be covered for these you can buy coverage that includes them. If you keep adding unfunded mandates to private insurers they MUST raise their prices which means more people cannot afford the coverage to begin with. Another thing to consider with this one is the increased infant and mother fatalities it might cause.)
---
create federal policy that illegalizes discriminating against breast feeding women
(You do love a few new Federal Policies don't you? Free all womens breasts at all times and you have my vote.)
---
We seem to have differing opinion when it comes to how nice the world would be if we only had a few more places where our governmental masters take control of our lives. Freedom means making your own decisions, paying your own way, and having the right to ignore busy bodies that want to make you do it their way.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
Points of clarification here:
When I say the government should encourage a practice or policy I mean they should voice support for or incentivize it. Incentives could be tax breaks or priority for contract bids, etc. Somehow you read "encourage" as "force".
My suggestions help solve current and preventable problems or situations that lead women to have unwanted pregnancies or to desire abortions. Keep that in mind. You have neglected to provide any better solutions.
have (REQUIRE) medical insurance providers, both public and private, cover contraception
Most states already have laws requiring at least certain insurance providers to cover contraception, so a blanket federal policy isn't a far stretch, plus contraception is cheaper for insurance companies than covering pregnancy and childbirth costs.
comprehensive sex education (porn in class? or just somewhat 'comprehensive' so only a minority feels that their kids are being taught immorality?)
A ridiculous and unexplained statement. Educating people about contraceptives and STI prevention is a social interest and the abstinence-until-marriage crap they teach now is religiously-based and therefore doesn't belong in federally-funded classrooms.
* making sure (force them to carry it) pharmacies don't refuse to sell it or harass people who try to purchase it (Are you proposing an exact display or script for pharmacists to follow to avoid prosecution or lawsuits?)
* making it the public aware that it is not an abortion pill and that it is as safe as other oral contraceptives(one official position propagandized at tax payer expense?)
Pharmacists or their employees shouldn't be allowed to harass or mislead customers who are trying to purchase a legal OTC medication, but they do, frequently. Certain hospitals forgo mentioning it as an option to rape victims who come for treatment. These incidents alone lead to women being unable or discouraged from accessing EC and so they end up with an unwanted pregnancy and/or plan for an abortion. And can you provide evidence that EC is less safe than other oral contraceptives?
encourage private medical insurance providers to cover midwives and doulas and home births or birthing center births
(if you want to be covered for these you can buy coverage that includes them. If you keep adding unfunded mandates to private insurers they MUST raise their prices which means more people cannot afford the coverage to begin with. Another thing to consider with this one is the increased infant and mother fatalities it might cause.)
Do some research and you'll find your points here are completely moot. Low risk pregnancies delivered by a licensed midwife are just as safe as hospital births, but much cheaper and they have lower risks of infection if done outside the hospital because woman and child aren't exposed to other sick people. So if private insurers and Medicaid covered them we could be saving major dough. If you want to discuss why they don't already cover them if they're so great, that's a whole other discussion.
Family leave allows parents to take care of and bond with their newborn/infant which is beneficial for families and society. Paid family leave is even better because it helps families be more financially secure during what should be a joyous time.
Family leave, telecommuting, flexible hours, and part-time w/ benefit options are great for businesses to have. They increase employee satisfaction, which increases productivity and decreases turn-over rates. Most businesses just aren't smart enough or willing enough to take the leap without a little boost like tax breaks.
As for pay disparities and employment discrimination against women or child-bearing age, mothers, pregnant and breastfeeding women--Discrimination is discrimination. It's wrong, it should be illegal, and in these cases it prevents many women from being able to support their families or even find jobs. It infringes on women's reproductive freedom because if the system prevents them from being able to support a child financially, they feel compelled to have an abortion, even if they want to be able to have the child.
Free all womens [sic] breasts at all times and you have my vote.
Isn't sexism cute? Sure, women's breasts should be continuously available for your sexual pleasure. You're disgusting.
Freedom means making your own decisions, paying your own way, and having the right to ignore busy bodies that want to make you do it their way.
For once, I agree with you, this is quote is exactly my point. Women end up with unwanted pregnancies and end up seeking abortions because they lack freedom. They lack free access to accurate info about contraceptives (especially as teens) and they lack the freedom to choose to use effective contraceptives. They lack the freedom to pay their own way because business discriminate against them in the hiring process and in their pay checks. "Busy bodies" like pharmacists, Crisis Pregnancy Centers, hospital workers, school teachers and people out on the street are telling them that birth control is wrong, EC is an abortion, sex is immoral, breast feeding is obscene, whittle away a woman's reproductive freedom.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
"When I say the government should encourage a practice or policy I mean they should voice support for or incentivize it."
I'm glad to hear that. I may have too much experience with how government policy is implemented. I may have to see it to believe it when it comes to a kinder approach by our Federal Masters.
---
"You have neglected to provide any better solutions."
I probably don't see this to be a huge problem in quite the same way you do.
I think Obama voiced this position very well at the Notre Dame commencement ceremony this past weekend. His position is a vast improvement over the artificial polarity which the two parties have encouraged over the past 36 years. That politicization has created much of the worst of the problem. It has fostered hate and contention between people whose positions are not really as far apart as the 'divide and conquer' tactics have led us to believe.
Sexual morality should not be subject to government regulation at all in my opinion. If there is a 'right to privacy' in the constitution, and I think there should be if there isn't, that right should cover all sexual relationships personal and professional. It should also cover the morality that you wish to impart to your children. Two people of the same sex should be able to marry, one woman should have the right to have as many husbands (and wives) as she wishes, and any unmarried groupings that consenting adults choose to involve themselves in should be beyond the reach of politicians in Washington D.C. If sexual relations involve cash transactions, as they all too often do, the government may appropriately enforce health and licensing regulations to benefit public safety.
That freedom like all others comes hand in hand with responsibility for any result it brings. If your freedom costs someone else their freedom or their money your are most likely trespassing upon their rights even if some politician can be convinced to do the dirty work for you.
---
"A ridiculous and unexplained statement. Educating people about contraceptives and STI prevention is a social interest and the abstinence-until-marriage crap they teach now is religiously-based and therefore doesn't belong in federally-funded classrooms."
I broadened my meaning in the response to turtlsuds if you are interested. My POINT is that sexual morality is not uniform. You think the traditional morality that ACTUALLY PRODUCED a much lower out of wedlock birth rate, and much lower divorce rate for centuries is 'crap' they think you are a moron, or a pervert or worse. My proposal probably would not fly anytime soon either. IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! The 'moral majority' should not have the right to boss you in the bedroom, but you should not insist on the right to corrupt their children either. Mind your own business, approve school vouchers, and there will be nothing to argue about. We do not have to all be programed by Guvment Skewls to the same dumbed down level.
---
"Pharmacists or their employees shouldn't be allowed to harass or mislead customers who are trying to purchase a legal OTC medication, but they do, frequently."
I question the veracity of the incentives and encouragement disclaimer you made at the beginning of this response when your sentence contains "shouldn't be allowed" with regard to someones opinions. I doubt any of those you are accusing would describe their actions with the SLANT you have. To characterize such opinions that you happen to disagree with as harassment reveals your lack of respect for the feelings of others. That lack of respect for other positions is common in all closed minded zealots.
---
"And can you provide evidence that EC is less safe than other oral contraceptives?"
What makes you think safety is even an issue?
---
"Do some research and you'll find your points here are completely moot. Low risk pregnancies delivered by a licensed midwife are just as safe as hospital births, but much cheaper and they have lower risks of infection if done outside the hospital because woman and child aren't exposed to other sick people."
The AMA presently disagrees. You may be right, the history of science is full of experts that were wrong, but I certainly do not know better than the Doctors so I'll let their official position speak for me:
http://stream1.opb.org:9000/tol/documents/AMA_resolution.pdf
---
"Family leave allows parents to take care of and bond with their newborn/infant which is beneficial for families and society. Paid family leave is even better because it helps families be more financially secure during what should be a joyous time."
Sigh "If wishes were fishes..." Free as in Beer once again. When will they start to teach math again in school? Just because something would be nice does not remove the cost involved.
---
"Family leave, telecommuting, flexible hours, and part-time w/ benefit options are great for businesses to have. They increase employee satisfaction, which increases productivity and decreases turn-over rates. Most businesses just aren't smart enough or willing enough to take the leap without a little boost like tax breaks."
ROTFLMAO!@#
You know how to manage a business SO much better than the vast majority of business owners. Why give tax incentives when all we have to do is let 'smart' people like you start your own businesses and do everything the right way? Surely those dummies you are talking down to will be unable to compete and you will soon employ everyone with all these 'free' benefits. Or is it possible you are ignorant as to the expenses and practicalities (or more aptly impracticalities) involved in implementing these policies in the vast array of different businesses that make up the American economy. One more guess is that you have never taken an accounting course.
---
"As for pay disparities and employment discrimination against women or child-bearing age, mothers, pregnant and breastfeeding women--Discrimination is discrimination. It's wrong, it should be illegal, and in these cases it prevents many women from being able to support their families or even find jobs."
Discrimination is a requirement for ALL business. The hiring process is intended to discriminate against all of the candidates based upon their varying levels of ability to benefit the business. Certain forms of discrimination ARE illegal not sex based discrimination however. There is an amendment called the ERA already ratified by 35 of the needed 38 states so one day perhaps it will be law, to the delight of trial lawyers across the fruited plain. Maybe I'll sue Hooters for not hiring me to wait tables then. ;-)
---
"Isn't sexism cute? Sure, women's breasts should be continuously available for your sexual pleasure. You're disgusting."
Careful, your anti-male bigotry is showing. I did not say women should be required to bare their breasts, or even given a tax incentive, just free as men are to bare as they choose. BTW the ERA would effectively make it legal for a female to be topless unless it was also forbidden for a male to be.
---
"They lack free access to accurate info about contraceptives (especially as teens) and they lack the freedom to choose to use effective contraceptives. They lack the freedom to pay their own way because business discriminate against them in the hiring process and in their pay checks. "Busy bodies" like pharmacists, Crisis Pregnancy Centers, hospital workers, school teachers and people out on the street are telling them that birth control is wrong, EC is an abortion, sex is immoral, breast feeding is obscene, whittle away a woman's reproductive freedom."
Sigh, So you are saying about 20 more Federal Laws would make you more free? I would say go for it, but not one of those laws tell YOU how you have to act they all just control someone else for your ease and convenience. Frankly you are disgusting, because you want to make others less free instead of just taking responsibility for your own freedom.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
"have (REQUIRE) medical insurance providers, both public and private, cover contraception"
*insurance companies are not individuals, and should not be able to neglect to cover basic health care needs of their policy holders. medical insurance is a service, and the consumers deserve to get what they pay for, even if those consumers are the tax payers that fund the services. Unwanted pregnancies hurt everyone, including taxpayers.
chillbill said,
"comprehensive sex education (porn in class? or just somewhat 'comprehensive' so only a minority feels that their kids are being taught immorality?)"
look what abstinence only teaching did for Bristol Palin. That's effective childrearing, if ever there was such a thing, don't you think? Time will prove that disaster of a family as completely dysfunctional.
comprehensive sex education would include teaching young men and women about their reproductive systems and how to care for them responsibly, protecting them from harm and disease, and by so doing, taking *control* of their own lives. I think of it as a lot like auto shop.
chillbill said,
"* making sure (force them to carry it) pharmacies don't refuse to sell it or harass people who try to purchase it (Are you proposing an exact display or script for pharmacists to follow to avoid prosecution or lawsuits?)"
well, once again with your (force them to carry it) insertion you are taking a tone that seems interested in the Constitutional rights of liberty and free speech for pharmaceutical companies. Sorry, the individual citizens and consumers are the ones entitled to those rights, not pharmaceutical companies or pharmacies, which are obligated to make available to the consumer the most effective treatments at reasonably affordable prices.
In response to all of your sentiments regarding the appropriateness of discrimination against women in the workplace, I have to assume that you are of the "old boy" network that is on its way out.
http://www.momsrising.org/
Last week's cover on Time Magazine says a lot about the way things are headed, which supports flexible work schedules, that will also support balanced family lives. Also, it seems that those in "the know" think that "Women will rule business."
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1898024_18980...
Good luck with your antiquated prejudices, I doubt they will serve you well in the not so far off future ;)
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
That's a great way of putting it! And I needed a laugh. Thanks.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
you're welcome :)
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
turtlesuds said,
"insurance companies are not individuals, and should not be able to neglect to cover basic health care needs of their policy holders. medical insurance is a service, and the consumers deserve to get what they pay for, even if those consumers are the tax payers that fund the services."
'consumers deserve to get what they pay for'
Even if they don't want to pay for it?
'even if those consumers are the tax payers that fund the services.'
I see the answer is yes, and even if they pay nothing at all as the recipients of most taxpayer funded benefits do, or pay for them and receive nothing as most TAX PAYERS that fund those programs do.
If the consumer of an insurance product ACTUALLY pays for their own coverage they can already CHOOSE the coverage they actually want. If they choose coverage that includes the least expensive over the counter methods of contraception they will pay more than the cost of going to the drug store with cash in hand. Why? Because people have to bill insurers, process the claims, print and mail the check, make a profit, etc. Once you realize this it becomes obvious that you really mean that the 'free' government provided health coverage should cover contraception.
This coverage is provided to poor people, so the only impact will be to reduce births among the poor. Do you consider this euthanasia of the poor as a benefit?
---
turtlesuds said,
"Unwanted pregnancies hurt everyone, including taxpayers."
Interesting statement. Do you actually believe this is always true?
---
turtlesuds said,
"look what abstinence only teaching did for Bristol Palin. That's effective childrearing, if ever there was such a thing, don't you think? Time will prove that disaster of a family as completely dysfunctional."
I pity the Palin family and the media pigs that are still trying to dismantle them. If you honestly consider how your extended family would look under the same microscope you might marvel at how well the Palin family has stood up to the
biased attacksscrutiny.---
turtlesuds said,
"comprehensive sex education would include teaching young men and women about their reproductive systems and how to care for them responsibly, protecting them from harm and disease, and by so doing, taking *control* of their own lives. I think of it as a lot like auto shop."
Sure like shop... take everything out and lubricate the moving parts...take a test drive...
Explanation, Demonstration, and Practical Application is the best way to teach any subject. Would you consider a drivers ed class 'comprehensive' if the students never got behind the wheel, stuck the key in, and went for a spin?
Hardly!
If anything Sex is much more complex than driving. Attraction, seduction, love, mating for life, broken hearts, rejection, arousal, stimulation, reproduction, auto eroticism, rape, fetish, homo eroticism, celibacy, prostitution, abuse. It would take a students whole school career to do it justice. Since many sexual prejudices/preferences seem to be set in early childhood it may never be too early to start. The nuts and bolts physiology you describe would have to start in the early grades in order to have the kids ready for hands on lab work by junior high.
Since we have no experience with the actual impact of comprehensive training of this sort I would not recommend it be administered to every student in the country uniformly. Several different curricula could be devised each based on divergent theories and the progress of the students trained via each method could be carefully monitored.
The type 'comprehensive' sex ed you describe seems to be IDENTICAL to the limited sex ed I had about 30 years ago. Teen pregnancy was just beginning to climb at that time. The 'abstinence only' movement was a reactionary fad a few years later (80s) caused in part by the perception that sex ed was contributing to increases in teen pregnancy. The evidence is clear that it is too late to go backwards to 'abstinence only' and perhaps a bit too early politically to move forward to hands on sex training. Just don't ask me to call the timid prudish sex ed you described as 'comprehensive' when it doesn't even scratch the surface.
Would it be too much to ask that parents be allowed to CHOOSE the sexual morality that their kids are taught? Or must we all be forced to learn the official government sexual morality?
---
turtlesuds said,
"Sorry, the individual citizens and consumers are the ones entitled to those rights, not pharmaceutical companies or pharmacies, which are obligated to make available to the consumer the most effective treatments at reasonably affordable prices."
Last time I checked Pharmacists, and the shareholders of pharmaceutical companies, were citizens as well. The rights involved allow them to carry (or not) anything that is legal, express their opinion (expert and/or ignorant), and price their goods at whatever level they feel serves their right to make a profit. If government regulation does not completely stifle creativity this 'free market' makes more and better goods available to more people at lower prices than ANY government controlled market has ever accomplished.
When you start to steal a little freedom from others your own freedom suffers as well.
---
turtlesuds said,
"In response to all of your sentiments regarding the appropriateness of discrimination against women in the workplace"
Due to the lack of a 'chillbill said' I can clearly see that you imagined these 'sentiments regarding the appropriateness of discrimination against women' that you refer to. The comment you misconstrued was meant to support the right to engage in contracts for employment without undue government interference. If I in fact said what your insult pretends please provide the quote.
---
turtlesuds said,
"Last week's cover on Time Magazine says a lot about the way things are headed, which supports flexible work schedules, that will also support balanced family lives. Also, it seems that those in "the know" think that "Women will rule business." "
From your link: "though unemployment is at a 25 year high work will eventually return..."
If government makes it harder to hire employees by regulation that increases the cost to employers that 'eventually' will take much longer.
I share the dream of better working conditions as described. They already exist (and more) in a few high tech companies (most notably Google) that offer them as an incentive for employee retention. The employees that get these perks are very in demand, and generate tremendous profits for their employers. As this trend moves forward these expensive benefits will become more widespread. However...
How can a restaurant worker have a more flexible schedule just because the government passes a requirement? Will that make service better at lunch time or Friday and Saturday night? How does an unfunded mandate change peak demand for a waitress, or a cook? Do you want the bus you take to work to have a 'flexible work schedule' or to just be on time? Most employment is done to the requirements of the CUSTOMER. If the new wonderful world of work means employers have to hire more workers to meet customer demands then the customer will be paying a higher price to cover the higher cost of compliance. WE ARE ALL THAT CUSTOMER!
You may be right that "Women will rule business." sooner than you think.
http://economy.kansascity.com/?q=node/439
---
turtlesuds said,
"Good luck with your antiquated prejudices, I doubt they will serve you well in the not so far off future ;)"
Those prejudices are called Math, particularly Economics. You can pass all of the laws to make Pi = 3 that you like, but the circles you make that way just won't roll.
There
Ain't
No
Such
Thing
As
A
Free
Lunch
T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. -Robert A. Heinlein (motto of the Libertarian Party)
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
chillbill said:
"Due to the lack of a 'chillbill said' I can clearly see that you imagined these 'sentiments regarding the appropriateness of discrimination against women' that you refer to. The comment you misconstrued was meant to support the right to engage in contracts for employment without undue government interference. If I in fact said what your insult pretends please provide the quote."
Let me go backwards and provide your quotes:
chillbill said:
""make federal policies that illegalizes employment discrimination against pregnant woman and mothers
(more foolish federal regulation Woo! Hoo! Can you think of a few jobs where discrimination in these cases is there for a reason?)"
and:
"get rid of the pay gap
(Federal wage controls)"
Thos were the specific comments I was referring to, but I also interpreted your opposition to flexible work schedules and subsidized pre-school education as being in part anti-*feminist* or rather, anti-family and anti-mothers.
However, with your subsequent comments and replies to myself and Non-Issue, I see your points more clearly. I see that your opposition is not so much toward sexual equality in the workplace or to creating better work environments that would enhance the quality of life of parents and children, but I am getting that your opposition is to federal regulations regarding such things. I can support that general sentiment, however, there are some things that the federal government should govern, and discrimination of all kinds should be illegal across the nation.
There are definite problems in the way things are done, and it should not always be up to the federal government to fix it. I put responsibility on individuals and communities. People need to give a shit, and start taking care of each other. When we don't, our children suffer. State and federal institutions *suck* at providing services. Now, with that said, let me review some of your questions/ concerns in response to mine:
chillbill said:
"If the consumer of an insurance product ACTUALLY pays for their own coverage they can already CHOOSE the coverage they actually want. If they choose coverage that includes the least expensive over the counter methods of contraception they will pay more than the cost of going to the drug store with cash in hand. Why? Because people have to bill insurers, process the claims, print and mail the check, make a profit, etc. Once you realize this it becomes obvious that you really mean that the 'free' government provided health coverage should cover contraception.
--first of all, I believe that contraception is covered by most health plans, even government provided ones. I want to say all, but I don't know that for a fact. It is usually a provider or medical institution that will not provide contraceptive services, such as Catholic hospitals that won't perform vasectomies or tubal ligation. The problem is not with the coverage, it is with the provider, and I think that is fine, because the consumer can go somewhere else. I don't know about EC, but if it isn't covered, it is most likely because it is relatively new (less than 10 years old) and insurance companies take a very long time to catch up on new trends and technology.
chillbill said:
"This coverage is provided to poor people, so the only impact will be to reduce births among the poor. Do you consider this euthanasia of the poor as a benefit?"
I don't quite understand this question. Are you saying that only poor people enjoy contraception covered by their health plans? I don't think that is true. Rich people can afford to pay cash for contraception if they want, and most probably have health insurance, and most health insurance covers contraception. Also, contraception is really not all that expensive. I don't have insurance right now, and my pill costs $26/ month cash. I realize that would be hard for some to afford, but it is not outrageous. Again, I don't know what EC costs.
chillbill said:
"turtlesuds said,
"Unwanted pregnancies hurt everyone, including taxpayers."
Interesting statement. Do you actually believe this is always true?"
--Yes, I do believe this is always true. Unwanted pregnancies, that are not terminated, do hurt everyone, including taxpayers. Unwanted pregnancies become unwanted children. Unwanted children are neglecte, abused or abandoned at much higher rates than wanted children, and often become dependents or wards of the State. So, tax payers end up paying for their care and feeding.
Personally, I care more about the abuse factor than the tax factor, but I know for some here at ProU, like jackbenimble, any burden on taxpayers is of utmost concern.
chillbill said:
"I pity the Palin family and the media pigs that are still trying to dismantle them. If you honestly consider how your extended family would look under the same microscope you might marvel at how well the Palin family has stood up to the biased attacks scrutiny."
My extended family under a microscope? God, help us! We don't need a microscope to know how f***ed up Turtlesuds' family is, just read my blog. The difference is no one in my family is/was running for public office, and using the *image* of being a good mother/ parent as part of the campaign. What is so disgusting about the Palin clan is that they, or rather their matriarch, thought she could maintain that kind of hypocrisy. I saw Bristol's myspace pages and in nearly every photo in her home she is drinking and there are bottles of hard liquor all around her. I also saw the text photos and such she sent to her boyfriend.
I am sorry, but a good parent would not be so absent from their child's life. That's not to say that all parents who have misbehaving kids are bad parents, but seriously, it is neglect to not be at home and leave hard alcohol out when you have children at home. It wouldn't be that bad, in my opinion, if she hadn't relied so heavily on her *image* as a good mother for her campaign. If she had instead ran on her *experience* then I would be much more forgiving. We all know why she couldn't do that though ;).
In regards the issue at hand in this thread though, I find it ironically fitting that a woman who thinks that only abstinence should be taught in schools ends up with a pregnant teenage daughter. On a serious note, it is the perfect argument *for* sex education. When adults don't talk to kids about it, they will figure it out from their peers, and in the case of girls, their first teacher is likely to be an adolescent boy. Which do you think is most appropriate?
chillbill said:
"Sure like shop... take everything out and lubricate the moving parts...take a test drive...
Explanation, Demonstration, and Practical Application is the best way to teach any subject. Would you consider a drivers ed class 'comprehensive' if the students never got behind the wheel, stuck the key in, and went for a spin?"
I am not condoning sex education that would entail children engaging in intercourse in class. However, you might be interested to know that in the state developmental center where my husband worked, the government video taped persons with developmental disabilities masturbating, and showed it to other residents in order to teach them how to properly handle their urges. I don't know how I feel about that, but certainly, most junior high and high school kids have at least the same capacity to understand as the developmentally delayed population.
chillbill said:
"f anything Sex is much more complex than driving. Attraction, seduction, love, mating for life, broken hearts, rejection, arousal, stimulation, reproduction, auto eroticism, rape, fetish, homo eroticism, celibacy, prostitution, abuse. It would take a students whole school career to do it justice. Since many sexual prejudices/preferences seem to be set in early childhood it may never be too early to start. The nuts and bolts physiology you describe would have to start in the early grades in order to have the kids ready for hands on lab work by junior high."
--I agree that sex is a very complex subject, but it only took me one semester of Human sexuality in junior college to figure out the things you describe. One could spend a lifetime studying it though, which provides society with a great service. I don't see anything wrong with teaching children about the *nuts and bolts* of anatomy and physiology of sex. They possess genitals and begin exploring from birth! They have a right to know what they are there for. Making babies is not a gross or immoral thing. Teaching them young helps to make better, informed choices in life.
chillbill said:
"The evidence is clear that it is too late to go backwards to 'abstinence only' and perhaps a bit too early politically to move forward to hands on sex training. Just don't ask me to call the timid prudish sex ed you described as 'comprehensive' when it doesn't even scratch the surface."
Actually, I would support sex education that includes all of the things you listed, from attraction, seduction, rape, incest, child molestation, fads and fetishes, etc. All of it! Why? Because when kids experience these things *without* information, they are confused and often scared. Many think there is something wrong with them because they think a certain way or are attracted to certain things. Giving them information is key to helping them become healthy, well adjusted adults. There was nothing in my human sexuality class that I couldn't have handled earlier, and if i had had that information earlier, I could have saved myself a lot of pain and misery.
Oprah did a show on this recently. A sex expert talked about how *crucial* it is to teach kids about sex, especially girls. One of the reasons girls have sex too early is because they develop a crush, and the boy starts asking for sex, and she feels that if she doesn't give it to him, he will reject her. So she does it. What happens when it feels good? What if she has an orgasm? Well, now that little has just made her feel something amazing, and she thinks only he can provide her with that feeling again. Also, during orgasm the neurochemicals that are produced also bring feelings of familial belonging, and each orgasm serves to increase the attachment to the person.
If girls knew how to provide themselves with that same feeling, it wouldn't seem like a such a big deal, and she will not be *duped* by her hormones into thinking this guy is the end all be all for her. The expert encouraged teaching girls about vibrators and dildos for the same reason. I am in total agreement.
chillbill said:
"Would it be too much to ask that parents be allowed to CHOOSE the sexual morality that their kids are taught? Or must we all be forced to learn the official government sexual morality?"
Yes, I think it is too much to ask. Most parents don't even know everything about sex. Teaching children about sex is *not* the same thing as teaching them about *morality.* Facts and information do not carry any moral value. The morality lies directly in the hands of the parents, no matter what, because they serve as the behavioral examples that children learn from. Morality comes with decision making. Providing information increases the tools in a person's repertoire to make *good* and *sound* judgment.
Why shouldn't there be an "official government" standard for sex ed classes? How is it any different than "official goverment" education surround math and science?
Children own their genitals, not their parents. Parents don't know everything, that is why we have public schools. How is it wrong to teach children about their very own anatomy?
One thing I can definitely agree on though is the following statement by chillbill:
"The evidence is clear that it is too late to go backwards to 'abstinence only' and perhaps a bit too early politically to move forward to hands on sex training."
The world is not yet for Turtlesuds' version of sex ed, at least not in public schools ;). And that is okay, I'll keep promoting anyway.
As for the rest, let me just say that I can agree that federal mandates are not necessary for progress in the working world, it will happen as bad businesses fall and creative businesses boom, and people will start to figure it all out on their own.
However, I do think that having paid maternity and paternity leave is absolutely important. in fact America is only one of four nations in the world that does not have this mandate. Studies show that when parents have the time to really bond with their child during the first year, there is a huge impact on the child, and society. Such children are less likely to fall into delinquent behavior and to suffer from "disorders" like ADD and ADHD. I learned about this in the documentary, "The Motherhood Manifesto," which I highly recommend.
Also, for the record, while for the most part I support keeping the federal government out of most things, I consider healthcare a basic human right, and I feel it should be available to all citizens. Healthcare is one area where capitalism and the free market have failed terribly.
Thanks chillbill, for a thought provoking discussion :)
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
You are quite correct that my repeated point here is merely that MORE RULES make us less free, not more free, even if those rules are well intentioned.
Aren't they always?
I do have my doubts as to the actual impact of some of these proposals, though I fully sympathize with their intent. I would even support every one of them if they complied with my favorite Libertarian proposal:
Since we already have hundreds of thousands of laws, policies, and regulations governing almost every aspect of our lives any new law must repeal two existing laws in order to be passed.
---
turtlesuds said:
"Unwanted pregnancies hurt everyone, including taxpayers."
chillbill said:
"Interesting statement. Do you actually believe this is always true?"
turtlesuds said:
"--Yes, I do believe this is always true. Unwanted pregnancies, that are not terminated, do hurt everyone, including taxpayers. Unwanted pregnancies become unwanted children. Unwanted children are neglecte, abused or abandoned at much higher rates than wanted children, and often become dependents or wards of the State. So, tax payers end up paying for their care and feeding.
Personally, I care more about the abuse factor than the tax factor, but I know for some here at ProU, like jackbenimble, any burden on taxpayers is of utmost concern."
I agree that 'often' everything you say is true. 'Always' on the other hand it is clearly not.
I am very confident that accidental pregnancies are not always a bad thing based on taking a step back and seeing the Big Picture. Since bisexual reproduction came to be, every step of biological progress has relied on 'accidental pregnancy' propelled by mating drive that is nothing more than animal lust, and itself was a product of such unplanned uncontrolled reproduction. No conscious planning on the part of the participants was involved until the only the most recent generations of our peculiar species.
These untold trillions of unplanned pregnancies have resulted in the rich diversity of species, even the esteemed human race and all of our 'intelligence' and accomplishments. Many and perhaps most of these mistakes turned out badly, yet without the mass of failures the few triumphs would have been impossible. The very struggle to survive has been removed from its important place in evolutionary progress and improvement of the human species.
As we have gained control of reproduction we have changed this previously successful dynamic process. The long term results of these changes are impossible to fully predict. The early results include delaying child bearing often to the point that women need artificial help when they decide late in life to become parents. Another factor is that medicine is becoming better able to keep victims of genetic diseases and weakness alive long enough that they may produce offspring and pass on those deficiencies.
---
"One of the reasons girls have sex too early is because they develop a crush, and the boy starts asking for sex, and she feels that if she doesn't give it to him, he will reject her. So she does it. What happens when it feels good? What if she has an orgasm? Well, now that little has just made her feel something amazing, and she thinks only he can provide her with that feeling again. Also, during orgasm the neurochemicals that are produced also bring feelings of familial belonging, and each orgasm serves to increase the attachment to the person"
The bonding force of early sexual experience, that you describe so well from a clinical perspective, is one of the primary arguments for 'abstinence only' along with unmatched STD and birth control results when it is actually followed. Humans have been a more monogamous species than we are currently for most of our existence. Most successful cultures have placed a high value on marriage for life. Parents as well as children benefited from this custom. Many people wish to preserve this type of morality, and avoid the tragedies that often occur outside of it.
Have you considered how little justice your clinically accurate description does to that special moment in a persons life called 'falling in love' by we romantics? If we plan all risk of tragedy out of our lives are we richer or poorer for it? I choose to have faith that true love exists.
I am glad to see that you also support a more comprehensive sex education curricula than public schools are willing to even propose. The majority of parents opposes truly comprehensive sex ed. The artificial 'need' for making whatever course is provided the standard for all children is handicapping progress toward better education in this and other areas (scientific creationism/evolution). If vouchers allowed parents to CHOOSE the schools their children attended then compromise in these areas could be avoided. Distinct cultures, and the children being taught, could all be better served.
An interesting aside is the recent case of voucher programs in Washington D.C. The Obama Administration (Democratic party is funded by the teachers unions which wish to avoid competition and thus hate the Idea of school choice) canceled the existing voucher program which would have returned participating students to the underperforming (D.C. is one of the best funded and spends almost 12,000/pupil and achieves some of the worst education in America) public schools. Naturally parents (mostly minority) were outraged at the prospect of their children being pulled out of excellent private schools. Almost immediately the order was rescinded and replaced with a phase out allowing current participants to be grandfathered in and finish their education at their current schools, while no new students would be allowed to enter the program. This politically adept move avoided reopening the debate with video of inner city parents demanding their children not be returned to the type cesspool which millions of poor students across America are undereducated in everyday. What would all of those parents have thought if they found out their government was in favor of making education worse to benefit a special interest group that generously supports their election campaigns?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR200905...
-----
chillbill said:
"Would it be too much to ask that parents be allowed to CHOOSE the sexual morality that their kids are taught? Or must we all be forced to learn the official government sexual morality?"
turtlesuds said:
"Yes, I think it is too much to ask. Most parents don't even know everything about sex. Teaching children about sex is *not* the same thing as teaching them about *morality.* Facts and information do not carry any moral value. The morality lies directly in the hands of the parents, no matter what, because they serve as the behavioral examples that children learn from. Morality comes with decision making. Providing information increases the tools in a person's repertoire to make *good* and *sound* judgment.
Why shouldn't there be an "official government" standard for sex ed classes? How is it any different than "official goverment" education surround math and science?"
We all know that more than facts are involved in sex ed. Even if a teacher could stick to the facts they would have to be entirely non-judgmental concerning specific acts, Which is amorality, including having sex as a young teen among others. Morality is specifically judgmental concerning immoral acts. Someone else s freedom is often 'too much to ask' when you disagree with them, unless you know enough to mind your own business.
---
turtlesuds said:
"As for the rest, let me just say that I can agree that federal mandates are not necessary for progress in the working world, it will happen as bad businesses fall and creative businesses boom, and people will start to figure it all out on their own."
The leading edge of such advances is ongoing in the world of very high value employees. If a company needs to recruit and retain the best and brightest to succeed they already offer many of these type benefits. On the opposite side of the labor market it will be a long time coming. Would most consumers pay more for lunch if the restaurant offered better benefits? Would you pay more for lawn care? Most likely when you shop you seek the best product/service for the lowest price. Walmart became the largest retailer in the world because the vast majority of consumers make their choices based on self interest alone. Read 'The Wealth of Nations' by Adam Smith for an explanation of how allowing people to make their own decisions based on greed actually serves all people better than restricting their choices to serve some specific special interest.
More education in personal finance, economics, and capitalism for children would greatly benefit all of us. The current crisis is the result of millions of foolish choices by people undereducated in these areas by our guvment skewls. The economy as a whole is just each persons personal finances collectively.
In the broadest sense I agree that we have gotten to the point that a certain amount of health care should be provided to all. The US is behind many developed nations in numerous metrics of public health. At the same time this is the nation with the best health care in the world, if you can pay for it.
All treatments cannot be provided to all people through government funding. There is no nation in the world where 'universal health care' is even close to the best care available here. Despite many failings the US is, presently, a Doctor magnet. More foreign doctors choose to practice in the US than any other nation. More medical research, education, and advancements are a direct result of this being the best country to be a doctor.
If you qualify for free health coverage in the US today you have better coverage than the citizens of most countries. If we add 45 million people to that system it will be bankrupt. I am awaiting the details of Obama health reform with great interest. Will the US still be a doctor magnet? Will current Medicaid/Medicare recipients face rationed care? Will the right to sue your doctor (costs over $100,000/yr/MD) be limited for recipients? The devil is in the details.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
Thanks for your interaction, it serves to sharpen the debate a bit. I apologize for my late reply, but your response is so lengthy, and my life has been so busy lately, I have not until now had sufficient time to reply respectfully.
Please note, i will not waste time agreeing, so I will only respond to those points with which I disagree.
chillbill said:
"Since we already have hundreds of thousands of laws, policies, and regulations governing almost every aspect of our lives any new law must repeal two existing laws in order to be passed."
Yes, we already have hundreds of thousands of laws, policies and regulations governing almost every aspect of our lives. However, it would actually be ideal if any new law required 2 laws to be repealed. That would be a sign of effective government. Instead, laws, policies and regulations just keep getting piled on top of each other. The more that we give power to state and local governments, the more these issues are convoluted. Sometimes when the local government is led by imbeciles too consistently, it becomes time for the Federal government to take a stand and wipe out all of the ambiguous local legislation that has rested on laws based on completely blasphemous interpretations of the Constitution. So it is hard for me to stand on one distinct principal of "small" government. I realize that I am a bit biased, and have been challenged before because I live CA which currently represents the most ineffective state government I can think of. jackbenimble reminds me that I have the right to relocate to other parts of the country where such incompetence is lacking. I get that.
However, we are realizing at this point in time that what one part of the whole does affects the whole. CA is a leech on the nation now, and it is in the best interest of the country to reign in on this defective representative of American Democracy. In other words, the Federal Government needs to step in and create limits on what the state governments are allowed to control. Human rights should be one of those things. The state government should not be able impose restrictions on those things that the Federal government determines to be universally Constitutional.
chillbill said:
"I agree that 'often' everything you say is true. 'Always' on the other hand it is clearly not."
Fair enough. "Aways" is a bold claim. Feel free to read my post on mvenus929's blog "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" to get a better idea of what I mean when I say "always." No unwanted living child lives a quality of life that would equal the same quality of life if he/she was wanted. http://progressiveu.org/blog/52306-two-wrongs-dont-make-right#comment-29...
chillbill said:
“I am very confident that accidental pregnancies are not always a bad thing based on taking a step back and seeing the Big Picture. Since bisexual reproduction came to be, every step of biological progress has relied on 'accidental pregnancy' propelled by mating drive that is nothing more than animal lust, and itself was a product of such unplanned uncontrolled reproduction. No conscious planning on the part of the participants was involved until the only the most recent generations of our peculiar species.”
turtlesuds replies:
I concur that accidental pregnancies are not always a bad thing based on stepping back and seeing the Big Picture. There is a big difference though between the population of “unwanted children” and the population which hold my primary concern, and the “accidental pregnancies” that you reference. As you so duly note, many “accidental pregnancies” lead to a Life that brings blessing to the world. Unwanted children on the other hand, have no allies, save for myself, and others like me who know their pain and suffering.
Many heterosexual people engage in sexual activities with the sole purpose of producing a child for the benefit of bisexuals wishing to reproduce. Most activities related to IVF, sperm donation, egg donation, surrogates, etc. are totally and completely voluntary and intentional. These reproductive activities are neither “accidental,” nor are the children born as a result “unwanted.”
chillbill said:
“Humans have been a more monogamous species than we are currently for most of our existence.”
I disagree. I believe that humans are becoming more monogamous as time goes by, especially in our and the following generation. I believe that the hypocrisy of the 40’s, 50’s and ‘60’s, as well as the popular acceptance of divorce in the ‘70’s, ‘80’s and ‘90’s, has done much to instill in us the strong need and appreciation for solid family structure. I think that this is why people are marrying and having children later in life. We know the pain that we suffered as children of split families.
Regarding all comments involving school vouchers and criticism of Obama’s oppostion, for the record, I am total agreement. I know I said I would only comment to disagree, but wanted to make special note here.
chillbill said:
“Even if a teacher could stick to the facts they would have to be entirely non-judgmental concerning specific acts, Which is amorality, including having sex as a young teen among others.”
Regarding the first part: “Even if a teacher could stick to the facts they would have to be entirely non-judgmental concerning specific acts…”
Agreed.
For the next segment: “Which is amorality, including having sex as a young teen among others.”
turtlesuds asks:
Are you saying that it is amoral for a teacher to be entirely non-judgmental? I guess that is true since “amorality” means the absence of consideration for morals. That does not necessarily translate to “immorality” though. Just wanted to raise a flag and make note that “amorality” and “immorality” are not the same thing. In fact, I would equate “amorality” to a certain level of social “morality,” which is held and protected by the Constitution of the United States that holds individual freedom ranks above religious restrictions on individual choice and freedom that does not interfere with the pursuit of freedom of others.
Let me stop here and address healthcare, etc. later. I need a break.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard