4 ms·

The best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Birth control and sex ed are key to that but ironically that doesn't seem to be embraced by

The best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Birth control and sex ed are key to that but ironically that doesn't seem to be embraced by those who say they want to stop abortions.

quantified 5y ago
Health ed. You don’t learn any sex in sex ed.
dap 5y ago
So much this. To me, this reveals the deep hypocrisy of the standard anti-abortion position. I get that many folks consider birth control unethical and sex ed undesirable, too. But aren't they at least lesser evils? If one's position is "we absolutely have to stop all abortions, but also I don't want you to use birth control or sex ed to do it", then I have to think you don't _really_ care about the abortions as much as you say.
- pstuart 5y ago
  The fact that this is based on religious convictions is all the more reason for it to be challenged as a law of the land. We should be governed by secular laws. Those of a particular faith should be free to follow that faith amongst their own but should have no right to enforce their religious beliefs on others. Unfortunately, for many, "religious freedom" means exactly that.
  - TimTheTinker 5y ago
    > We should be governed by secular laws. Every law has a worldview and moral standards it assumes a priori. The point of our government's structure is to allow whatever laws people ask their representatives to pass, assuming the House and the Senate can agree and the law itself isn't unconstitutional. There's nothing unconstitutional about laws that assume particular beliefs about what is right and wrong, even if those beliefs originate in a religious worldview. If it's what "we the people" (at least a large enough subset of us) believe, there's nothing wrong with it passing from a constitutional or jurisprudential standpoint. We all have varying beliefs; that's not going to change, but it will be reflected in our politics, unfortunately. You and I may disagree with a particular law as immoral, but the battle over which worldview to found laws on should be fought in public debate, votes, etc. -- not by arguing that such laws are legally invalid. Only unconstitutional laws ought to be struck down as such.
    - andrekandre 5y ago
      > Every law has a worldview and moral standards it assumes a priori. actually, no, law (legality) is specifically _NOT_ about morality, if it was then jaywalking would be a moral offense, which it clearly is not
      - TimTheTinker 5y ago
        I disagree. Jaywalking was outlawed because the auto industry successfully lobbied lawmakers using specifically moral (if flawed) arguments, like: "Cars are dangerous but helpful to people, people's lives are valuable, let's protect human life by outlawing randomly walking across the street where cars are." The moral assumption that argument is asking lawmakers to accept is that human life is valuable. The argument is flawed and mostly wrong otherwise, but it's the moral component that makes it compelling. It's the same with pro-choice laws. They're compelling to many people because of the moral assumptions we're asked to accept -- specifically the bodily autonomy of the woman, among other things. Why should pro-life arguments be the only ones not allowed to be based on morality?
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    Religiousfreedom, a la Dune, perhaps.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > We should be governed by secular laws. We are. > Those of a particular faith should be free to follow that faith amongst their own but should have no right to enforce their religious beliefs on others. That is nonsense. Are you saying the state should be forbidden to (for instance) limit the operating hours of business on Sundays because that might align with the population's religious convictions? The way should and does work is the motivations for a policy almost always don't matter, so long as the policy itself is constitutional. If the state can regulate store hours, then it can regulate them on any day as it sees fit.
philjohn 5y ago
Some republican lawmakers want the court to overturn Griswold next, which also relies on the right to privacy this decision seems to be striking down.
- collegeburner 5y ago
  Because both are shitty jurispridence and create rights where they aren't written. They're some of the worst opinions since FDR blackmailed the court into letting his new deal bs stand. If we want to create a new right we should pass an amendment, like we did with universal suffrage etc.
  - philjohn 5y ago
    Which is going to be impossible, so women need to suffer. Great.
sharken 5y ago
Well, you can have both, don't see why that should be a bad thing. A woman should have full control over her body, this decision is counter-productive. In my view USA is making a turn for the worse and setting out on a very dark path.

quantified 5y ago

Health ed. You don’t learn any sex in sex ed.

dap 5y ago

So much this. To me, this reveals the deep hypocrisy of the standard anti-abortion position. I get that many folks consider birth control unethical and sex ed undesirable, too. But aren't they at least lesser evils? If one's position is "we absolutely have to stop all abortions, but also I don't want you to use birth control or sex ed to do it", then I have to think you don't _really_ care about the abortions as much as you say.

pstuart 5y ago
The fact that this is based on religious convictions is all the more reason for it to be challenged as a law of the land. We should be governed by secular laws. Those of a particular faith should be free to follow that faith amongst their own but should have no right to enforce their religious beliefs on others. Unfortunately, for many, "religious freedom" means exactly that.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  > We should be governed by secular laws. Every law has a worldview and moral standards it assumes a priori. The point of our government's structure is to allow whatever laws people ask their representatives to pass, assuming the House and the Senate can agree and the law itself isn't unconstitutional. There's nothing unconstitutional about laws that assume particular beliefs about what is right and wrong, even if those beliefs originate in a religious worldview. If it's what "we the people" (at least a large enough subset of us) believe, there's nothing wrong with it passing from a constitutional or jurisprudential standpoint. We all have varying beliefs; that's not going to change, but it will be reflected in our politics, unfortunately. You and I may disagree with a particular law as immoral, but the battle over which worldview to found laws on should be fought in public debate, votes, etc. -- not by arguing that such laws are legally invalid. Only unconstitutional laws ought to be struck down as such.
  - andrekandre 5y ago
    > Every law has a worldview and moral standards it assumes a priori. actually, no, law (legality) is specifically _NOT_ about morality, if it was then jaywalking would be a moral offense, which it clearly is not
    - TimTheTinker 5y ago
      I disagree. Jaywalking was outlawed because the auto industry successfully lobbied lawmakers using specifically moral (if flawed) arguments, like: "Cars are dangerous but helpful to people, people's lives are valuable, let's protect human life by outlawing randomly walking across the street where cars are." The moral assumption that argument is asking lawmakers to accept is that human life is valuable. The argument is flawed and mostly wrong otherwise, but it's the moral component that makes it compelling. It's the same with pro-choice laws. They're compelling to many people because of the moral assumptions we're asked to accept -- specifically the bodily autonomy of the woman, among other things. Why should pro-life arguments be the only ones not allowed to be based on morality?
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Religiousfreedom, a la Dune, perhaps.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > We should be governed by secular laws. We are. > Those of a particular faith should be free to follow that faith amongst their own but should have no right to enforce their religious beliefs on others. That is nonsense. Are you saying the state should be forbidden to (for instance) limit the operating hours of business on Sundays because that might align with the population's religious convictions? The way should and does work is the motivations for a policy almost always don't matter, so long as the policy itself is constitutional. If the state can regulate store hours, then it can regulate them on any day as it sees fit.

philjohn 5y ago

Some republican lawmakers want the court to overturn Griswold next, which also relies on the right to privacy this decision seems to be striking down.

collegeburner 5y ago
Because both are shitty jurispridence and create rights where they aren't written. They're some of the worst opinions since FDR blackmailed the court into letting his new deal bs stand. If we want to create a new right we should pass an amendment, like we did with universal suffrage etc.
- philjohn 5y ago
  Which is going to be impossible, so women need to suffer. Great.

sharken 5y ago

Well, you can have both, don't see why that should be a bad thing. A woman should have full control over her body, this decision is counter-productive. In my view USA is making a turn for the worse and setting out on a very dark path.