The World Beyond BetterMost > Women Today
Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: milomorris on October 21, 2011, 01:16:12 pm ---So if the women abstained, who would the men have sex with??
--- End quote ---
Assuming you mean heterosexual men, let's say that 9 out of 10 women abstained. Do you think that would mean 9 out of 10 men would be unable to have sex with a woman?
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on October 21, 2011, 01:45:14 pm ---Assuming you mean heterosexual men, let's say that 9 out of 10 women abstained. Do you think that would mean 9 out of 10 men would be unable to have sex with a woman?
--- End quote ---
That might make (female) prostitution a growth industry. ...
Or sodomy. ...
milomorris:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on October 21, 2011, 01:41:44 pm ---That's interesting. Note, though, that the proportion has changed in just the past decade; traditionally the majority of abortion recipients were NOT poor. Here are some statistics from an anti-abortion website. Judging from your post, looks like these are accurate but outdated:
Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.
--- End quote ---
Ah. I see what you mean. That is interesting. I wonder what caused the shifts?
--- Quote from: serious crayons on October 21, 2011, 01:41:44 pm ---There will remain, though, an anti-choice contingent who will not be satisfied.
--- End quote ---
No doubt. The only question is whether they will have the amount of influence they currently have.
--- Quote from: serious crayons on October 21, 2011, 01:41:44 pm ---That sounds pretty easily struck down, just by your explanation alone. If people want to abstain for religious reasons, and if abstaining places their children at an academic disadvantage, I can't imagine a court holding that up as constitutional.
--- End quote ---
I don't know about that.
1. Not all parents will abstain for religious reasons. And then too, there will be kids who simply skip class even if their parents grant them permission. Plus those who fail the class. Now I'm clearly modifying here: if the academic incentive were tied to passing the class, as opposed to just taking it, that would not necessarily be a matter of purely religious discrimination.
2. Let's say that a school district required that physics, chemistry, and biology were compulsory courses for being graduated. In other words, if you don't take and pass all 3, you don't get a high school diploma. When I was in school, we were required to take any 2, and some districts now require all 3. Let's say that evolution is taught in biology class, and the Big Bang Theory (or Cosmic Evolution as I learned it) in physics. The child of a Fundamentalist who objects to either or both of those might choose to pull their child from that class, or that part of the class--either of which would result in an "incomplete." The child would not be allowed to graduate. I'm not so sure that such a schools district would lose in court. At least it would make for an interesting test of the Constitution. I know there have been some high-profile cases regarding Creationism in school, but I'm not familiar with any cases involving Fundies challenging evolution/Big Bang as infringing on their rights.
--- Quote from: serious crayons on October 21, 2011, 01:41:44 pm ---I don't see how your position contradicts mine. I said that abortionists think that prohibiting abortion will not cause a return to the coat-hanger days. You say antiabortionists think that because of "their alternatives," prohibiting abortion will not cause a return to the coat-hanger days.
--- End quote ---
You're right. We're really saying the same thing. I just threw in a qualifier.
milomorris:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on October 21, 2011, 01:45:14 pm ---Assuming you mean heterosexual men, let's say that 9 out of 10 women abstained. Do you think that would mean 9 out of 10 men would be unable to have sex with a woman?
--- End quote ---
Technically speaking, the 10% of women who do not abstain would be available to all the men, so no. What I'm saying is that in the moment, when the woman says "no" the guy has no recourse. So he'll be abstaining until he can find a woman who will say "yes."
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: milomorris on October 21, 2011, 03:07:38 pm ---Ah. I see what you mean. That is interesting. I wonder what caused the shifts?
--- End quote ---
Good question. The report referred to in the story you posted offers some speculative possibilities, but they weren't very convincing.
--- Quote ---No doubt. The only question is whether they will have the amount of influence they currently have.
--- End quote ---
True.
--- Quote ---2. Let's say that a school district required that physics, chemistry, and biology were compulsory courses for being graduated. In other words, if you don't take and pass all 3, you don't get a high school diploma. When I was in school, we were required to take any 2, and some districts now require all 3. Let's say that evolution is taught in biology class, and the Big Bang Theory (or Cosmic Evolution as I learned it) in physics. The child of a Fundamentalist who objects to either or both of those might choose to pull their child from that class, or that part of the class--either of which would result in an "incomplete." The child would not be allowed to graduate. I'm not so sure that such a schools district would lose in court. At least it would make for an interesting test of the Constitution. I know there have been some high-profile cases regarding Creationism in school, but I'm not familiar with any cases involving Fundies challenging evolution/Big Bang as infringing on their rights.
--- End quote ---
I think in the post Clarence Darrow world, the difference between science findings that fundies don't like, and sex ed, might be that if you're going to teach science, it doesn't make sense not to teach what the overwhelming majority of scientists consider to have happened. Whereas sex education has not traditionally been the responsibility of schools; many parents would argue that it should be taught in the home, and certainly can be.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version