Less abortion doesn't mean less sex
Smart Remarks:In other words, contraception and abortion allow people to have sex without consequences. And conservatives believe there should be consequences for behavior that conservatives consider to be beyond the pale. Nature, after all, had over millenia a tendency to inflict children, and disease, upon those who engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior. Now weve subverted nature. Now man has stepped in where once God ruled. And conservatives believe, with some justification, that inappropriate sexual behavior has increased specifically because weve eliminated some of its consequences.
And so, this belief continues, if we somehow managed to either convince people to forego contraception or abortion, or actually limited access to both via legislation (so much for small government), then we might actually tamp down on the incidence of irresponsible sexual behavior itself. Shorn of the safety net represented by the pill, or condoms, or abortion people would have less sex, because theyd be afraid of what might happen.
At least one study has suggested that the legalization of abortion appears to have led to an increase in sexual activity; but thats not the same thing as saying that if we recrminalize it, or restrict access to it, current sexual activity will decrease. Perhaps it will, for some.
But others, caught up in the heat of the moment, will continue along the high wire, without the net. We wont become a chaste society by inflicting the consequences of sex on those who dare commit the act; and in fact, society may become even poorer because of it, for as one study notes, there is evidence that lower costs of abortion led to improved outcomes in the form of an increased likelihood of college graduation, lower rates of welfare use, and lower odds of being a single parent.
It stands to reason, then, that if we restrict access to abortion and contraception the costs to society will rise at a time when society can least afford it.
Thats a far cry from the moral and emotional argument made by social conservatives, but its a rational argument, and it comes down to this: Would you, as a conservative, be willing to pay a higher tax rate to cover these increased societal costs?
How can the answer be anything but yes?
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)and possibly neither of my children ever born without MEDICAL, not religious, intervention. Breach birth and tubal pregnancy.
No way, no shape, no how, can religion take the place of MEDICINE. Miracle of God? My blank, blank, blank.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)IF those proponents of such were willing to adopt and care for all the unwanted kids that would result. Of course, that's a ludicrous idea - as ludicrous as their aim at prohibiting casual sex.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)"an increased likelihood of college graduation, lower rates of welfare use, and lower odds of being a single parent" FOR WOMEN
Which is exactly the point. All of this no access to contraception/abortion is about punishing women and keeping them "in their place".
RC
(25,592 posts)Instead of arrogant, reality challenged, self-described god-like beings, with roots in the sky.
We'd be treating each other better for starts.
And natural functions and instincts were accepted as normal and natural instead of being denied because 'souls' have no need of them in the fantasy afterlife that we erroneously imagine awaits us.
We give animals a bad name.
Icicle
(121 posts)The GOP is not ok with accepting "consequences" for their own actions, as evidenced by various pardons, bailouts and cop-outs over the years. Starting with Nixon.
One may be able to preach morality from a pulpit, but one cannot legislate it.