Jesus and the FDA

[MisterMike]

Well, no, abstinence or no pre-marital sex is the goal. This would make birth control a moot point in a lot of cases.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Well, no, abstinence or no pre-marital sex is the goal. This would make birth control a moot point in a lot of cases.

That's the goal for one particular restrictive religion that attempts to impose its worldview on the rest of us.

Additionally, religious abstinence-centered education programs traditionally show *higher* rates of pregnancy and STDs since they do not educate or provide backup birth control for those inevitable times when people ignore their skygods and instead respond to their naughty, fleshy urges.

 

[MisterMike]

That's the goal for one particular restrictive religion that attempts to impose its worldview on the rest of us.

Additionally, religious abstinence-centered education programs traditionally show *higher* rates of pregnancy and STDs since they do not educate or provide backup birth control for those inevitable times when people ignore their skygods and instead respond to their naughty, fleshy urges.

Yea, I guess there's a reason for everything isn't there.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

What you mention, PM, reminded me of a statistic I found once - although I'd have to find the source now. It stated that 1/3rd of all children in the Victorian Era (a time we think of impeccable good manners and doing things "properly" with lots of social restrictions) were born out of wedlock.


Hmmmm!

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Well, no, abstinence or no pre-marital sex is the goal. This would make birth control a moot point in a lot of cases.

No, it doesn't.

In fact, a recent systematic analysis of pregnancy prevention strategies for adolescents found that, far from reducing unwanted pregnancies, abstinence programs actually “may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants.”


http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1355

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Well, no, abstinence or no pre-marital sex is the goal. This would make birth control a moot point in a lot of cases.

No, it doesn't.

In fact, a recent systematic analysis of pregnancy prevention strategies for adolescents found that, far from reducing unwanted pregnancies, abstinence programs actually “may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants.”


http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1355

The article mentions how officials in the CDC have been required to go to day long conferences on "the science of abstinence," in spite of the research indicating it isn't as effective as other programs.

Another interesting tidbit from the article:

During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females. Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states.

Regards,


Steve

 

[qizmoduis]

“may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants.”

That's a really peculiar turn of phrase.
:idunno:

Do they have to try hard to come up with these things or does it come naturally to certain people?

I now return you to your regularly scheduled diatribe...

 

[heretic888]

The article mentions how officials in the CDC have been required to go to day long conferences on "the science of abstinence," in spite of the research indicating it isn't as effective as other programs.

Its the same reason that some folks like to use the death penalty as "a deterrent", even when statistical evidence indicates otherwise. The same goes with the institution of so-called "hate crimes" and for "zero tolerance" of juvenile criminality.

What's that reason, we may ask?? Why, ideology, my dear Watson. Ideology.

These people may want to spend more time studying psychology, and less time studying Biblical passages, if they want a clue as to what this purported "human nature" thing might actually be like.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Hey, that whole thing about attacks on abortion rights being part of a generalized attack on women's rights is starting to make a lot more sense, ain't it?

 

[heretic888]

Hey, that whole thing about attacks on abortion rights being part of a generalized attack on women's rights is starting to make a lot more sense, ain't it?

Well, as a whole, the so-called "pro-life" is clearly motivated by ideology (namely, the notion that "souls" are "created" by "God" at conception). The only issue I have is when this motivaton is applied to all pro-life individuals bar none, without exception.

 

[loki09789]

On a more basic level, I question why a MAN would be appointed to head a panel on women's health policy. Even a well-qualified not controversial man appointee seems weird to me.

Gender requirements for political appointments or educationally licensed trades? Isn't that kind of sexist?

 

[heretic888]

Gender requirements for political appointments or educationally licensed trades? Isn't that kind of sexist?

I believe the correct term is "reverse discrimination". :uhyeah:

 

[loki09789]

I believe the correct term is "reverse discrimination". :uhyeah:

LOL!
Another one of my favorite 'politicalese' terms.

There is simply 'discrimination' or 'racism' or 'sexism' not 'reverse' because within the context the guy/girl with the power is abusing it in one way or another....

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Originally Posted by hardheadjarhead
“may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants.”

That's a really peculiar turn of phrase.
:idunno:

Do they have to try hard to come up with these things or does it come naturally to certain people?

I now return you to your regularly scheduled diatribe...

It means that not all of the males participants had female partners who were a part of the study...yet still got pregnant by their "abstaining" boyfriends. It is an inclusive statement that also allows for those male participants who DID have female partners who participated.

What's so odd about that?


Regards,


Steve

 

[raedyn]

loki09789
Gender requirements for political appointments or educationally licensed trades? Isn't that kind of sexist?

Well, yes and no. Ever heard of employment equity? (NB: That is a whole separate topic, which I don't want to get into here due to potential thread gankage). The only reason I bring it up is that is another example of a situation where there are accusations of "reverse discrimination" (yes, I agree that's a silly term).

I'm not actually sure how I feel about the appointment of a man to head up a women's health panel. As soon as I posted that, I started to re-think and question myself. What if he is a well-qualified MD who has worked extensively on women's health issues and studied the subject etc etc. But I still have hesitation.

Consider;
Why was a specifically women's health panel started in the first place?
some reasons:
1) To date (this is slowly changing) much health research has been done exclusively on men, and it was asssumed that it would apply to women. This has proven incorrect in many cases. Like heart attack research. Did you know that the symptoms of a heart attack are different for men and women? That the majority of women that suffer a heart attack will not experience the pain in the chest and arm that men are told to heed as a warning sign? And that while most men's heart attacks are triggered by physical exertion, most women's are triggered by emotional stress? (more info here)
2) Women have a whole subset of health experiences that men will never have to deal with - breasts, menstruation, pregnancy & birth, breastfeeding, menopause, abortion, some forms of birth control, rape. I agree a man can certainly be a technical expert on these phenomena, but technical experitse isn't everything.
3) There is also the need as group that has been oppressed and discriminated against to gain power and control. Not over their oppressor, but the power of self-determination. If men have been telling women what to do for centuries, maybe it's time that women got to determine for themselves?

I'm not militantly against a man holding this position. But I do think it's a topic worth considering.

 

[loki09789]

loki09789
Gender requirements for political appointments or educationally licensed trades? Isn't that kind of sexist?

Well, yes and no. Ever heard of employment equity? (NB: That is a whole separate topic, which I don't want to get into here due to potential thread gankage). The only reason I bring it up is that is another example of a situation where there are accusations of "reverse discrimination" (yes, I agree that's a silly term).

I'm not actually sure how I feel about the appointment of a man to head up a women's health panel. As soon as I posted that, I started to re-think and question myself. What if he is a well-qualified MD who has worked extensively on women's health issues and studied the subject etc etc. But I still have hesitation.

Consider;
Why was a specifically women's health panel started in the first place?
some reasons:
1) To date (this is slowly changing) much health research has been done exclusively on men, and it was asssumed that it would apply to women. This has proven incorrect in many cases. Like heart attack research. Did you know that the symptoms of a heart attack are different for men and women? That the majority of women that suffer a heart attack will not experience the pain in the chest and arm that men are told to heed as a warning sign? And that while most men's heart attacks are triggered by physical exertion, most women's are triggered by emotional stress? (more info here)
2) Women have a whole subset of health experiences that men will never have to deal with - breasts, menstruation, pregnancy & birth, breastfeeding, menopause, abortion, some forms of birth control, rape. I agree a man can certainly be a technical expert on these phenomena, but technical experitse isn't everything.
3) There is also the need as group that has been oppressed and discriminated against to gain power and control. Not over their oppressor, but the power of self-determination. If men have been telling women what to do for centuries, maybe it's time that women got to determine for themselves?

I'm not militantly against a man holding this position. But I do think it's a topic worth considering.

Can you be a heart specialist without having been a heart patient? Yeah. Can you be sympathetic/sensitive and have a good bedside manner/people skills without being a woman? Yeah. Statements like that basically support the mentallity that women, by virtue of their gender alone, make better parents than men. Not true. I think that an 'empowering topic expert' whether male or female would be a fine to me. If the point is to 'empower women' then working effectively and equally with males would be a demonstration of a living, healthy relationship between men and women.

Appointing a woman to be in charge of 'women's issues' at the exclusion of men strictly based on gender (or gender as a criteria at all) is sexist and ignores that 'empowerment' means working terms of equality between men and women.

 

[heretic888]

I'm not militantly against a man holding this position. But I do think it's a topic worth considering.

[...]from a discussion between Maya Angelou and bell hooks:

bell hooks: I'm so disturbed when my women students behave as though they can only read women, or black students behave as though they can only read blacks, or white students behave as though they can only identify with a white writer. I think the worst thing that can happen to us is to lose sight of the power of empathy and compassion.

Maya Angelou: Absolutely. Then we become brutes. Then we risk being consumed by brutism. There's a statement which I use in all my classes, no matter what I'm teaching. I put on the board the statement, 'I am a human being. Nothing human can be alien to me.' Then I put it down in Latin, 'Homo cum humani nil a me alienum puto.' And then I show them its origin. The statement was made by Publius Terentius Afer, known as Terence. He was an African and a slave to a Roman senator. Freed by that senator, he became the most popular playwright in Rome. Six of his plays and that statement have come down to us from 154 BCE. This man, not born white, not born free, said I am a human being.

(Ken Wilber, Boomeritis, p. 243)

[...] as David Berreby puts it, 'Americans have a standard playbook for creating a political-cultural identity. You start with the conviction that being a member of your group is a distinct experience, separating you from people who are not in it (even close friends and relatives) and uniting you with other members of the group (even if you have never met them). Second, you assume that your own personal struggles and humiliations and triumphs in wrestling with your trait are a version of the struggles of the group in society. The personal is political. Third, you maintain that your group has interests that are being neglected or acted against, and so it must take action --- changing how the group is seen by those outside it, for instance.'

(Ken Wilber, Boomeritis, p. 241)

 

[raedyn]

Can you be a heart specialist without having been a heart patient?

Yes. Of course.

Can you be sympathetic/sensitive and have a good bedside manner/people skills without being a woman?

Yes. Of course.
But I might still prefer my doctor to be a particular gender - man OR woman - just because I'm more comfortable with that. That's my perogitive. And yours.

Statements like that basically support the mentallity that women, by virtue of their gender alone, make better parents than men.

I didn't say that, I don't agree with that and I have no idea what I said that supports makes you think that I think that.

I think that an 'empowering topic expert' whether male or female would be a fine to me. If the point is to 'empower women' then working effectively and equally with males would be a demonstration of a living, healthy relationship between men and women.

Well, yeah. Thus why I'm not saying that I think it neccesarily SHOULD be a woman. It just struck me as an odd picture; a man heading up a women's group. Maybe that says more about me than about the topic.

I have been thinking about this a lot in the days since I first read the e-mail that started this thread. I don't think I would have had the same reaction had it been a more appropriate man. If I ever went to a doctor for help with PMS and he told me to pray I think I would slap him. Maybe twice. Men have a tendancy to be really patronizing towards women and their 'woman problems'. There are many notable exceptions to this, but from what I've heard of this appointee (and I've heard a very limited amount, it's true) I don't think he is one of them.

Appointing a woman to be in charge of 'women's issues' at the exclusion of men strictly based on gender (or gender as a criteria at all) is sexist and ignores that 'empowerment' means working terms of equality between men and women.

point taken.

 

[rmcrobertson]

While one agrees with the Terence quote wholeheartedly, one can't help feeling that anything that gives white men a taste of being discriminated against can't wholly be a bad thing.

 

[heretic888]

While the above post was clearly made in jest, the notion that "white" males have not experienced persecution or discrimination in history is kinda silly.

Truth is, humans have been persecuting pretty much all other humans for a long, long, long time. You'd be hard-pressed to find any real exception to this. Things haven't even begun to change until the last 300 years or so.

Laterz.