In reply to http://pro-ts-tumblr.livejournal.com/104236.html
Obama OK with morning-after pill sales at age 15
Why would Obama want 15 year olds to have unfettered access to birth control? Sex with a person under the age of 18 is considered statutory rape if one of the partners is 18 or older. Does this mean that Obama supports statutory rape?
Perhaps Obama doesn’t support statutory rape. Perhaps he simply condones sex between two persons of any age, a sentiment not unlike “if she can bleed, she can breed.” But this too is complicated. According to the United States Department of Labor, “The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets 14 as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work.” Even so, a work permit is required at ages 14 and 15. Until a minor graduates high school (and even then there is debate in the workplace if not in law) a minor cannot work full-time. (Working full time will become a thing of ancient history thanks to Obamacare.) So how will the expectant couple afford to raise their offspring?
Obama’s birth-control policy is another front in the Democrat’s war on women and the destruction of the family unit. Both Reproductive Health Technologies Project and NOW want to go even further than the President’s policy and remove age restrictions all together. What kind of sick, perverted, pedophiles are these people?
You ask why Obama would want 15-year-olds to have unfettered access to birth control. I assume it is to address the problem of teenage pregnancy. Your own lack of life experience is probably to blame for missing that one. I'm not really surprised you failed to assemble the parts yourself as there were a handful of things that happened to me when I was in my 20s that I didn't understand until I was in my 40s. Life can be funny that way sometimes.
Statutory rape has nothing to do with the linked article - it is simply a straw man, so that the reader would attack this, and not the subject the article. I thought you were past that sort of thing. Your next sentence proves it, "Does this mean that Obama supports statutory rape?" What kind of illogical conclusion is that to jump to? I am not so foolish as to believe the only adolescents who require birth-control are impregnated by those 18 or older. That would predispose the idea that males under the age of 18 are abstaining from sex, and that too, seems illogical.
To answer your question behind Obama's agreement to over-the-counter access, refer to the article. He cited the FDA's decision being based on "solid scientific evidence." Are you suggesting Obama disavow the facts presented before him or are you questioning the veracity of the solid scientific evidence which was presented before him? The particulars shouldn't be too hard to research, and far less inflammatory than suggesting our President condones rape, though I would caution you against shouting out against scientific findings with the same irrelevance, being facts and all. I try to understand what it is I am disagreeing with first, and as a non-scientist, sometimes have to ferret out results with interpretation.
You suggest, "this too is complicated" without any understanding of why or how as proven in your successive statements. You actually do bring up many far-reaching factors here, but its apparent you're unaware of them in your attempt to eschew them simplistically. Observe: You state the hypothesis, "if she can bleed, she can breed.” Interesting how human physiology works. In short, yes. Cultures far older than ours recognized sexual maturity as coming-of-age; adulthood - not a fixed age as we have here in the US. That said, the idea behind a glamorized "childhood" is nothing more than a sociological construct which varies by culture - something the British adopted during the (I believe) Industrial Revolution and probably under the guise of religious fanaticism. Understanding can often make our opinions less volatile.
I am not familiar with Obama's "War on Women" but given the extremism faced with the Choice issue (for lack of a better term), it would seem any viewpoint which happened to disagree with your own falls under the label "Destruction of the family unit." Surely those who disagree with you aren't advocating such. Furthermore, like childhood, "family values" (if I can use the more popular phrase) is also a fabrication - it differs for every person in America, and certainly differs for every culture on earth. There is no denotative standard for a family unit. Again, if someone's family unit differs from yours, does it make theirs wrong? I ask because it is that which you rally against.
Your next question suggests those who support the President's policy to remove age restrictions from birth control are "sick, perverted, pedophiles." Perverted is an interesting word because it insinuates a departure from that which is natural. The subjectivity of the word is where so much confusion lies - what is natural to you may not be natural to me. Would it be fair for me to judge you as perverted because your natural tendencies differ from my own? Of course not, yet that is exactly what people who point the finger do in their close-mindedness; assume they are right, and everyone else is wrong. A quick search on Wikipedia shows that pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children aged ~11-13 which not only is incorrect in its application here, but also inflammatory without basis - mentioned only as an emotional plea, which, while an effective debate strategy, is ultimately ineffective without supporting logical consistency and factual accuracy. In other words, it means nothing here. Your inappropriate use of those words, and the straw man, discredits your entire argument.
Obama's policy might be the best answer we have for getting and keeping welfare under control - I don't know, but I do know that there is no "right" answer in attempting to tackle such a complex, emotionally-charged dilemma with such obviously flawed logic.