TTLG|Jukebox|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 152

Thread: What overturning Roe v. Wade could mean for birth control access, maternal care

  1. #1
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas

    What overturning Roe v. Wade could mean for birth control access, maternal care

    My friends, come weep with me and all our sisters in this country. https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness/...ry?id=84508813

    I'm surprised this subject hasn't been broached yet, honestly. The day news of the leak that the SCOTUS was poised to overturn Roe vs Wade was released, I have to say I was dumbfounded. How could we, as a nation, have come so far in recognizing and establishing women's rights, only to turn around & almost overnight see those rights on the verge of being totally destroyed?? You see, it's not just about banning abortions, it's also about the implications of all our other rights being abolished; rights that the far-right wingnuts don't like and will do their best to abolish next. That should be obvious. The far-right misogynists are taking away women's rights to bodily autonomy and the right to safe reproductive healthcare. Sure, just overturning Roe vs Wade doesn't mean that abortions will be federally banned (but they're already working on that, too, don't kid yourself); the SCOTUS is opening a can of worms enabling each state to pass abortion bans with NO exceptions, like here in Wisconsin. Our POS GOP-dominated state legislature has already issued a statement wherein the 1849 ban on abortions would go back into effect in Wisconsin 'if' Roe vs Wade was overturned by the SCOTUS. 1849. When a woman's highest goal, as dictated by a patriarchal-dominated society, was to become a wife and broodmare, erm, mother. The four Republicans running against our Gov. Tony Evers (may God bless him and his progeny) are all anti-abortion, with NO exceptions for victims of rape, incest, or for women whose lives are in jeopardy because of their pregnancies. No. Exceptions. And the misogynists who advocate for an absolute ban on abortions don't see the irony of claiming they're 'Pro-Life' while they're sentencing women to die from their pregnancies. I think we've all heard how certain states have been busy these past few years trying to circumvent Roe vs Wade by banning abortions after so many weeks (commonly before a woman knows she's even pregnant) and it seems as though those far-right Pro-Forced Birthers just aren't satisfied with the total banning of all abortions in their respective states, either.

    'NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The sponsor of a bill that would have subjected Louisiana women to murder charges for having abortions abruptly pulled the proposal from debate Thursday night after House members voted 65-26 to totally revamp the legislation, eliminating the criminal penalties.

    The controversial bill would have ventured farther against abortion than lawmakers’ efforts in any other state. It would have made women who end their pregnancies subject to criminal homicide prosecutions.
    '
    * https://www.yahoo.com/news/louisiana...053041484.html *The sponsor isn't done yet; he still thinks women should be summarily executed if they have abortions, all politician double-speak aside. Nuthin' like Pro-Life values. omg

    'Brittney Poolaw was just about four months pregnant when she lost her baby in the hospital in January 2020.

    This October, she was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison for the first-degree manslaughter of her unborn son.
    '
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544

    Shit show or absolute nightmare? I say both. The far-right won't stop with banning abortions, either. There's already been talk by the GOP-dominated states wherein birth control (for women) would be either banned outright or access to birth control would be made so difficult or so expensive that too many underprivileged or low-income women wouldn't be able to gain that access. The good news is that men's Viagra will remain totally available and covered by all health insurance companies, nationwide. *please note that the last sentence is absolutely dripping with sarcasm*

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...warn-rcna28253

    https://news.yahoo.com/mississippi-g...ycsrp_catchall

    What the actual fuck is happening in our 'Land of the Free and Home of the Brave'?? Land of the Free? Yeah, right. My grandmother remembered the Women's Suffragette marches, I marched for the Women's Liberation Movement back in the 60s & 70s and now my daughter and granddaughters are going to have to fight against far-right efforts to send women's rights back to the Stone Age. Oh my very God!! And yeah, I know some of you are thinking 'Well stop bitching and get out and vote'. Kind of hard to do when the GOP-dominated state legislature keeps dropping the names of over 200,000 voters (the majority of which were found to have voted straight Democratic tickets) from the state's voter registry every two years. Been there, done that. Or the GOP in our state legislature gerrymanders on a free and regular basis. *sighs* No, I am by no means done fighting in this War Against Women. Not by a long shot. No apologies for sounding cliche or militantly feminist here, but .....
    #WeWillNotGoBack #KeepYourBansOffMYUterus #OURBODIESOURCHOICE

    And hold on to your butts, friends, because after the far-right is done taking away all the rights of women in this country, they'll be coming for our LGBTQ friends and minorities next. Mark my words. *sighs again* Looks like it's time to get my fightin' shoes out of the closet ...... again. *smh*

    I know it's a very bad thing to wish ill on others, but I'm sure you can guess where my mind is at on the subject of the far-right misogynists in this country.

    Rant far from over.

  2. #2
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2009
    Location: thiefgold.com
    One thing is a bill. The other is how likely it is to become law. I don't think it will ever happen.
    This is just my opinion. If it did, there would be riots all over (there's already been attacks against anti abortion establishments), possibly bordering on civil war, and any country-wide anti-abortion law would immediately be abolished in the name of public order

  3. #3
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    The Louisiana thing won't be passed in that form (although something else will), but the Wisconsin example is already law and will resume effect immediately, as will several others.

  4. #4
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    When I was in law school, one gets to join the state bar association for free, and I did that and was on the Bioethics Committee. This was back in the early 2000s, and we would talk about these same laws even back then, especially that Louisiana one. I'm sure they'll have a field day with this SCOTUS decision.

    To put it bluntly, it completely upends the Due Process analysis under the 14th Amendment that we've had since 1965 (the Griswold case; states can't ban birth control), but really back to Meyer v. Nebraska 1923, when a state wanted to ban foreign language schools. Cases like that basically drew a line and said there are some matters the federal government has no business regulating because they're either fundamental (bodily or sexual autonomy) or they're just so irrational or steeped in prejudice that there's no rational reason that could justify the law.

    The high point was Obergefell in 2015, the case requiring states to allow gay marriage, where Kennedy said there's no formula for the 14th Amendment. The key is dignity, treating adults with the respect to make their own life decisions. And as for locating its scope in the "history of traditions" of the country, he said it's the history in terms of our central values, like liberty and autonomy, not in terms of ancient prejudices.

    This case completely rips up that holding, as if to say it's not about dignity, respect, or our values at all. It's a sad low point of the Court, and that's before you even get to the part where it will have terrible social effects.

    -------------------

    I scripted out a mock dialog with a rightwing nut once. I may still make it, especially now.

    So the set up is, the interviewer wants to talk about gun rights with a rightwing nut.
    He starts a recording app on his phone to record everything.

    Then he asks the guy if it he really believes it is justifiable to threaten somebody on his property without his consent with a gun if they refuse to leave.

    Of course he'll insist yes. If he doesn't want them there, too bad. It's his property; his rules.

    - Okay, but what if the person enters your house and then inserts himself into your body.

    - What do you mean? Like ... inserts himself?

    - Yeah, use your imagination. Or don't. He has a finger or other appendage and sticks it up into one of your sphincters, say your anus. This is without your consent. Do you have to tolerate him being there?

    - Hell no!!!! That motherfucker better get out of my body or Imma pop a 45 in his face.

    - Lethal force is justified in that case?

    - Are you stupid? Of course!

    - It's not murder?

    - It's not murder when it's self defense!

    - Okay, okay, but what if he's mentally retarded, so he doesn't actually have the mental capacity to stop himself.

    - It don't matter if he does it by choice or not. A motherfucker up my asshole needs to get out!

    - Okay, okay, but what if he stitches himself in, so if you remove him, it will rip the stitches and he'll start bleeding out. You don't want to kill the guy, do you?

    - Why would he do that!?

    - He's crazy. But does it make a difference?

    - No that doesn't make a difference! That guy is stuck up in my asshole. Why would that make a difference?

    - Okay, but what if he believes that God told him to do it? You're Christian. Don't you respect the Word of God?

    - I don't know what God told this guy, but God didn't tell me that. And I don't care if God miracled his appendage up into my ass. He needs to get out!

    - Okay, I get your point. Let's talk about abortion now. Like you just said, it's justifiable for a woman to remove a fetus inside her body without her consent, right?

    - Well now wait, that's different.

    - Different how? The fetus isn't a person?

    - Don't twist my words. Abortion is murder!

    [The interviewer pushes a button on the recorder app]

    [It plays:] It's not murder when it's self defense!

    - But a baby is innocent.

    [The interviewer pushes a button on the recorder app]

    [It plays:] It don't matter if he does it by choice or not. A motherfucker in my body needs to get out!

    - But it would kill the baby!

    [The interviewer pushes a button on the recorder app]

    [It plays:] That doesn't make a difference! That guy is stuck up in my asshole. Why would that make a difference?

    - But that crazy guy stuck himself inside of me. Pregnancy is the way God sends humans into this world.

    [The interviewer pushes a button on the recorder app.]

    [It plays:] I don't know what God told this guy, but God didn't tell me that. And I don't care if God miracled his finger up into my ass. He needs to get out!

    -----------------

    Well it's something along those lines.
    It's more about bringing out the hypocrisy in their logic, or at least that they've accepted every step in the moral argument for abortion in another context, and they need to take that more seriously than they do. They're not seeing the tension between abortion and bodily autonomy, and this brings it out.

    I can understand there are good reasons to think the state should take steps to preserve the life of a fetus outside a womb if possible, maybe artificial wombs or something. But saying a person has to tolerate a person or object inside their body without their consent is a line I think most even religious men would also say is a step too far if you actually asked them if they must tolerate another person inside their anus, which is the morally equivalent case.
    Last edited by demagogue; 13th May 2022 at 19:46.

  5. #5
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    When I was in law school, one gets to join the state bar association for free, and I did that and was on the Bioethics Committee. This was back in the early 2000s, and we would talk about these same laws even back then, especially that Louisiana one. I'm sure they'll have a field day with this SCOTUS decision.

    To put it bluntly, it completely upends the Due Process analysis under the 14th Amendment that we've had since 1965 (the Griswold case; states can't ban birth control), but really back to Meyer v. Nebraska 1923, when a state wanted to ban foreign language schools. Cases like that basically drew a line and said there are some matters the federal government has no business regulating because they're either fundamental (bodily or sexual autonomy) or they're just so irrational or steeped in prejudice that there's no rational reason that could justify the law.
    Once Roe vs Wade was passed, you're right; states absolutely could not go against federal law and completely abolish abortions. But, they could pass severe restrictions on abortions and that's what has already happened. I've only listed those states that have placed unreasonable (imo) restrictions on abortions. Keep in mind, most women don't even know or find out they're pregnant until around 6 weeks.

    Georgia, Iowa, South Dakota, West Virginia
    In these states, abortion is banned on or around 20 weeks, meaning that is is illegal to undergo the procedure after that time.
    Depending on the circumstances there may be certain limited exceptions, but there are also a number of other restrictions.
    Parents must be notified unless the minor is exempt under a judicial bypass, insurance and State Medicaid funding limitations apply and all states require a waiting time of between 24-72 hours with the exception of Iowa.


    Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wisconsin
    In these states, abortion is banned on or around 20 weeks, meaning that is is illegal to undergo the procedure after that time.
    Not only that, but all of the states listed also required parental consent for the procedure to go ahead unless the minor is exempt under a judicial bypass.
    Each state also mandates a waiting period ranging between 18-72 hours with a minimum of two clinic visits required by some.
    All states except Alabama place legal restrictions on insurance and State Medicaid funding, prohibiting the financial coverage of abortion.


    Texas
    Texas is so far the only state to make abortion illegal after six weeks of pregnancy.
    Due to a controversial abortion ban, Texas health centres can only provide abortion services within six weeks of the first day of the patient's last period - a time before which some women know they are pregnant.
    Insurance and State Medicaid funding restrictions are also in place, parental consent is required with the exception of a judicial bypass, and patients must wait 24 hours and take two trips to the clinic in order to receive the abortion.


    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday (4/23/22) signed into law a bill that bans nearly all abortions after 15 weeks, the same gestational limit currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
    The new law, which passed the state Senate in March, will go into effect July 1.


    I think it's safe to assume that those states will be the first to completely ban abortions. Wisconsin will be right there with them, sadly enough.

    More information regarding other states' stands on abortion: https://www.the-sun.com/news/3586925...-law-state-us/

    And while you're correct in stating states cannot ban birth control, once again, the Republicans in states waging total war against women are finding ways around that, same as they did for abortions.

    'Some conservative lawmakers wasted no time signaling they were looking into restricting or banning certain types of emergency contraception, such as Plan B and other morning-after pills that can be used within 72 hours of intercourse to prevent pregnancy.

    A leading Republican state legislator in Idaho suggested last week that he would be open to holding hearings on banning emergency birth control, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., recently denounced Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that expanded access to contraception to unmarried people.

    In Louisiana, legislation would classify abortion as a homicide and define “personhood” as beginning from the moment of fertilization. Contraception methods like Plan B and certain types of intrauterine devices, or IUDs, could be restricted under the bill, said Cathren Cohen, a scholar of law and policy at the UCLA Law Center.'
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...warn-rcna28253

    If the court topples Roe, it puts constitutional protections for birth control on shaky ground
    But here’s the more important question: Will women still have access to birth control in a post-Roe world? The limits described above will likely expand, and some states will try to ban contraceptive access entirely.

    There are two reasons for this. First, constitutional protections for abortion and birth control are linked. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court invalidated a law prohibiting birth control, arguing that the prohibition violated a fundamental “right to privacy.” This right to privacy is the foundation for Roe v. Wade.


    And since the far-right 'Christians' (and I use that term loosely here) seem to have become staunch pals & supporters of the far-right misogynist politicians, you can throw 'separation of church and state' (which isn't an actual law, btw) right out the fucking window.

    Religious groups classify some forms of birth control as abortion
    Further, in recent decisions, the court let religious groups argue that some forms of contraception are “abortifacients.” For instance, in the Hobby Lobby case, the company objected that four FDA-approved contraceptives prevented implantation of a fertilized egg — and that that counted as an abortion. More specifically, the company claimed that the owners’ “religious beliefs forbid them from participating in, providing access to, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion-causing drugs and devices.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-explains-how/

    Afaic, any way you look at it, women are screwed. GOP-dominated states will do as they damn well please, federal laws be damned; those sleazy far right sexist pigs will find a way around those laws. They've already done so with their abortion restrictions. I know I sound like a paranoid old woman, but I don't trust or like the way this abortion thing is going and I am devastated to think that we're going back to back-alley abortions. The wrinkled old white misogynist males in government (term limits, anyone?) long for the days when they could do as they please to women and suffer no consequences and I think they've told their stories of their Glory Days to enough younger white misogynist males that we now have a whole new generation of hardcore incels who want to live like their grandads did back in the 50s. I'll be doing my best to encourage women who support Pro-Choice to get out and vote. And protest. I mean, afterall, women make up 54% of the population in this country and of those 54%, polls show that nearly 68% support Pro-Choice.

  6. #6
    You don’t sound paranoid at all. Evangelist conservatives want to turn the US into their own little private Gilead, will of the majority be damned… and they do it right under the nose of “moderates” who are too chicken to do anything about it, believing they’re protecting the statu quo.

  7. #7
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Mossad Time Machine
    I always thought the term "pro-life" was one of the biggest misnomers in politics. By and large these are the same people who consistently oppose measures to prolong and improve life, from implementing genuine universal healthcare to abolishing capital punishment. If they are pro-anything, they are pro-birth. And as soon as that kid is born, all concern for its welfare disappears overnight.

  8. #8
    New Member
    Registered: Apr 2022
    Location: Eureka Springs currently
    I've been suggesting to female friends that they consider carrying a knife around, and be ready to defend themselves. I know it's not much…this whole thing is a disaster. But I can't think of anything else to do. I hope that any females out there who are in abusive patriarchal relationships (and there are lots, of course -_-) can find ways out of those relationships. You DO NOT need to be stuck for life with a guy who you can't trust and has no respect for you so that you can have a roof over your head. Turn to family, friends. This nation is plummeting off a cliff. I always knew it would. I would just have to recommend that anyone do what they can at a local, personal level. Tell the females in your life that you've got their back and your help if ever needed. When states fail, all we can do is work from the ground up.

  9. #9
    One could start referring to women as women instead of females.

  10. #10
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by MriyaMachine View Post
    I've been suggesting to female friends that they consider carrying a knife around, and be ready to defend themselves. I know it's not much…this whole thing is a disaster. But I can't think of anything else to do. I hope that any females out there who are in abusive patriarchal relationships (and there are lots, of course -_-) can find ways out of those relationships. You DO NOT need to be stuck for life with a guy who you can't trust and has no respect for you so that you can have a roof over your head. Turn to family, friends. This nation is plummeting off a cliff. I always knew it would. I would just have to recommend that anyone do what they can at a local, personal level. Tell the females in your life that you've got their back and your help if ever needed. When states fail, all we can do is work from the ground up.
    Ok, I realize you're new-ish to TTLG, so I'll try to be gentle with you. First of all, on the subject of domestic/sexual abuse, please stop with the mansplaining. Women don't need men to tell them they need to find a way out of an abusive relationship; we already know that and unfortunately it's not always that cut and dried, not always that easy and far too often ends in tragedy for the woman involved. We don't need men to caution us to 'be careful' or 'seek help', ffs. And too often family and friends aren't able to help either, not without putting themselves in jeopardy. Women have been combating domestic/sexual abuse since forever and it's only within the last several decades that domestic/sexual abuse has been recognized as a real thing. 50 years ago a wife didn't stand a cold chance in hell of reporting domestic abuse or marital rape; men were automatically granted 'conjugal rights' in marriage and if those rights included beating the hell out of your wife because she didn't want you raping her again, then have at it. 15 years ago I was warned by a cop that a restraining order 'is not a bullet-proof vest' and when I mused that ok, maybe I'd better buy a gun for self-defense, he laughed and said 'Aw hell no! A gal is likely to just shoot herself in the foot with one of the dang things'. Why do you think women travel in groups or pairs for a night out, or accompany each other to the restroom or parking lot or keep in touch with their besties by texting when they're out shopping or running errands? Seeking legal recourse is not a given that you'll have justice either, even if you can afford it. Even today women are victim blamed or accused of making false accusations; false accusations which only make up 2% to 7% of all domestic violence/rape charges, according the the Ntl. Sexual Violence Resource Center. And THAT sexist attitude is what we're still fighting against today and it's still rampant in our government(s) (both state and federal). Women have been fighting this battle for what seems like forever and the tragic and infuriating thing is that with the news that the SCOTUS is going to overturn Roe vs Wade, it looks like we've been shoved back to square one. So no, dear, even though you mean well, you really must stop trying to mansplain; we women already know what we're up against. Thanks for your support, though.

    You are right about one thing and that is that we're failing at the state level. I've joined several women's organizations here in S.E. Wisconsin to work with other women to combat the rampant sexism (and blatant corruption) of our state legislature and we all understand the first step in this battle is to vote those misogynistic GOP assholes the hell out of office. Unfortunately, Republicans in our state have slyly tied women's rights to their bullshit claim that the Dems want to take away their guns, a trigger cunningly devised & aimed at (no pun intended) the unfortunate number of 'Good Old Boys' we have in this state. What else would you expect from a bunch of sexist men who're getting serious kickbacks from the NRA? It's an uphill battle, but we've already succeeded in ousting that POS Scot ('Scooter') Walker from the governor's seat, so there's hope yet. It's just so damned dismaying and depressing that women are having to gear up, yet again, to fight for rights that should be a given. *smh*

  11. #11
    El Shagmeister
    Registered: Jul 2000
    Location: Under your fingernails.
    Pinches gringos conservadores pendejos...

    *Hugs Dia*

  12. #12
    New Member
    Registered: Apr 2022
    Location: Eureka Springs currently
    Um, my mistake on referring to them as females. I uh…didn't mean anything sexist by it. I'm just not really into this new lingo thing we have with correct terms and such. A woman is a female to me. Speaking of the new lingo I gosh honest had no idea I was mansplaining, a word I do not use. I know we all hate each other and it's men against women against men against straight against queer against uninteresting, maybe my mind just managed to somehow bypass that vortex and love people for who they are, man or woman, helplessly smart or helplessly stupid. I've kept a good distance from the direction of culture lately. Think of it what you will. I just don't believe in any of it. I think public discourse altogether is going to shit. So whatever I said wrong, it wasn't with wrong intent. And yes, I will be the first one to admit that I am simply incapable of seeing things through the view of a woman, because I am a man.

  13. #13
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    You don't have to see things as a woman, you just have to listen to them.

  14. #14
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2002
    Location: New Zealand
    Also, we generally know about all this stuff, like even if we don't have personal experience of violence we're well aware of the possibility. And carrying a knife might help, or it might make things worse if you're not experienced in using it to fight, but it's got nothing on getting together with your friends and making things hell for the people in power, or replacing them with better people.

    Tangent about self-defence spoilered for being a bit tangent-y:
    spoiler:
    I will say that personally I have been down the self-defence route, and it's served me well. It's the reason a creepy bus stop guy wasn't able to kiss me on the mouth (though I didn't manage to stop him getting my face), and I was able to break his grip - his arm would have been next if he hadn't backed away after that. The thing is, it probably wouldn't have worked so well against an armed or well-trained man, and perhaps even against a very strong one. And to women who wouldn't be able to fight back as effectively on account of disability or medical stuff or age, most men are very strong, so it doesn't work as a systemic solution*. There's definitely a part of me that wants a world where men are too afraid to commit sexual violence because they know there's a solid chance they'll get the shit beaten out of them if they try, but we shouldn't have to learn to fight just to be safe.

    All that said, there is value in learning martial arts, but in my experience the main benefit is the self-confidence it can give you, both in terms of standing up for yourself and (more importantly) in having the confidence to intervene when a guy is creeping on someone else (ideally before it comes to the point of physical violence).

    * Also most sexual violence isn't from strangers on the street, it's from partners and relatives and friends and bosses and priests and other people you already know.


    Anyway, this US situation is properly fucked up. It's a symptom of a society with a serious misogyny problem, a broken political system, and a politicised supreme court. I hope this is the tipping point that properly sets off a fourth wave of feminism, because we sure as fuck need that right now.

  15. #15
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    You don't have to see things as a woman, you just have to listen to them.
    Thank you!

    @mopgoblin: Well said, indeed.

  16. #16
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    I can understand there are good reasons to think the state should take steps to preserve the life of a fetus outside a womb if possible, maybe artificial wombs or something. But saying a person has to tolerate a person or object inside their body without their consent is a line I think most even religious men would also say is a step too far if you actually asked them if they must tolerate another person inside their anus, which is the morally equivalent case.
    There is nothing morally equivalent to abortion in the situation you described. A more morally equivalent situation would be a person, with your permission, grafting an unconscious person to your body that depends on you for life; this unconscious person had no say in the matter, and you fully consented to the terms of the grafting. Then you decide that it's not working out for you, not because of severe health complications or danger of death, but because having an unconscious person grafted to your ass is unpleasant and inconvenient. So you shoot him.

    That describes abortion in the United States, where roughly 85% of abortions are performed for reasons of timing, finance, or desire (convenience), less than 8% are performed for serious health reasons (fetal or maternal), and less than 0.5% are performed due to rape or incest. These are statistics according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion organization which tries to collect figures from every abortion provider in the United States. There have been 60,000,000 abortions performed in the United States between 1973-2020. That's every American death from every war from the Civil War onwards--times 46. The total worldwide deaths of the first World War, times 3 or 4 (depending on the source of estimate). It's the population of Italy. Of Spain and Portugal, combined. The population of Scandinavia times three.

    That should be bothersome to anybody. As should the racist and eugenic goals of Sanger and her ilk when they started Planned Parenthood. Today, again according to the Guttmacher Institute, black women are 4-5 times more likely to have an abortion than white women. In New York City, in 2016, there were 1120 abortions per 1000 live births in the black population. The rate for white women was 240 per 1000. 79% of Planned Parenthood clinics are within walking distance of majority-minority neighborhoods. And PP puts out such lovely tweets as this. Finally, something the progressive left and white supremacists can agree on.

    Since Roe, the United States has had some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. Far more liberal than the majority of Europe, where it is widely and strictly regulated after the first trimester, and more in line with China and North Korea's abortion policies. Not a good place to be. I, for one, welcome the overturning and am happy to have it back in the control of the individual states. Now, instead of relying on judicial activism, the pro-choice side will have to engage in persuasion and the democratic process to achieve their goals. Or they can continue to protest loudly dressed in pink pussy hats and red gowns, 'cuz that's a super convincing argument.

    I'm all for providing whatever level of health care and financial services necessary to pregnant women during and after pregnancy, too. Maybe legislation could be passed to lighten the financial and bureaucratic burden of adoption, while we're at it. There's an estimated 1-2 million couples waiting to adopt in the United States at any given time (no official statistics).
    Last edited by Draxil; 16th May 2022 at 13:42.

  17. #17
    You can't force people to have pregnancies against their will just because you want to provide babies for people who want to adopt, dude. That's sick.

    I have never heard anyone treat abortion as a frivolous subject. Whatever "convenience" may represent for the person who decides, the important thing is to have the choice to terminate if they so desire. You are advocating for that right to be removed, out of some moral argument that it makes you uncomfortable with it? Screw that. The day you get pregnant, you can decide to keep it and give it for adoption. But as long as it's not your body, as long as it's not your life on the line, you should literally have no say in this decision, because it does not concern you and never has.

    Rolling back Roes isn't about morals, or leaving power to the states, or the precious sacred life of the poor innocent unborn. It's about archaic, patriarchal power dynamics and the continuous subjugation of vulnerable minorities. Stay the fuck out of other people's uteruses.

  18. #18
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    And it's never just about the woman and her body, either. There is a new and genetically distinct human life involved in every pregnancy. In the overwhelmingly vast percentage of pregnancies, that life is there because she engaged in consensual sexual intercourse without using a method of birth control. I believe the state has a compelling interest in protecting the rights of individuals, including the right to life, and the individual in her uterus is the definition of "vulnerable minority".

    Edit: if you've never heard anyone treat abortion as a frivolous subject, you've never lived in the United States. Here's the founder of "Shout your abortion" talking about getting high and having an abortion as casually as if she was describing getting a haircut.
    Last edited by Draxil; 16th May 2022 at 16:20.

  19. #19
    Of course, the slut-shaming. You know it takes two to tango, right? A guy can fuck around all he wants and never suffer consequences but god forbid a woman does the same, the audacity! The number one cause of pregnancy is guys, my dude, so here's a tip: if you're so concerned about the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy, how about getting a vasectomy?

    As for other people, well consensual sex that doesn't involve you is none of your business. Why is it so hard for you to understand?

    Also, a bunch of cells is not an individual, but that dead horse is well flogged, I know I'm not gonna change your mind there.

  20. #20
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    And it's never just about the woman and her body, either. There is a new and genetically distinct human life involved in every pregnancy. In the overwhelmingly vast percentage of pregnancies, that life is there because she engaged in consensual sexual intercourse without using a method of birth control. I believe the state has a compelling interest in protecting the rights of individuals, including the right to life, and the individual in her uterus is the definition of "vulnerable minority".

    Edit: if you've never heard anyone treat abortion as a frivolous subject, you've never lived in the United States. Here's the founder of "Shout your abortion" talking about getting high and having an abortion as casually as if she was describing getting a haircut.

    Eh, no. If genetic distinctness was sufficient to make it a fully human life, any time one of our cells mutates we'd be required to let it grow. Which is likely to be pretty terrible, since that's actually cancer.

    Actually, that's a fair challenge. Please prove your reasoning does not also follow through to right-to-life for a tumor. Chances are, any person who's ever had a tumor has done at least one thing in their life that could lead to cancer, and the tumor is unlikely to be genetically identical to the rest of them.

    I believe anybody calling a fetus an individual without acknowledging that it's not a given at all that there's a mind there, much less a human mind, probably shouldn't be asked anything about reproduction.

  21. #21
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Mossad Time Machine
    The state absolutely should be focused on protecting individuals, and a foetus is demonstrably not an individual.

    The woman bearing it, however, is an individual, and as such, should always have primacy.


    Edit: just to add, it's at times like this that I really miss Monkeysee :(

  22. #22
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    And it's never just about the woman and her body, either.
    Bullshit. Pure, utter bullshit. It is ALL about controlling women and their rights to autonomy of their own bodies. Those same states that already have strict restrictions on abortions are also in the process of trying to ban forms of birth control, such as IUDs. Those same states are already attempting to make more common forms of birth control (the b.c. pill) more difficult for women to obtain, especially women in the low-income and poverty stricken categories. And what worsens the plight of women in those states is that those women are finding that it's more difficult to vote for politicians who would be in favor of removing those bans and restrictions, thanks to the misogynistic GOP's gerrymandering and their new voter restrictions that directly affect women of color as well as women who are in the low-income or poverty bracket. I don't see any bodily autonomy rights of men under fire here, do you?? How about if those states that are waging war on women's rights started passing laws that make it mandatory for all men who are anti-abortion to have vasectomies?? Or even start banning Viagra from being sold in those states? Boy, you'd see a lot of men suddenly switch horses in mid-stream and become women's reproductive healthcare advocates. So spare me your sexist, bullshit rhetoric about how 'it's never just about the woman and her body', because that's exactly what it's all about and always has been. You sound like another clueless male who so values the 'life' of a clump of cells that he's willing to trash women's rights to make decisions for their own bodies. Yeah, men like you are predictably Republican misogynists who claim to be righteous and moral yet want to force women to carry unwanted fetuses and at the same time, limit their access to maternity healthcare and childcare after the fetus has been born. And if you happen to be female, then I strongly suggest you seek psychiatric help to undo the misogynist brainwashing that's been done to you and learn to think for yourself. Btw, bomb any abortion clinics lately, have you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil
    In the overwhelmingly vast percentage of pregnancies, that life is there because she engaged in consensual sexual intercourse without using a method of birth control.
    So, you're claiming (falsely, I might add), that the majority of women finding themselves pregnant are promiscuous sluts?? Wow. Fragile male ego much? Show us on this Ken doll where she hurt you, honey. *smh*

    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil
    That describes abortion in the United States, where roughly 85% of abortions are performed for reasons of timing, finance, or desire (convenience)
    And of that 85%, do you have any idea how many of those unwanted pregnancies were caused by failure of the birth control methods the women or their partners involved were using? The only 'birth control' method that's 100% failsafe is a total hysterectomy; not even a tubal ligation is 100% foolproof and I speak from experience. Yes, if you're quoting statistics about how many unwanted pregnancies occur over a 10 year period due to failure of birth control methods, the percentage looks low, i.e., only 5% of women find themselves pregnant due to failure of condoms (over a 10 year period). But to get a realistic idea of how many women that 5% represents, do the math. There are over 331 million people in the U.S., so 5% of that comes out to over 16 million women over a 10 year period which means that over 160,000 women in this country will find themselves saddled with an unwanted pregnancy in any given year. But all those women are just promiscuous sluts in your opinion so they should be forced to bear an unwanted baby against their will, right? I guess it's a good thing then that you'll never have to worry about finding out that you're pregnant with the very pregnancy you were trying to prevent by using birth control. But just go ahead and continue with your Pro-Forced Birth bullshit rhetoric and posting slanted statistics that don't take into account all the factors. And spare us more of your bullshit rhetoric about fetuses having 'rights' and being 'individuals, ffs. A fetus is a non-sentient parasite that cannot survive outside a woman's uterus before the average of 24 to 28 weeks into gestation (that's six to seven months into pregnancy) and a high percentage of those premature babies will end up with mild to severe deficits. Yet Pro-Forced Birthers claim a fetus and even an embryo before 24 weeks (in some states, the ridiculous number is 15 to 20 weeks) is already a fully-formed human being, an 'individual' that should have rights. Omg. The majority of abortions are done before the end of the first trimester of pregnancy (3 months into gestation); very few late-term abortions are done and those are only done when the woman's life is in danger or if the fetus has died in utero or if it has been medically proven that the fetus is so deformed or has such severe deficits that it will not survive birth. Do more research and mind your own business. Our bodies, our choice. Get over your sexist self and stop spewing the ridiculous b.s. that anti-abortion is not about controlling women and their bodies. It's exactly about that. *smh*

  23. #23
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by rachel View Post
    Of course, the slut-shaming. You know it takes two to tango, right? A guy can fuck around all he wants and never suffer consequences but god forbid a woman does the same, the audacity! The number one cause of pregnancy is guys, my dude, so here's a tip: if you're so concerned about the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy, how about getting a vasectomy?

    As for other people, well consensual sex that doesn't involve you is none of your business. Why is it so hard for you to understand?

    Also, a bunch of cells is not an individual, but that dead horse is well flogged, I know I'm not gonna change your mind there.
    You're reading way to much into what I have said. I'm not slut shaming, I'm not into that. I'm into responsibility for one's actions, though. Men have a moral obligation to be fathers to their offspring; at a minimum, men should be held financially accountable for every child they've fathered, and have their wages garnished, if necessary, to provide for the care, education, and health of their children. Consensual sex between others doesn't bother me at all. It's society's business to protect those who can't protect themselves, though, and as a member of society I have a problem with the wholesale eradication of a generation's worth of children (roughly generation X, in the US, by the numbers).

    Originally posted by Phatose:


    Eh, no. If genetic distinctness was sufficient to make it a fully human life, any time one of our cells mutates we'd be required to let it grow. Which is likely to be pretty terrible, since that's actually cancer.

    Actually, that's a fair challenge. Please prove your reasoning does not also follow through to right-to-life for a tumor. Chances are, any person who's ever had a tumor has done at least one thing in their life that could lead to cancer, and the tumor is unlikely to be genetically identical to the rest of them.
    I can only assume that's an argument made in bad faith. A tumor has never and will never develop the exquisite anatomy and physiology to be able to live independently. There's not a person on earth who didn't start off as a zygote, though.

    Originally posted by SD:

    The state absolutely should be focused on protecting individuals, and a foetus is demonstrably not an individual.
    At what point does a human being in early development become an individual? At what point, if any, would you consider abortion fair game to be regulated by the state? All the current lines are absolutely arbitrary. If it's ok at 15 weeks, why not 20? Does individuality magically occur at viability? Should a woman be able to abort her child all the way up to the moment of birth? If yes, why would a baby be considered an individual 8 inches outside of the uterus but not in the uterus? And why just infancy? Infants are essentially non-sentient, parasitic clumps of cells outside the body, after all, and awfully friggin' inconvenient at times.

    I'm not playing slippery-slope games, I'm honestly interested in your answer and the answer of any others who support abortion rights. Very few people in the United States support unlimited access to abortion, and of those that say they do in polls, I doubt they'd support a woman's right to abort her baby at 39w6d.

    Dia, you're a trip. A long, uncomfortable one where the air conditioning broke down, your brother won't stop teasing you, the Gameboy batteries died, you feel carsick, and dad got lost--but still a trip. Do you support any restrictions on abortion? Honestly curious.

    I'm not misogynistic. I work in a female dominated profession--most of my friends are women. I'm not even Republican. I don't judge women who have had an abortion, I feel bad for them. I have provided ethical, non-judgemental, compassionate care for dozens of women who have lost a child (not a parasitic clump of non-sentient tissue, I think you called it) in my 17 years as a nurse. I have cared for a half dozen women who had to come into the hospital emergently after having a botched abortion. I've never seen the abortion provider follow up on or treat the woman he nearly killed. I have a very low opinion of the "providers" Planned Parenthood employs.

    I don't think a woman makes the choice to have an abortion lightly, in most cases. The ones that "shout their abortion" are usually very damaged individuals in my experience. I remember when Democrats used to advocate for keeping abortion safe, legal, and rare. Sometime in the 90's that "rare" part disappeared. It is an abominable failure of our culture that women feel the need to resort to abortion due to lack of support, lack of finance, or pressure from a partner to terminate the pregnancy. I am in full support of fully funding the healthcare, child care, and general care of pregnant women and mothers that need it. It would be a much better use of our tax dollars. I find it disgusting that nearly 60% of abortions in this country (according to the Guttmacher Institute, which is proud of that number) are of minority pregnancies. That's roughly half a million minorities a year. Black lives matter? Please. Not to you, Planned Parenthood, or your cohorts in the white supremacy movement.

    And of that 85%, do you have any idea how many of those unwanted pregnancies were caused by failure of the birth control methods the women or their partners involved were using? The only 'birth control' method that's 100% failsafe is a total hysterectomy; not even a tubal ligation is 100% foolproof and I speak from experience. Yes, if you're quoting statistics about how many unwanted pregnancies occur over a 10 year period due to failure of birth control methods, the percentage looks low, i.e., only 5% of women find themselves pregnant due to failure of condoms (over a 10 year period). But to get a realistic idea of how many women that 5% represents, do the math. There are over 331 million people in the U.S., so 5% of that comes out to over 16 million women over a 10 year period which means that over 160,000 women in this country will find themselves saddled with an unwanted pregnancy in any given year. But all those women are just promiscuous sluts in your opinion so they should be forced to bear an unwanted baby against their will, right? I guess it's a good thing then that you'll never have to worry about finding out that you're pregnant with the very pregnancy you were trying to prevent by using birth control. But just go ahead and continue with your Pro-Forced Birth bullshit rhetoric and posting slanted statistics that don't take into account all the factors. And spare us more of your bullshit rhetoric about fetuses having 'rights' and being 'individuals, ffs. A fetus is a non-sentient parasite that cannot survive outside a woman's uterus before the average of 24 to 28 weeks into gestation (that's six to seven months into pregnancy) and a high percentage of those premature babies will end up with mild to severe deficits. Yet Pro-Forced Birthers claim a fetus and even an embryo before 24 weeks (in some states, the ridiculous number is 15 to 20 weeks) is already a fully-formed human being, an 'individual' that should have rights. Omg. The majority of abortions are done before the end of the first trimester of pregnancy (3 months into gestation); very few late-term abortions are done and those are only done when the woman's life is in danger or if the fetus has died in utero or if it has been medically proven that the fetus is so deformed or has such severe deficits that it will not survive birth. Do more research and mind your own business. Our bodies, our choice. Get over your sexist self and stop spewing the ridiculous b.s. that anti-abortion is not about controlling women and their bodies. It's exactly about that. *smh*
    I'm really not sure where your numbers are coming from, but... stop *smh*ing, because it's messing with your ability to do even the simplest of math. I'll mansplain it to you: there are 331 million people in this country, roughly half are women. Of those women, about 70 million are of reproductive age (15-49). Your friends at Guttmacher (2008) say the 1-year condom failure rate (typical use) is about 17%. In 2008 there were, again according to Guttmacher, about 1.2 million abortions. If every condom failure resulted in abortion, that would account for about 200,000 of that 1.2 million. Taking the typical failure rate for every form of birth control would account for ~700,000. To me, 500,000 abortions still seems like a very large number. About the same size as the populations of Sacramento, Tuscon, Fresno, Kansas City, or Atlanta.

    As an aside, you are a very bitter person. Do your children know that you considered them parasites when you were pregnant with them? I have five children. I'm open to more, if they come. They are fantastic kids--musicians, dancers, artists, great grades in school, loving, frustrating, absolutely wonderful human beings that enjoy cooking, baking, video games, football. Friggin' good looking, too. I can't imagine life without any one of them, and I'm excited every day to see what they do, what they read, what they learn, and what they become as they mature. My oldest is determined to become an anesthesiologist, and, at 13, I'm already certain that he is more than capable of it. His younger sister wants to be a pharmacist and a ballerina that plays cello in a volunteer orchestra and owns 6 cats. We don't see eye to eye on the cat thing, at all.

    It's trite, but children are our future. They are a gift--not a burden, not a punishment, and certainly not parasites. We lost a child at about 10 weeks of pregnancy back in 2013. We hadn't found out the sex, but my wife is certain it was a girl and named her Stella. She is frequently on my mind, especially when I see the gap between the 11 year old and the 6 year old. He wants to be a shepherd. Given the difficulties we're having getting him to read, it might not be a bad career choice.

    Anyway, I'm tired and this is, I'm sure, as pointless as it is rambling. Summary: supporting some restrictions on abortion is arbitrary and illogical. Absolute opposition or support of abortion is logically consistent and more defensible than the lukewarm, capricious, wishy-washy attitude taken by the majority of this country. If you support unrestricted abortion, and even infanticide, you're a monster with the courage of his convictions. Moloch will welcome you with a very warm embrace.

  24. #24
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2002
    Location: New Zealand
    So, we've got misogyny, we've got a big wall of text with a tone that makes me feel like I need to take at least two showers, and we've got some weird stuff about infanticide, and this is still only the first page. It'd be nice if we could have just one of these threads without some weird guy showing up.

    Also, abortions are good, we can't have a society where women are equal unless abortions are free and safe and readily available, 'cause if you don't have bodily autonomy then you don't have anything.

  25. #25
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    If you support unrestricted abortion, and even infanticide, you're a monster with the courage of his convictions. Moloch will welcome you with a very warm embrace.
    'in·fan·ti·cide
    /inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/
    noun

    1.
    the crime of killing a child within a year of its birth (in some legal jurisdictions, specifically by the mother):
    "cases of infanticide often involve extreme emotional disturbance"
    2.
    a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.'


    'Infanticide'? Wow. Seriously, who the fuck is committing infanticide?? Ffs, there are NO babies or infants involved in abortions because an embryo or a fetus is not a baby or infant until after it's been born, fool. Even says so in your precious Bible; Google it after you've finished thumping it. ('Moloch'. Lmao) Typical sexist Republican sensationalism and false propaganda, 'OMG THEY'RE KILLING BABIES!!!'. Relax moron, no one is coming for your kids (or guns, lol). How wonderful for you that you have so many children, though it's obvious you're sadly oblivious that one of the biggest pollution problems we have today is overpopulation. That fact aside, wtf gives you the right to sit in judgement of or decide whether a woman a thousand miles away can or cannot exercise her right to make decisions about her own body? How does her choice directly affect you? Does it actually, actively change your life in any way? Does her choice affect your mental or physical health? Or does it just offend your delicate sexist sensibilities and trigger that overwhelming urge to exert control women and their bodies because your fragile male ego feels threatened by intelligent, independent women who are capable of making their own decisions and choices without the interference of a man? You can throw all the talking points and slanted 'facts' you want at pro-choice people all day long, but in the end it just comes down to the very real fact that women's bodily autonomy is none of your fucking business. You don't have a uterus so can't possibly understand, yet because you have a penis and have fathered a whole passel of kids, you believe that your opinion and judgement matters more, to the point where you condemn and vilify any woman who makes a choice regarding her own body? I lend no credibility to anyone who wants to send women's rights, especially our rights to safe reproductive healthcare, back to the Stone Age. Seriously dude, you really need to check yourself; your sexist, puritan opinions are ridiculous and offensive. 'Infanticide'. Omfg. *smh*

    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil
    If you support unrestricted abortion ... you're a monster with the courage of his convictions
    'His'?? Abortion is a woman's choice; she/they also has the choice to discuss her decision with her partner, but in the end it's still her/their choice. And yeah, there are a lot of men who support a woman's right to choose but they're not monsters, just intelligent, forward-thinking people who happen to believe that female friends and relatives, their daughters, granddaughters, etc., should not be forced to become broodmares (and handmaids) to men with fragile male egos who also have a seriously sexist, abusive obsession to control all aspects of women's lives and bodies. Those sexist control freaks are the real monsters; the same monsters who rape women because they feel it's their God-given right as a man, who believe that 'she was asking for it' because 'look at what she was wearing'. The same monsters who are nothing more than outright pro-life hypocrites who want to force a woman to give birth to an unwanted child even if it kills her and who will happily go out and shoot a doctor who performs abortions to death; the same monsters who want to put women to death for exercising their rights to bodily autonomy. But they're all pro-life so God is on their side, right? Those are the real monsters. Next you'll be telling us that all forms of birth control are evil and are Satan's work; that a man's seed is sacred and should be cherished, right? Omg. Give me a break. I've grown weary of beating my head against your brick wall; afterall, I've been fighting against your brand of misogyny since the Women's Liberation marches back in the 60s, same fight my paternal grandmother marched against with the Women's Suffragette movement in the 20s (it wasn't all about women's right to vote, btw). Good luck with your kids; I'm sure you'll raise them to grow up to be overly-judgmental, sanctimonious sexists, just like dear old Dad. Blatant sexism really is an ugly, ugly thing, ya know. On the bright side, women make up 51.1% of the population in this country (since 2013). lol

    Do have a nice day.
    Last edited by Dia; 18th May 2022 at 14:23.

Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •