Sex
So, I think we've all heard about the study that says 95% of all adults have/had premarital sex, and that that includes our grandparents and great-grandparents. I find it funny that so many people have focused on the "older women" aspect of the angle--I've heard several news anchors say, "My grandmother had sex before marriage!" Most people seem to think that's normal for men, but not so normal for women. Well, I ask you, if it's normal for men to have sex before marriage but not for women to do so, then are the men having sex with each other?? Some of them, yes, I'll grant that, but not all of them. And that means they have to be having sex with women (assuming all partners are human, of course). So...why is it so weird to think of women having sex before marriage? *shakes head*
Anyhow, on top of that, this piece proves the need for safe abortion, contraceptives, and real sex ed:
"Not surprisingly, researchers in the '50s found that less than one in three married couples reported being happy or very happy with their relationship. Compare that to today, when 61 percent of married Americans report themselves to be "very happy" in their marriage. Part of the sour spouse problem of the '50s was that many couples didn't really want to be married to each other. Often, they were trapped into marriage by unintended pregnancy. With no sex-ed, no birth control, no legal abortion -- the exact legislative agenda of today's pro-life movement! -- teen birth rates soared, reaching highs that have not been equaled since: there were twice as many teen mothers in the '50s than today."
And, of course, there are the 'feminist' arguments that being able to plan/postpone families helps women have a foothold in the workforce. But I think that paragraph above does more to show the twistedness of the pro-life-as-law movement than anything else. It's an very well-written article, and I highly encourage you to read it all. And when you're done, read up on Plan B availability and on a British finding that abstinence is a myth.
And, on that note, is it possible to find middle ground on the abortion debate? This columnist thinks not, and thinks it's a mistake to try to do so.
"The only reason for regarding an abortion as more regrettable than a root canal, then, is the belief that moral personhood is not fundamentally about having a certain kind of mind. This is a strange view, when you think about it: If we are ever visited by some alien species, we will decide what kind of treatment we owe them by reflecting on the sorts of minds they have, not by poking at their genetic structure. If the most popular basis for considering fetuses persons is some sort of theory about souls, giving credence to this view tacitly endorses the notion that public policy ought to be tailored to accommodate moral premises whose sole basis is theological."
Unfortunately for the columnist, there are those who really do want a theocracy in control, rather than the republic we have now. I personally find the idea of a theocracy horrifying, but that would be one of the big reasons I'm not a member of the Religious Right.
I agree, though; I don't think there can be a real middle ground. It would be nice if there were fewer abortions--but that means we have to keep abortion safe and clean by keeping it legal. We can't pick and choose the circumstances in which someone can have an abortion, because we may never know all of the reasons behind a woman's choice to abort. People are funny like that--they may say part of the reason, or something else entirely, and not bring up the whole reason for things they do.
These dolls, meanwhile, are one of the healthiest things I have seen in a while. The dolls have real anatomy and provide for realistic looks at family life.
"Each 16-inch cloth adult Amamanta doll has genitals and pubic hair, and the mother doll features breasts that can be snapped onto the baby doll's mouth to help reinforce the importance of breastfeeding."
The dolls come in a few different nationalities currently, and they aren't harmful to body image the way something like Bratz or Barbies are. They're more expensive, of course, but that's because their creator pays her workers a living wage and because the company is a small start-up. All around, these are wonderful creations. If I had a kid, I'd want my kid to have a set.
Peace.
Anyhow, on top of that, this piece proves the need for safe abortion, contraceptives, and real sex ed:
"Not surprisingly, researchers in the '50s found that less than one in three married couples reported being happy or very happy with their relationship. Compare that to today, when 61 percent of married Americans report themselves to be "very happy" in their marriage. Part of the sour spouse problem of the '50s was that many couples didn't really want to be married to each other. Often, they were trapped into marriage by unintended pregnancy. With no sex-ed, no birth control, no legal abortion -- the exact legislative agenda of today's pro-life movement! -- teen birth rates soared, reaching highs that have not been equaled since: there were twice as many teen mothers in the '50s than today."
And, of course, there are the 'feminist' arguments that being able to plan/postpone families helps women have a foothold in the workforce. But I think that paragraph above does more to show the twistedness of the pro-life-as-law movement than anything else. It's an very well-written article, and I highly encourage you to read it all. And when you're done, read up on Plan B availability and on a British finding that abstinence is a myth.
And, on that note, is it possible to find middle ground on the abortion debate? This columnist thinks not, and thinks it's a mistake to try to do so.
"The only reason for regarding an abortion as more regrettable than a root canal, then, is the belief that moral personhood is not fundamentally about having a certain kind of mind. This is a strange view, when you think about it: If we are ever visited by some alien species, we will decide what kind of treatment we owe them by reflecting on the sorts of minds they have, not by poking at their genetic structure. If the most popular basis for considering fetuses persons is some sort of theory about souls, giving credence to this view tacitly endorses the notion that public policy ought to be tailored to accommodate moral premises whose sole basis is theological."
Unfortunately for the columnist, there are those who really do want a theocracy in control, rather than the republic we have now. I personally find the idea of a theocracy horrifying, but that would be one of the big reasons I'm not a member of the Religious Right.
I agree, though; I don't think there can be a real middle ground. It would be nice if there were fewer abortions--but that means we have to keep abortion safe and clean by keeping it legal. We can't pick and choose the circumstances in which someone can have an abortion, because we may never know all of the reasons behind a woman's choice to abort. People are funny like that--they may say part of the reason, or something else entirely, and not bring up the whole reason for things they do.
These dolls, meanwhile, are one of the healthiest things I have seen in a while. The dolls have real anatomy and provide for realistic looks at family life.
"Each 16-inch cloth adult Amamanta doll has genitals and pubic hair, and the mother doll features breasts that can be snapped onto the baby doll's mouth to help reinforce the importance of breastfeeding."
The dolls come in a few different nationalities currently, and they aren't harmful to body image the way something like Bratz or Barbies are. They're more expensive, of course, but that's because their creator pays her workers a living wage and because the company is a small start-up. All around, these are wonderful creations. If I had a kid, I'd want my kid to have a set.
Peace.
Labels: abortion, abstinence, body image, contraceptives, sex
posted by A-muse-ing at 11:59 AM
0 comments
