If I may borrow marythefan's icon for a moment...

I just finished reading to current on that comic. It's not bad. :P

But yes, that does bother me as well.

No exceptions for rape or incest.

I tend to rant on this a bit, but I don't think I've done it around you: "Total ban except for rape and incest" is worse than "total ban" or "unrestricted until birth," regardless of your politics. If you accept that fetuses are equivalent to infants, and that abortion is OK if the conception was tainted, you end up justifying infanticide too.

As far as opposing Democratic proposals; it's not just that they want to force their world on others. They can't afford to lose the ability to paint their opposition as baby-killers. This generalizes: In Alabama, the Republicans are fighting permitting the Bible to be taught in schools, because it's a Democratic proposal and if they lose the evangelicals, they're toast.

Actually, the lack of exception is there to make sure it makes it to the Supreme Court. This new law is all about challenging Roe, and nothing else.

I would have figured that would have been the lack of "health of the mother" exceptions. Tainted-origin issues aren't relevant if you're already fine with abortion.

Oh, that is too. Those are the two exceptions that most Right-to-Life proponents accept. The absence of anything apart from 'Immediate threat to mother's life' pretty much prove the bill is a Roe challenge rather than serious law.

The law has little to do with banning abortions and everything to do with a hope that the two new SC Justices will overturn Roe. Now despite my thinking on Roe (Bad law, responsible for most of the Abortion controversy today, which a political solution wouldn't have been), that doesn't change the fact that the SD State Congress just stepped in it, and is going to get bitch-slapped by the courts.

The only thing that's really a "liberal" viewpoint in the whole thing is that you're blaming it on "conservatives."

The real problem is that irritating policywonk branch of the Democratic party that is now in power in the republican party and is pandering to the Social conservatives to keep their position of power in the party. They're also the nitwits who have abandoned the traditional limited government stance of the Republican party and gone full-out socialist.

Now as far as the Roe vs Wade, the only opinion I have on it is that it would be useful to put the power back in the hands of the states on almost every social issue in existence. The central government has been playing pacman with social and economic liberties for years and it's really a trend that should be reversed.

As far as abortion itself, the belief is that it should be legal, safe, and exceedingly rare. The fact that it is such a political football and is so common in the US is a sign of serious social decay that needs to be taken care of. Some silly contraceptive education program is a bandaid and will not take care of the underlying social problem.

(To be clear, both sides are trying to treat the symptoms, but are failing to even realize the disease.)

So what exactly is the social disease, here? I'm not denying there is one, but I'd like to know how you classify it.

There are numerous, but the most obvious to me is the abdication of personal responsibility. I'm sure there's another layer of the onion beneath that as well.

I know what you mean, on that score. The rash of "I'm too stupid to not know better" lawsuits in the last 10-20 years is another symptom.

But it seems to me that a more educated person is capable of being a more responsible person. Some of them actually will be, and some of them will just blow it off, sure. But, for example, contraception education and availability gives people the knowledge and ability to be more responsible about the way they think and act sexually.

(Actually, I was wrong. The paragraph that mentions wicked_wish is certainly a flaming liberal viewpoint, to the point where you almost have to think it's a satire of a liberal viewpoint. ;)

I don't seriously believe most people actually have that as their motivation. But I think some people do (even if they won't admit it), and those people are among the ones shouting the loudest for these sorts of laws. In particular, there is a small set of fundamentalist Christian males who truly believe that their wives are their property.

I suppose more generally, there are a lot of people who aren't backing this viewpoint (particularly, the anti-abortion and anti-contraception one) for a specific sexual control reason, but because "the Bible says it's wrong". Which brings me back to the point of control in general - they're trying to force the rest of the country (or at least their state) to adhere to their beliefs. I have accepted that there is a potential basis for an abortion ban, based on the fact that we don't necessarily have a clear moral/ethical viewpoint of when something starts being human. (I have my own beliefs on this count, but I accept there are differing ones and I don't claim to be absolutely right.) But I do not see any reasonable (i.e. something other than "God said so" or similar) arguments against actually teaching teenagers about the consequences of sex and their options for avoiding them, and many arguments for it - including that such education would reduce unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions.

Incidentally, your apparent statement that some branch of the Democratic party has somehow infiltrated and come to power in the Republican party strikes me as similarly satirical. I hope I'm reading it wrong.

Well, they really have. Have you ever heard of "Neo-conservatives?"

They are basically what used to be known as "Reagan Democrats." They are the ones that were economic statists (socialists,) but believed in a strong military and that the US being a strong superpower was a good thing. I prefer the term "Archaeo-liberals" personally. ;)

And many of them fled the Democratic party as the party drifted more towards the Michael Moore side. Now, after a couple decades they're calling the shots in the Republican party. (At least the Democrats keep saying that when they start whipping out "Neo-conservative" as a way to associate them with a certain other "Neo" group out there.) It's all really depressing to those of us following the original view of the party. Both parties are now dominated by big government fanatics rather than the small government people like Newt Gingrich who have since been marginalized in the party. While they're not the republican party, they've managed to use their inclination to "policy-wonk" to bring the biggest and usually least political piece of the Republican party over to their side, the social conservative christians and other like minded groups.

About sex education in schools: to me the relevant question is "In actual fact, what type of sex education reduces teen pregnancies?" Are we so busy arguing about ideologies that we lose sight of what's actually important? If abstinence-only sex ed reduces teen pregnancies, then let's teach it.

That's an excellent point, but I thought the actual data backed me up... I was under the impression that studies had shown that abstinence-only sex education does not in fact reduce teen pregnancies. But I may be recalling erroneously - I don't have a specific study at hand, and I'm a bit too lazy to look one up right now.

That said, from a certain point of view and taking into account basic human (and in particular, teenage) nature, it's pretty reasonable. Teenagers usually have a lot of difficulty reconciling their emotions and new-found sexual urges with their common sense and "the right thing to do". If you just tell teenagers not to have sex, some of them will listen, and others will tell you, to your face or behind your back, to go fuck yourself, and they'll go and do it anyway. And if you don't let them know about their options at that point - basically, taking the "well, if you didn't listen to the one option I gave you, you're on your own" tack, they won't know what they can do to lessen the risks of pregnancy and disease.

My ideal education program would be based around the following statement: "Abstinence is the only completely, 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. If you do choose to have sex, though, these methods of contraception are likely but not certain to prevent pregnancy, and these ones are likely but not certain to prevent transmission of disease."

Abstinence-only programs actually do, on average, delay the first time a teen has sex. For about a year, maybe a year and a half. After that, it causes a sharp spike in teenage pregnancies and STDs. So yes, it temporarily stops kids from being pregnant, much in the same way that plugging up a volcano stops it from erupting, temporarily. "All-inclusive" programs are far more effective in the long run.

Now, on a purely "size of the government" issue, the current administration is acting remarkably like the classical conception of a "liberal" - we have more spending and deficit under this government than ever before. It just happens to be on business, pork, and war, rather than social programs. In terms of social issues, however, we're looking at an incredibly conservative government. Neo-cons are not, in fact Republicans in the classical sense. However, they're certainly not Democrats, either. They're basically anti-libertarians (some people call that facism, but I'm not about to go to rule zero here).

Can't say I've been a fan of Democrats recently, though. Yes, a lot of liberals have basically been making a mockery of their own viewpoints, but this is mostly a manifestation of the general impotent rage most of us have been feeling.

Peace.