Birth Control, Sex Ed And Why It Shouldn't Be An Issue

[sroberson]

I guess "God" didn't think about how much it costs to raise a child (about 200 grand from year 1 to 18 in the States, without pampering) or how overpopulated our planet will get in the next decades. Seriously, as it is now, we should already have laws that would prevent people from spreading like bunnies. Last time I checked, we still can't live under the sea or out in space,

Ahhh a fellow antinatalist (and I think the cost of raising a child is closer to $300k with inflation these days). I feel a great many problems facing humanity would be solved by the reduction of the population. How one would go about doing that is anyone's guess since morality dictates that the advancement and preservation of life is to be desired and with religion stepping in and suggesting that procreating is morally right as well. It is possibly the most irresponsible belief that bringing more life on the planet will make it better overall, especially since the discussion of scarcity of water and the threat to national security as a result of such scarcity is now being brought up. Some days I am under the belief that resource starved countries like Africa will represent the future of humanity - fighting just to capture needed resources and survive.

As a result of my beliefs that population control must be implemented I am in support of birth control, and possibly even birth control for women being covered by insurance to some degree (maybe a low co-pay). It allows the population to get their hands on birth control if they like for a low cost if they are able to pay, women's hormonal issues will be helped (as I haven't seen the subject brought up yet, yes, hormonal birth control helps balance moods of women among other things), and maybe the population will stabilize or decrease instead of increasing exponentially. Of course, then awareness of the issue of overpopulation and the responsibilities of sex need to be taught to 'youth' (I use the word loosely as I do not know when would be best) to inform them of their options. I am unsure of how to tackle the issue of welfare, an obvious aid and abetting force in continuing to reproduce, but since its beyond the scope of the thread then I won't worry about it.

I just feel that without a decent reason for why birth control is bad, then it should be a non-issue and should be generally accepted as just a choice one takes. Religions need to butt out since I am starting to understand they may be more interested in outbreeding other religions than in the advancement of the human spirit - following an antiquated book that has little bearing on the way of life now.

I may continue editing or ranting, but if someone feels I drifted off topic I apologize.

[Falco'sFinest]

I wanted to read this thread and really absorb everyone's thoughts and comments...

..however the blatant sexism exhibited in the initial post was more than I could handle, even if I agree with some of the inequalities presented. I simply cannot condone this type of behavior. So I apologize for only skimming and making the following sweeping statement:

America, and the rest of the world, is made up of humans. It is unfortunate that the things we disagree about separate us so drastically and cause us to categorically stereotype every nature of our being, including race, gender, religion, sexual preferences/habits, income, and political views. I simply hope that whether we allow birth control to be covered by health insurance or not, we will soon arrive at a place in human nature where we don't take these combative positions against each other.

EDIT:

@below: Sent you a PM to keep the thread on its rails.

[sroberson]

Falco'sFinest,

I'm guilty of not reading over the entirety of the thread, but the parts I read over I didn't notice any aggravated sexist remarks. What was said that sounded sexist to you?

(I'm just honestly curious where the offensive comments were. I mean no disrespect or anything like that)

[Faisul]

..however the blatant sexism exhibited in the initial post was more than I could handle, even if I agree with some of the inequalities presented. I simply cannot condone this type of behavior. So I apologize for only skimming and making the following sweeping statement:

Could you please point out exactly where the OP is blatantly and unacceptably sexist? If anything it underlines exactly the kind of mysogynistic bullshit rampaging through American politics and daily life, and is brutally honest in depicting the retarded basis of the hypocrisy surrounding birth control coverage. If it's the tone of the post you object to, that's kind of OP's schtick, sorry.

America, and the rest of the world, is made up of humans. It is unfortunate that the things we disagree about separate us so drastically and cause us to categorically stereotype every nature of our being, including race, gender, religion, sexual preferences/habits, income, and political views. I simply hope that whether we allow birth control to be covered by health insurance or not, we will soon arrive at a place in human nature where we don't take these combative positions against each other.

While I appreciate your sentiment here it needs to be pointed out that yes, humans stereotype, it's to compartmentalise and classify reality in order to make it easier to deal with. It's neither inherently good nor bad, it's simply a part of human psychology. Those stereotypes and ideas surrounding them that are actively offensive and contribute to the oppression of others, however, are. They are frequently used in politics to polarize and put demographics at odds with each other to distract from more crucial social issues to maintain the status quo. More obviously (and less tinfoil-hatty) they contribute to promote a sense of 'otherness' which serves to dehumanise and marginalize groups that are perceived as exhibiting aberrant behaviour.

More to the point, birth control in the US -is- covered by insurance, just not as comprehensibly for women. That was OP's point. The birth control pill is just as useful to prevent pregnancies as it is to alleviate other, more damaging conditions. The reason that the birth control pill isn't covered by health insurance is some ridiculous, patriarchical notion that by making it easier to procure equals women being paid for having sex - an idea that unfortunately features heavily in conservative politics and has lead to women who could easily have been treated becoming infertile, or worse. It's a case of men being shitbags in a man's world, and if OP wants to rail against that she is free to and perfectly justified in doing so.

[Falco'sFinest]

All points I was willing to concede...

However sexist comments such as these and the attitude used to express them won't get anybody anywhere:

Let's talk about men for a second.

As Limbaugh demonstrated, this whole birth control thing is being equated to "hardcore feminazis demanding we pay for all the slutty sex they're having". Alongside the bizarre implication that the sex isn't monogamous, even between married couples, it's also for some reason not putting men in the equation either.

See, men also like having sex. And men also do not want to be suddenly saddled with a baby. Ergo, men are often the ones supporting the use of birth control in their relationships! Why this isn't acknowledged seems strange to me. I could talk about how, as usual, it's a symptom of only male sexuality being acceptable, but there's something more interesting to talk about.

Women's birth control is not covered by most health insurance.

Fucking Viagra is.

Yes, kids, the same grouchy old men sitting on a panel, decrying women concerned for their reproductive health as whores, are very likely the same men who go home that night to pop their insurance-covered dick pills. Viagra, and pills like it, can be used to treat other disorders, but anyone who's ever recieved a spam message knows its primary function.

Now I hinted at the fact that I don't disagree with the PRINCIPLE presented, however I said I cannot condone that behavior.

In this case, the OP was exemplifying the same type of judgmental, assumptive stereotypes upon men that he/she is so clearly upset about when the shoe was on the other foot and some douchebag radio show host was making the same caliber of comments about women. In this case, NONE of the suggested stereotypes apply to me, nor to several of my friends. I find the insinuation that males are nothing but power-grubbing sex-crazed hypocrites to be very offensive. Comments like "men being shitbags in a man's world" are only holding you back. Really, I'm disappointed to hear that from you. Notice how I don't attack women in my response to that comment.

This is the behavior that has kept our country in an endless roundabout of argument for centuries, rarely accomplishing anything that could even be considered close to progress. We lose all traction before we even get started because we can't ever even sit down and discuss things calmly. This particular post was simply too high on the sensationalism for me to enjoy participating in the conversation as a whole which is why I made the sweeping comment. This is a tactic I frequently use to avoid this very type of discussion right here which has little to do with the topic. It is simply not in my ability to comment and not be honest and forthcoming with my impression. Perhaps I should exercise my right to ignore next time. Sometimes that is best but never my preference. I have the same right to point out this behavior as the OP has to display it. That's the yin and yang of the world.

Now I respect the thoughts you've presented here and elsewhere on this forum, which is why I've responded to you (de-railing the thread). However, I've already tried to limit my participation in this thread and I'm afraid I'm gonna have to ask that you PM should you wish to continue this particular conversation any further.

No hard feelings? I'm always willing to agree to disagree.

[Vy'drach]

You don't know Drasiana well enough to understand her. She wasn't seriously being sexist.

[Faisul]

Aight, derail over for my part.

[unoservix]

Fortunately, there was no such insinuation, so the fact that you are seeing one where there is not says a whole lot about you, Falco'sFinest, and not a whole lot about Drasiana.

Incidentally,

In this case, NONE of the suggested stereotypes apply to me, nor to several of my friends.

does absolutely nothing to disprove a qualified generalization such as

Ergo, men are often the ones supporting the use of birth control in their relationships!

Try reading.

[sroberson]

I do believe, that without knowing the author a little better, its easy to get caught up in the somewhat dramatic and sensationalist way of writing and interpret it as an attack in some way or another. I personally didn't find much offense to it, but I also have a bad tendency to respond with the same kind of extreme writing behavior when talking about these kinds of things (as noted in my post, I probably mentioned something about the immorality of reproducing...pretty extreme, I just think nobody cared to comment on it because the fancy word 'antinatalist' might have required a quick google-fu).

I feel Falco might have interpreted the original post as aggressive, and it was - and thus responded somewhat aggressively. In a forum that welcomes free thought so long as it is founded upon respect for all people interested, I feel that Falco made at least good effort in suggesting he could have misinterpreted or had not read all of it - but wanted to express his thoughts on the post. Whether his thoughts on the post were well founded or not was later supported with the note that he is not meaning to incite anyone. That being said, lets not start getting all defensive about something that can be polarizing to people who aren't able to step back and evaluate it from a less personal stance.

I say this with all respect intended to those participating in the thread lately, hoping to maybe keep a snowballing of rage from occuring.

[Sarita]

Wow, okay. Falco'sFinest, you aren't derailing the thread, your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's, and you shouldn't consider anything you have to say in response to the OP as "derailing". We firmly believe that discourse should be as free as possible, and that often includes airing grievances with the hyperbolic devices used. Dras is a writer (professionally, I believe), therefore she often employs these devices.

To recap: Disagreeing with the OP is not derailing, this is the debate forum, please continue.