by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
Why blame abstinence-only proponents for this? Don't they just blithely tell young women to "just say no" and leave it at that? Well, yes and no.
She doesn't take any time to see if the increase is concentrated in areas where abstinence-only education is taught. Nope, that'd be too much work. Just throw a couple of faulty generalizations out there and you're set.
No one is under the impression that abstinence-only texts or speakers generally push the rhythm method, so much as they push the wedding ring as the cure for all your ills. How you're expected to control your fertility within marriage is rarely discussed at all in these programs.
Still, the rhythm method is associated with the prudish strand of Christian moralizing that also drives the abstinence-only movement, and so the more popular that kind of thinking, the more likely the rhythm method will be seen as a legitimate practice by teenagers.
Signed "The Devil Within Us," the letter mentioned the congressman's family by first names and went on to threaten that he would "paint the Mackinaw (sic) Bridge with the blood of you and your family members."
[Photo via globalgrind.com]
"Still, the rhythm method is associated with the prudish strand of Christian moralizing that also drives the abstinence-only movement, and so the more popular that kind of thinking, the more likely the rhythm method will be seen as a legitimate practice by teenagers. "
My goodness, what decade, heck, century does she think it is? No one uses rhythm method anymore. Catholics can use NFP which is scientifically based and takes into account an individual female's cycle. She could even make teh EXACT same statement, but just replace the phrase "rhythm method" with "NFP." It illustrates how completely unfamiliar she is with the other side's arguments. Seriously, if one thinks that people practice the rhythm method, that is a very compelling piece of evidence to support the hypothesis that you are completely ignorant of the claims of the other side. Not that I expect scholarship from her, but I mean, come on...
Complaining about people who use the rhythm method is about as current as complaining about those individuals who do not wish to do arithmetic calculations by hand resorting to their abacus do it for them.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 8, 2010 1:18 PM
Regarding the ultrasound Bill.
I don't understand how people can be against this. They spew out lines like "its mean spirited"..etc.
Say for example you have a procedure done on your body.(ex. a tooth extraction)...Doesnt the dentist show you the exact xray of the tooth he's taking out?
Whenever something needs to be done with your body by any medical practicioner they always explain exactly what they are doing. Its logical to say that when you need something taken out of you, you need to be informed exactly what it is. Xrays of broken bones, cat scans, etc are shown to patients all the time. Why are people making such a big deal out of this ultra sound law? Its simple informed consent.
Bobby, I thought the same thing!
I didn't even have what you'd call "comprehensive sex ed" (or abstinence ed) in high school - just health class - but I was taught that the "rhythm method" was completely unreliable as birth control. And this wasn't exactly yesterday, so... yeah. :D
NFP involves much more than guessing at when one ovulates. With NFP, you can KNOW when you ovulate.
I think what many young women believe is the "rhythm method" is actually *ahem* "pull out method." Definitely not the same thing. I've had discussions with girls about that before.Posted by: Kelli at June 8, 2010 1:45 PM
Apparently ultrasound bills don't work.Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 1:50 PM
Marcotte is commenting on a new CDC Report. One of its findings is that The rhythm method, or use of periodic abstinence, increased in 2006–08, as 17 percent of teens reported having ever used this method up from 11 percent in 2002.
She attributes difficult "condom negotiation" and the shame inflicted upon sex-deserving girls by the morality police as reasons for an increase in use of the "rhythm method".Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2010 1:52 PM
Posted by: M at June 8, 2010 1:44 PM
When I had my uterus removed, I wasn't compelled, by the government, to view an ultrasound. I suspect the motivation behind the ultrasound laws, which are being challenged in court, is just another way to try to lay a guilt trip on women who make the choice to abort. There was an interesting article (in the NY Times, I think) that cited how, in several clinics whose staff were interviewed, no woman changed her mind about the abortion. I wonder what whould happen if a woman blindfolded herself and had headphones on in order to not look at the screen or hear the doctor. Would she be arrested and then physically forced to view the ultrasound and listen to the doctor? Would she be denied an abortion until she complied? Just wondering...Posted by: Maevis at June 8, 2010 1:58 PM
If no woman changes her mind, why not be required to offer an ultrasound? I don't see why pro-choicers are so opposed to that, if it makes no difference.
Besides, as far as I know, an ultrasound is always required for an abortion. That's how you know the pregnancy isn't in the tubes or anything like that.Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 2:01 PM
How can they know that these bills "don't work" when they used such a tiny sample? And have these results been replicated anywhere else? Did the study say at what stage of pregnancy they women who viewed them were in?Posted by: phillymiss at June 8, 2010 4:45 PM
How can they know that these bills "don't work" when they used such a tiny sample? Have these results been replicated anywhere else? Did the study say at what stage of pregnancy they women who viewed them were in?
Also, PC'ers always cite Europe's lower abortion rates as to why we should have paid maternity leave, universal health care, etc. I don't oppose these things, but 1) Europeans pay very high taxes -- in Germany, for example, there is a 20 percent VAT on cars and electronics, among other things, and 2) most European countries, with the exception of Spain and a few others, have more restrictive abortion laws than the United States, something that PC'ers conveniently ignore.Posted by: phillymiss at June 8, 2010 4:49 PM
Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 1:50 PM
"Apparently ultrasound bills don't work."
Setting aside for the moment whether or not ultrasound bills work or not, I am not willing to put any stock in a conclusion based on 'two studies' of which we have no information concernign who funded, who conducted the studies and the methodology used in the study.
The tone of the Newsweek article raises my skepticism, not only of the article, but of the purported study.
While I believe we can all agree with the reporter's conclusion that viewing an ultrasound image does not change the circumstances that would lead a woman to elect to have her pre-natal child killed, the 'emotions' that moved her to that decision might be overcome when she actually sees the child she is contemplating destroying.
The pregnant woman might make an equally emotionally driven 'choice' to choose life for her baby and work thru the details as they arise.
Lyndon Jonson was famously said, "Tomorrow morning if I walked on water the headline in the Washington Post would read, "President can't swim."
"Apparently ultrasound bills don't work" has the same sort of politically driven bias attached to it.Posted by: yor bro ken at June 8, 2010 8:30 PM
Posted by: Maevis at June 8, 2010 1:58 PM
"When I had my uterus removed, I wasn't compelled, by the government, to view an ultrasound."
But the insurance company that carried your surgeons malpractice coverage 'compelled' her/him to make sure you were fully informed and get a signed acknowledgement from you BEFORE he/she performed the scheduled surgery.
I also doubt that a responsible and reputable surgeon would agree to remove a 'healthy' uterus unless there were convincing extenuating circumstances.
Pregnancy is NOT a sexually transmitted desease, congenital birth defect or abnormal physical condition for women in their fertile years.
The abortionists is not treating or curing anything. His sole purpose is to kill the pre-natal child and terminate the pregnancy.
I am having unprotected sex for 2 years but I am failed in the process of getting pregnancy. I am getting pretty down that I haven't become pregnant yet…I always figured it would be SUPER easy to get pregnant, but now I see that is not true. Help me please...Posted by: Pregnancy Miracle at June 9, 2010 2:08 AM