The more I think about the matter, the more I can't wrap my head around hard-core conservatives' thinking when it comes to sex. This includes: Education, contraception, homosexuality (and with that, gay marriage), and abortion.
I can understand perfectly well why most self-described conservatives are against abortion. However, whether one supports or opposes such procedures and whether they are legal or illegal, they are going to occur. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just am matter-of-factly stating that these procedures aren't ever going to completely vanish from our existence. So, since that's the case, wouldn't it make sense for "pro-lifers" to support measures which would likely decrease the number of abortions yet wouldn't endanger women's freedoms and/or health?
Comprehensive sex education has been proven to work far better than abstinence-only education when it comes to preventing unwanted (teenage) pregnancies, and with that, abortions. Why is this? Simple... When kids learn about sex, the potential repercussions of it (pregnancy and disease), and how to significantly decrease the odds of those potential repercussions, they'll be more inclined to take the proper precautions before engaging in intercourse, which will decrease the chances of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. When kids only learn about abstinence, they'll be much less prepared to take those precautions when engaging in intercourse, which will increase the odds of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Yes, whether or not kids learn about sex in a classroom, they're going to get urges in their teenage and young adult years and have sex. "No, not my precious little angel." Yes, your precious little angel. So, would these pro-lifers rather live in reality where their sexually-curious kids learn about sex and are better prepared for it in the future or would they rather live in denial and run a higher risk of their kids becoming parents by the age of 18? If they go with the latter, hey, everyone seems to have at least one crazy grandparent, right?
Many of these same conservatives are also against contraception, especially birth control pills for women (in particular when it's part of their employer-based healthcare plans). No, most forms of contraception aren't 100% guarantees to prevent pregnancy. However, they do lessen those odds a great deal, and once again, with fewer unwanted pregnancies come fewer abortions. This rationale is honestly not rocket science, brain surgery, nor even rocket surgery for the illogical individuals in this camp. Would these same people tell their kids, "Sweetie, you know how much I don't want you to suffer a head injury, but I'm adamantly opposed to helmets, so please don't wear one while riding your motorcycle across the country, okay? Thank you."? I'm not thinking so...
That brings me to homosexuality and gay marriage. I find it kind of funny to hear hard-core conservatives be so adamantly opposed to both abortion and homosexuality, because who has fewer abortions than homosexuals? Well, oddly enough, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation, they now estimate that there will be 900,000 abortions over the next thirty years due to gay marriage. Yes, I'll allow you to read that over again. Take your time. Finished? No, I can't believe it either, but apparently the folks at the Heritage Foundation actually do. In an amicus brief filed by over 100 "marriage scholars" (whatever that is), they made the following argument:
"...redefining marriage in genderless terms-which is legally necessary to permit marriage by same-sex couples-undermines the existing social norms of marriage in ways that are likely over time to reduce opposite-sex marriage rates. For example, an 'any-two-adults' model of marriage implicitly tells men (and women) that a child doesn't need a father (or mother), thereby weakening the norm of gender-diverse parenting. Other norms, such as the value of biological bonding, partner exclusivity, and reproductive postponement until marriage, will likewise crumble."
Right, so it can be safe to assume that, due to all of this, with same-sex couples' marriages increasing and opposite-sex couples' marriages decreasing, 900,000 single heterosexual women will be having abortions over the next three decades.
What these marriage "scholars" fail to mention is the fact marriage rates have been on the decline for some time now, so its continuing decline after the legalization of gay marriage can't be solely attributed to the legalization of gay marriage as the "scholars" would like for readers to believe. In fact, to this point, it can't be proven that the legalization of gay marriage has had any effect on the marriage rate of heterosexual couples. Given that, it can't be proven gay marriage has led to an increase in abortions, and it is even more asinine to predict that legalizing gay marriage nationwide will lead to 900,000 abortions in the next 30 years.
The conservative Heritage Foundation has really outdone itself this time. So, according to such thinkers (what limited thinking they're capable of), homosexuality is wrong because such couples can't reproduce, yet legally recognizing these couples' relationships will lead to more abortions. Fascinating...
So, to break this down further, far right-wing conservatives are adamantly opposed to abortion and homosexuality. They also oppose comprehensive sex education even though that decreases the number of abortions. They oppose contraception coverage on women's employer-based healthcare plans even though that decreases the number of abortions. Lastly, they believe that homosexual couples, whom can't reproduce, will lead to more abortions if they're legally allowed to be married. Even the craziest, most drug-induced fiction writers couldn't come up with that crap!
http://samuel-warde.com/2015/04/heritage-foundation-same-sex-marriage-will-900000/
I can understand perfectly well why most self-described conservatives are against abortion. However, whether one supports or opposes such procedures and whether they are legal or illegal, they are going to occur. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just am matter-of-factly stating that these procedures aren't ever going to completely vanish from our existence. So, since that's the case, wouldn't it make sense for "pro-lifers" to support measures which would likely decrease the number of abortions yet wouldn't endanger women's freedoms and/or health?
Comprehensive sex education has been proven to work far better than abstinence-only education when it comes to preventing unwanted (teenage) pregnancies, and with that, abortions. Why is this? Simple... When kids learn about sex, the potential repercussions of it (pregnancy and disease), and how to significantly decrease the odds of those potential repercussions, they'll be more inclined to take the proper precautions before engaging in intercourse, which will decrease the chances of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. When kids only learn about abstinence, they'll be much less prepared to take those precautions when engaging in intercourse, which will increase the odds of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Yes, whether or not kids learn about sex in a classroom, they're going to get urges in their teenage and young adult years and have sex. "No, not my precious little angel." Yes, your precious little angel. So, would these pro-lifers rather live in reality where their sexually-curious kids learn about sex and are better prepared for it in the future or would they rather live in denial and run a higher risk of their kids becoming parents by the age of 18? If they go with the latter, hey, everyone seems to have at least one crazy grandparent, right?
Many of these same conservatives are also against contraception, especially birth control pills for women (in particular when it's part of their employer-based healthcare plans). No, most forms of contraception aren't 100% guarantees to prevent pregnancy. However, they do lessen those odds a great deal, and once again, with fewer unwanted pregnancies come fewer abortions. This rationale is honestly not rocket science, brain surgery, nor even rocket surgery for the illogical individuals in this camp. Would these same people tell their kids, "Sweetie, you know how much I don't want you to suffer a head injury, but I'm adamantly opposed to helmets, so please don't wear one while riding your motorcycle across the country, okay? Thank you."? I'm not thinking so...
That brings me to homosexuality and gay marriage. I find it kind of funny to hear hard-core conservatives be so adamantly opposed to both abortion and homosexuality, because who has fewer abortions than homosexuals? Well, oddly enough, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation, they now estimate that there will be 900,000 abortions over the next thirty years due to gay marriage. Yes, I'll allow you to read that over again. Take your time. Finished? No, I can't believe it either, but apparently the folks at the Heritage Foundation actually do. In an amicus brief filed by over 100 "marriage scholars" (whatever that is), they made the following argument:
"...redefining marriage in genderless terms-which is legally necessary to permit marriage by same-sex couples-undermines the existing social norms of marriage in ways that are likely over time to reduce opposite-sex marriage rates. For example, an 'any-two-adults' model of marriage implicitly tells men (and women) that a child doesn't need a father (or mother), thereby weakening the norm of gender-diverse parenting. Other norms, such as the value of biological bonding, partner exclusivity, and reproductive postponement until marriage, will likewise crumble."
Right, so it can be safe to assume that, due to all of this, with same-sex couples' marriages increasing and opposite-sex couples' marriages decreasing, 900,000 single heterosexual women will be having abortions over the next three decades.
What these marriage "scholars" fail to mention is the fact marriage rates have been on the decline for some time now, so its continuing decline after the legalization of gay marriage can't be solely attributed to the legalization of gay marriage as the "scholars" would like for readers to believe. In fact, to this point, it can't be proven that the legalization of gay marriage has had any effect on the marriage rate of heterosexual couples. Given that, it can't be proven gay marriage has led to an increase in abortions, and it is even more asinine to predict that legalizing gay marriage nationwide will lead to 900,000 abortions in the next 30 years.
The conservative Heritage Foundation has really outdone itself this time. So, according to such thinkers (what limited thinking they're capable of), homosexuality is wrong because such couples can't reproduce, yet legally recognizing these couples' relationships will lead to more abortions. Fascinating...
So, to break this down further, far right-wing conservatives are adamantly opposed to abortion and homosexuality. They also oppose comprehensive sex education even though that decreases the number of abortions. They oppose contraception coverage on women's employer-based healthcare plans even though that decreases the number of abortions. Lastly, they believe that homosexual couples, whom can't reproduce, will lead to more abortions if they're legally allowed to be married. Even the craziest, most drug-induced fiction writers couldn't come up with that crap!
http://samuel-warde.com/2015/04/heritage-foundation-same-sex-marriage-will-900000/
Comments
Post a Comment