Senator Vi Simpson has introduced SB 141 which tries to exempt contraception from the abortion laws.
It defines contraception as “the use of a drug or device that has been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration to prevent pregnancy.” Then it says that “contraception” is not subject to IC 16-34 which sets forth the public policy on abortion and criminalizes the performance of an abortion except under specified conditions.
It’s remarkable how often the same people who oppose abortion also seem to oppose contraception or sex education. Credibility for the argument that the real concern is the sanctity of human life would be enhanced by support for reproductive rights when they clearly do not involve the life of a child. Widespread contraception and sex education are much more effective at reducing the need for abortions than, say, abstinence only education.
I have not come to a full understanding about why conservative morality so frequently seems to involve controlling a woman’s sexuality. And, by “conservative morality” I’m not talking specifically about politics in the United States in the 20th and 21st century. This sort of thing seems to crop up in conservative strains of different religions in different times. At some point, I guess I ought to try to understand the source of the impulse to control women in this fashion.
Somehow we need to find a common ground where abstinence is taught as the first line of defense; but then also educate on proper contraceptive usage. The reason I stress abstinence first is that there are many youth that can come to an understanding that their early to mid teens may not be a time they are mentally mature enough to handle a sexual relationship. If given the option, they might just choose it. But then the conservative right needs to understand that hormones can make the mind stop thinking; and kids need to know what to do in those times to keep from spreading STDs and prevent pregnancy. IF we could somehow merge the two ways of thinking, there will be little need to abolish abortion because it would soon become irrelevant.
I agree with the sentiment posted, unfortunately it seems too many feel the “abstinence only” or even worse “don’t speak of sex at all” approach is the only way to do it. It comes down to basic human nature, people want to avoid confronting topics that make them feel uncomfortable. Talking about sex in our society is still taboo for many people especially when it comes to talking about it to children because it makes people uncomfortable. The children pick up on this and the discomfort continues to the next generation.
Rev AJB,
I disagree with your statement about teens being ready for a sexual relationship. Their bodies are ready and telling them to experiment. Naturally this would be a time for learning and play, a normal part of the growing up cycle. However, our puritan desire to repress all sexuality causes us to think sexual relationships have to be deep emotional relationships. Not true of most other primates, and to me not true in humans. We need to be more like our bonobo brethren.
Seems like in many case the lack of emotional maturity is on the parental end and not as much on the child’s end. As a teen, I know I felt ready (opportunity was quite another matter). Looking back, it’s probably just as well I stayed out of that thicket until college; but I doubt it would have left mental scars, provided it was all consensual, with a girl of a similar age, and resulted in no STDs or pregnancies.
As a father, I see myself being reasonably comfortable discussing the plumbing, but don’t think I’ll ever be emotionally ready to green light actual activity on the part of my kids.
eclecticvibe-
Experimentation would be fine IF teens understood the whole bigger picture. Some teens are mature enough to understand that at a young age. But if they aren’t; why not at least tell them the option of waiting is there until they are ready.
I’m like Doug, fortunately the opportunity wasn’t there; because looking back I wasn’t mature enough to handle the possible outcomes if birth control had failed, etc.
And Andy; that is the whole crux of the situation! Kids get mixed messages from mom and dad on one side and MTV on the other…
And pastors who think all Christian couples wait until marriage are living in fantasy world. In 14 years I can count on one hand the couples I’ve married who have not been previously married nor are living together. And even with those I never considered they were virgins…
I have no issues with this, and think it is valuable education:
http://www.abstinenceplus.info/resources_basicinformation.php
Abstinence is the only 100% way to be safe, but if you’re going to roll the dice with your life, here is more info. I can agree with that, I most Christians should be able to as well.
However, I don’t understand what kind of crack these people were smoking:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rHUr_cm2jE0/SyAFwqjgtRI/AAAAAAAADPw/SvFxLPjROHs/s1600-h/page_2425.jpg
This only fuels the fire of abstinence-only groups. Giving this to all 14 year olds?
Young people are plenty mature enough to begin relationships and experiment with sex. They’re just not financially mature enough in our current social and economic culture to raise any resulting children, which is the critical problem. Give them the tools to prevent the children and the STDs and drill the common sense into them to use the tools and they’ll be fine.
But that’s not what’s really at the heart of all this – it’s sexism. Our society still hung up on the virgin/whore sorting stereotypes of women, and on putting all the burden of responsibility for unwanted pregnancy on women and letting men walk away from their poor decision-making. If you can control the women; you can keep most of them virgins and still allow “whores” for men to take advantage of — you can limit the number of unwanted children while still letting men off the hook for their irresponsible behavior. Win-win situation for men, lose-lose for women.