- 16 Jul 2012 20:41
#14007098
Many Republican politicians oppose access to birth control to varying degrees of restriction. Some want to ban it outright,while others mostly want to ban government funding for it. The former argument is propagated by many fundamentalist Christians. The common Democratic response is that the issue isn't primarily about "encouraging responsibility" so much as it is controlling the sex lives of women.
I used to think that the Democratic response was only an extreme caricature (an obsessed zealot worrying/fantasizing about "sinners"), although it seems less and less like a caricature. There is not as much concern raised over a man's access to a vasectomy. Even if fundamentalists are successful in banning birth control, couples may still opt for vasectomies in order to avoid pregnancy. Another point against the GOP is that a lot of Congress members sneak in government funding for Viagra in unrelated bills (due to company lobbyists) without so much as a right-wing outrage on Fox News.
One possible reason is that a vasectomy is more expensive and an invasive surgical procedure. Birth control pills are more widespread. In such a case, these GOP politicians and fundamentalist leaders are targeting the more common method of avoiding pregnancy.
Another reason could be that many male conservatives would react with umbrage at attempts to block access to vasectomies; they'd see it as an encroachment on their personal freedoms.
Another option I'm inclined towards is that American society (and other societies as well) are more hostile to the idea of sexually active females. Sexual behavior on the part of men is still seen as normal and part of a "boys will be boys attitude," while women who pursue sex (especially extramarital sex) are likelier to earn scorn for their behavior and seen as abnormal. The demand to block female forms of birth control may be a result of this mindset.
In regards to conservatives who block funding for birth control based upon grounds of government funding projects they find immoral, this position still does not take into consideration the other side of the fence: government funds for Viagra. Since Viagra is commonly used for sexual reasons (more so than birth control, which also prevents diseases and acts as a pain reliever for menstruation), it would only make sense to oppose this just as strongly as birth control pills.
I could be wrong, and guys like Santorum are just as angry about this, but I'm not hearing about it.
Tell me what you think!
I used to think that the Democratic response was only an extreme caricature (an obsessed zealot worrying/fantasizing about "sinners"), although it seems less and less like a caricature. There is not as much concern raised over a man's access to a vasectomy. Even if fundamentalists are successful in banning birth control, couples may still opt for vasectomies in order to avoid pregnancy. Another point against the GOP is that a lot of Congress members sneak in government funding for Viagra in unrelated bills (due to company lobbyists) without so much as a right-wing outrage on Fox News.
One possible reason is that a vasectomy is more expensive and an invasive surgical procedure. Birth control pills are more widespread. In such a case, these GOP politicians and fundamentalist leaders are targeting the more common method of avoiding pregnancy.
Another reason could be that many male conservatives would react with umbrage at attempts to block access to vasectomies; they'd see it as an encroachment on their personal freedoms.
Another option I'm inclined towards is that American society (and other societies as well) are more hostile to the idea of sexually active females. Sexual behavior on the part of men is still seen as normal and part of a "boys will be boys attitude," while women who pursue sex (especially extramarital sex) are likelier to earn scorn for their behavior and seen as abnormal. The demand to block female forms of birth control may be a result of this mindset.
In regards to conservatives who block funding for birth control based upon grounds of government funding projects they find immoral, this position still does not take into consideration the other side of the fence: government funds for Viagra. Since Viagra is commonly used for sexual reasons (more so than birth control, which also prevents diseases and acts as a pain reliever for menstruation), it would only make sense to oppose this just as strongly as birth control pills.
I could be wrong, and guys like Santorum are just as angry about this, but I'm not hearing about it.
Tell me what you think!
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
~Barack HUSSEIN Obama
~Barack HUSSEIN Obama