I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.
The majority of Christian’s are for, and do use, contraceptives. And many who don’t, don’t care that you do. There just isn’t this big push to ban it, almost no one wants to.
It’s taken 50 years to not ban abortion, but to potentially reverse a ruling that would leave it up to the states. Why would something no one wants be banned in 10 years? It just doesn’t make sense to me that this is a logical fear. Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind. Seems like a fear tactic when people like Swalwell tweet that out. And must be working if people think that is actually happening next.
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.
The majority of Christian’s are for, and do use, contraceptives. And many who don’t, don’t care that you do. There just isn’t this big push to ban it, almost no one wants to.
It’s taken 50 years to not ban abortion, but to potentially reverse a ruling that would leave it up to the states. Why would something no one wants be banned in 10 years? It just doesn’t make sense to me that this is a logical fear. Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind.
1/2 of all pregnancies are unplanned. My hometown has 2 pharmacies and one won’t fill legal prescriptions for birth control. For a while there wasn’t a 2nd pharmacy. It’s been like that since I was a kid. It’s a big assumption to make that it’s easy to go somewhere else, not everyone can.
Access and affordability of contraception are issues even today. My wife has a cousin in New Jersey and she and her husband are both pharmacists and neither fills birth control. Obviously also not the morning after pill or other medications of that type.
I always said I was going to go to pharmacy school get a job as a pharmacist in a one pharmacy town and say “I’m a Christian scientist” all medications are against my religion so I can’t morally fill them for my customers. The only medication I believe in is prayer.
Something tells me I wouldn’t get away with not filling heart medication because of my religious views, but I could absolutely get away with it for birth control. Double standard? Absolutely. The entire concept that you have to morally agree with handing out a pill that a doctor prescribed is absurd. Your only job is handing out pills, not judging what pills you are ok with
banning something or further restring something that already has a history of being restricted in many ways isn’t an illogical leap to make especially because that’s already the reality in a lot of places today.
This might be an unpopular opinion... but the time has come for USA to start talking peaceful separation before another civil war breaks out.
And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.
So are cities and counties supposed to secede from states or do you see this happening as a mass migration with certain states forming a country etc. In my home state of michigan alone the UP would be in the conservative camp as well as most rural areas of lower MI outside of major cities. I'm pretty sure that whatever peoples political leanings are that they would rather go to war than be forced to relocate from their chosen home. Sounds like a lot of costs to bear for the people that would have to be displaced.
Logistical nightmare... to be sure.
I suppose my point is... what other options are there? It's no different than a shitty marriage. Continue hating each other for another 30 years because you can't afford to split? Or bite the bullet and start fresh?
Interestingly.... and I honestly believe this to be sure. Just start talking about it.
Have the two parties begin the process. Create a commission. Have a referendum. Do stuff. Start talking about where the lines are going to be... just start talking. And get them and the public to realize that resolving issues is the better option than splitting the country up.
Sounds awesome.. but when I look at things.. I think people have gone well beyond the possibility of reconciliation. But maybe that could change when people start actually looking at the real possibility or desire to separate.
Interestingly.... and I honestly believe this to be sure. Just start talking about it.
Interestingly enough, there are a few politicians who would like to see that happen. One in particular that I know of (and this is confirmed by a former mayor in Alaska I know) is Santa Claus.
Santa
Claus is a candidate for the Special Election to complete Alaska
Congressman Don Young’s current term, ending in January of 2023, in the
U.S. House of Representatives.
Santa
is a two-term Councilman and current Mayor Pro Tem of the City of North
Pole, Alaska. Santa Claus is an independent, progressive, democratic
socialist, and shares many of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders’s positions.
He is a long-time advocate for child health, safety, and welfare. Santa
believes ALL Members of Congress must find common ground, work together
to represent their diverse constituencies, and move our nation forward
in a productive manner that ensures happiness, peace, good health, and
prosperity for everyone living in the United States, including Alaska.
Alaska
is uniquely positioned to address many issues: energy, defense,
climate, education, Arctic nations collaboration, infrastructure,
especially broadband, indigenous and women’s rights, health,
immigration, justice, medical debt, etc. and capitalize on Alaska’s
myriad resources in ways that do not harm anyone. He has been a union
member for a half-century and supports Medicare for All and the
Congressional Cannabis Caucus.
Santa
is a former: Member of the Alaska Public Broadcasting Commission,
President of the North Pole Community Chamber of Commerce, and Senior
Ranger for the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s Chena Lake Recreation Area
(North Pole).
Years
ago, he completed his successful church-sponsored national Santa’s
Bless the Children Tour, visiting every Governor’s staff and most U.S.
Senators’ staffs throughout the United States, discussing the plight of
vulnerable children. He received numerous Governors’ awards for his
advocacy, even an international Peace Prize from the Santa Claus Peace
Council in Turkey, and was well-received in Washington, D.C., where he
was born, by Members of Congress and their staffs — many of whom
remarked that their visit from Santa was engaging and a memorable
highlight. As funny as it may seem to some, his name, Santa Claus,
afforded him ready access to and a friendly reception from the Members
of Congress and staffs he visited, regardless of party affiliation.
Before
his legal name change to Santa Claus in 2005, Santa served as Special
Assistant to the Deputy Police Commissioner of New York City, Member of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Defense Executive
Reserve, while Director of the Terrorism Research and Communication
Center, and Chief Safety and Security Officer of the U.S. Virgin Islands
Port Authority. He earned his bachelors and masters degrees at New York
University, where he completed his doctoral coursework in educational
communication and technology and graduated from two seminaries.
Santa
supports government policies that protect (1) child health, safety, and
welfare, (2) our Creator’s environment, and (3) the weak, poor, and
underprivileged, as well as policies (1) that recognize that science,
education, and religion can co-exist, (2) that unite, rather than
separate, (3) that promote peace, not war, (4) that favor natural
remedies, not pharmaceutical sales, and (5) that demonstrate compassion.
He believes that love, not fear, is the greatest power on Earth.
Please note that Santa Claus does not solicit or accept campaign contributions.
He encourages your interest, engagement, and, most importantly, your
VOTE on or before June 11th. He will be Tweeting and posting videos on
YouTube throughout his campaign.
Santa's Twitter account:
Twitter.com/SantaClausforAK
Santa's YouTube account:
YouTube.com/user/GenuineSantaClaus
For
those who may be interested, his name, Santa Claus, is derived from the
Dutch expression for Saint Nicholas: Sinterklaas. Nicholas was the
Christian Bishop of Myra who lived in Asia Minor, where Turkey is now,
during the fourth century.
Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013 Toronto I&II 2016 10C: 220xxx
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
60% of the country supports gay marriage. 60% of the country supports a woman's right to choose. These are averages but there isn't a huge statistical difference between them. I think you are being overly glib about the possibilities.
Now gay marriage and interracial marriage rely on the Equal Protection Clause rather than the more esoteric 'privacy' right that is not specifically enumerated. So it's a more difficult legal challenge. However, Alito's draft opinion makes clear that he believes the only rights protected are the ones that are specifically enumerated or follow a long historical precedent. Gay marriage does not meet either of those. I would argue interracial marriage has a longer tradition, but still only mid century.
Thank you for responding so reasonably (I would not have) because you saved me from for sure punishment.
I’m not sure those who keep thinking other entitlements are safe understand that in some states felatio is still considered illegal, and they don’t mean between two men. I imagine if we go back to when it was illegal in the entire country that not many men would be happy about that restriction being reinstated. Taking away a woman’s right to choose is as stupid as my previous sentence sounded. My body, my choice.
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.
The majority of Christian’s are for, and do use, contraceptives. And many who don’t, don’t care that you do. There just isn’t this big push to ban it, almost no one wants to.
It’s taken 50 years to not ban abortion, but to potentially reverse a ruling that would leave it up to the states. Why would something no one wants be banned in 10 years? It just doesn’t make sense to me that this is a logical fear. Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind.
1/2 of all pregnancies are unplanned. My hometown has 2 pharmacies and one won’t fill legal prescriptions for birth control. For a while there wasn’t a 2nd pharmacy. It’s been like that since I was a kid. It’s a big assumption to make that it’s easy to go somewhere else, not everyone can.
Access and affordability of contraception are issues even today. My wife has a cousins in New Jersey and she and her husband are both pharmacists and neither fills birth control. Obviously also not the morning after pill or other medications of that type.
I always said I was going to go to pharmacy school get a job as a pharmacist in a one pharmacy town and say “I’m a Christian scientist” all medications are against my religion so I can’t morally fill them for my customers. The only medication I believe in is prayer.
Something tells me I wouldn’t get away with not filling heart medication because of my religious views, but I could absolutely get away with it for birth control. Double standard? Absolutely
I’ve heard stories like that before, but believe they are uncommon or rare. I disagree with a pharmacist not filling medication for birth control. But that is also not the same as banning it. When people are saying a ban on contraceptives is next, I take that to mean all forms and will not be allowed to be sold. That is just never going to happen. That’s different than a pharmacist not filling a prescription. Laws protecting pharmacists from filling prescriptions they don’t want to does seem plausible, a full on ban does not. I’m also surprised there aren’t other means to get them, mail orders or anything. Not saying that makes it right. But if there were laws protecting pharmacists it would probably become easier to fill meds online too.
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.
The majority of Christian’s are for, and do use, contraceptives. And many who don’t, don’t care that you do. There just isn’t this big push to ban it, almost no one wants to.
It’s taken 50 years to not ban abortion, but to potentially reverse a ruling that would leave it up to the states. Why would something no one wants be banned in 10 years? It just doesn’t make sense to me that this is a logical fear. Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind.
1/2 of all pregnancies are unplanned. My hometown has 2 pharmacies and one won’t fill legal prescriptions for birth control. For a while there wasn’t a 2nd pharmacy. It’s been like that since I was a kid. It’s a big assumption to make that it’s easy to go somewhere else, not everyone can.
Access and affordability of contraception are issues even today. My wife has a cousins in New Jersey and she and her husband are both pharmacists and neither fills birth control. Obviously also not the morning after pill or other medications of that type.
I always said I was going to go to pharmacy school get a job as a pharmacist in a one pharmacy town and say “I’m a Christian scientist” all medications are against my religion so I can’t morally fill them for my customers. The only medication I believe in is prayer.
Something tells me I wouldn’t get away with not filling heart medication because of my religious views, but I could absolutely get away with it for birth control. Double standard? Absolutely
I’ve heard stories like that before, but believe they are uncommon or rare. I disagree with a pharmacist not filling medication for birth control. But that is also not the same as banning it. When people are saying a ban on contraceptives is next, I take that to mean all forms and will not be allowed to be sold. That is just never going to happen. That’s different than a pharmacist not filling a prescription. Laws protecting pharmacists from filling prescriptions they don’t want to does seem plausible, a full on ban does not. I’m also surprised there aren’t other means to get them, mail orders or anything. Not saying that makes it right. But if there were laws protecting pharmacists it would probably become easier to fill meds online too.
Here is an entirely plausible law.
Texas already has a law that refers parents who give their minor children access to gender affirmation care for possible prosecution for child abuse.
What’s stopping them from saying any girl under 18 years old can’t get birth control and any doctor or parent who seeks out the medication are guilty of abuse. most girls start the pill at 16. That’s a logical birth control target.
Some states could make birth control only available to married women. Why wouldn’t they? It goes along with basically everything else they have been saying and that’s how it use to be as unmarried women shouldn’t be having sex to begin with.
“In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of birth control. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut marked the beginning of an era of change for sexual and reproductive rights in the United States. Ruling that the states had no right to ban contraception for married couples, the landmark decision in the Griswold v. Connecticutcase established — for the first time — a constitutional right to privacy regarding reproductive decisions that paved the way for the legalization of birth control for unmarried couples, and ultimately, Roe v Wade and safe and legal abortion.”
That right to privacy IS the basis for Roe v Wade as well as many other court cases including birth control, a right that no longer exists
Make no mistake reproductive issues are more about controlling women than they are about pregnancy. As soon as women entered the workforce post WWII in large numbers men lost a lot of control,and they have been trying to get it back ever since. Women are more educated than men on the whole and it’s only a matter of time until they out earn men too. Keeping them taking care kids and making decisions about their bodies for them is about control. It’s 100 percent true that if men got pregnant we wouldn’t even be having this conversation
Here's the other interesting thing that can work in the favor of D's. Remember this was a draft opinion from Feb. It may have been toned down already and who knows what the final will say. Perhaps it will only significantly reduce the right, who knows? The point is the D's get to campaign on the harshest language out there between now and election day. This gives a window into what Alito really thinks, regardless of the final opinion.
To be honest I have come a long way in my views on this. I guess you could say I am even pro-choice now at the end of the day.
Just a few thoughts that still circle in my mind on the topic though…
To the famous “My body, my choice” phrase, there has been and always will be governance over personal autonomy. Does the same sentiment follow suit with things like assisted suicide or decriminalizing all drugs for most people here? Or just pick and choose based on topic?
Also I still struggle with the idea that a man should have no say in any of this. Before you come for my head here, I get that the mother carries the burden in so many more ways for either deciding to carry or not, but in the end it took two consenting people in most cases, it just happens that biologically the female carries more of the burden. If both parties agreed that a condom was sufficient and you get unlucky, the man in the equation may want the child or may not and the response to that is who cares? I still can’t get to that point. Is it a slippery slope when it comes to instances of rape and the likes? Certainly. But I hope there can be a balance that takes the man into account especially if both parties decided going into it they were both prepared for the consequences of their actions and found any preparation they took sufficient.
And finally, the argument that I always found kind of silly is “well why don’t you care about the kids after they are born? Why don’t you support helping the mom more in xyz way? Why not force the father to in xyz way be more supportive? Why not adopt 5 kids and prove it” …To that I say, I DO support that and I do wish our government was more progressive in support. Now I know I am just one person and government figure heads / extremists may suck and wont take action in that way, but to say it’s mutually exclusive that people only support the unborn child and don’t give a shit after they are born is ridiculous.
To be transparent, I don’t think I will ever get over the belief that new life is created at conception. New life wouldn’t ever exist if not for starting somewhere. It’s not viable outside of the womb, sure, but a newborn baby would die too if not for being fed by the mother and taken care of after birth either. Anyways, a complete ban on abortions is not smart and can lead to scary situations and I have seen the light in that sense.
Thanks, and sorry for the long post. Not here to fight, but that’s what was on my mind when I decided to come back to this thread…
Pittsburgh 2013 Cincinnati 2014 Greenville 2016 (Raleigh 2016) Columbia 2016
To be honest I have come a long way in my views on this. I guess you could say I am even pro-choice now at the end of the day.
Just a few thoughts that still circle in my mind on the topic though…
To the famous “My body, my choice” phrase, there has been and always will be governance over personal autonomy. Does the same sentiment follow suit with things like assisted suicide or decriminalizing all drugs for most people here? Or just pick and choose based on topic?
Also I still struggle with the idea that a man should have no say in any of this. Before you come for my head here, I get that the mother carries the burden in so many more ways for either deciding to carry or not, but in the end it took two consenting people in most cases, it just happens that biologically the female carries more of the burden. If both parties agreed that a condom was sufficient and you get unlucky, the man in the equation may want the child or may not and the response to that is who cares? I still can’t get to that point. Is it a slippery slope when it comes to instances of rape and the likes? Certainly. But I hope there can be a balance that takes the man into account especially if both parties decided going into it they were both prepared for the consequences of their actions and found any preparation they took sufficient.
And finally, the argument that I always found kind of silly is “well why don’t you care about the kids after they are born? Why don’t you support helping the mom more in xyz way? Why not force the father to in xyz way be more supportive? Why not adopt 5 kids and prove it” …To that I say, I DO support that and I do wish our government was more progressive in support. Now I know I am just one person and government figure heads / extremists may suck and wont take action in that way, but to say it’s mutually exclusive that people only support the unborn child and don’t give a shit after they are born is ridiculous.
To be transparent, I don’t think I will ever get over the belief that new life is created at conception. New life wouldn’t ever exist if not for starting somewhere. It’s not viable outside of the womb, sure, but a newborn baby would die too if not for being fed by the mother and taken care of after birth either. Anyways, a complete ban on abortions is not smart and can lead to scary situations and I have seen the light in that sense.
Thanks, and sorry for the long post. Not here to fight, but that’s what was on my mind when I decided to come back to this thread…
I can say that I absolutely believe assisted suicide should be legal. Second, using drugs is not illegal in most, if any states. Addiction isn't illegal anywhere. It's possession and distribution that is illegal.
Regarding the welfare state, for several years in my youth, my manager was the archbishop of the local LDS community. They are adamantly pro life, based on the fundamental doctrine of their Church. And that was always a bone with me, forcing women to bear children and then they're on their own. I give the LDS community a lot of credit as they have tremendous support networks for their tribe. The rest of the pro life community comes nowhere near them.
To be honest I have come a long way in my views on this. I guess you could say I am even pro-choice now at the end of the day.
Just a few thoughts that still circle in my mind on the topic though…
To the famous “My body, my choice” phrase, there has been and always will be governance over personal autonomy. Does the same sentiment follow suit with things like assisted suicide or decriminalizing all drugs for most people here? Or just pick and choose based on topic?
Also I still struggle with the idea that a man should have no say in any of this. Before you come for my head here, I get that the mother carries the burden in so many more ways for either deciding to carry or not, but in the end it took two consenting people in most cases, it just happens that biologically the female carries more of the burden. If both parties agreed that a condom was sufficient and you get unlucky, the man in the equation may want the child or may not and the response to that is who cares? I still can’t get to that point. Is it a slippery slope when it comes to instances of rape and the likes? Certainly. But I hope there can be a balance that takes the man into account especially if both parties decided going into it they were both prepared for the consequences of their actions and found any preparation they took sufficient.
And finally, the argument that I always found kind of silly is “well why don’t you care about the kids after they are born? Why don’t you support helping the mom more in xyz way? Why not force the father to in xyz way be more supportive? Why not adopt 5 kids and prove it” …To that I say, I DO support that and I do wish our government was more progressive in support. Now I know I am just one person and government figure heads / extremists may suck and wont take action in that way, but to say it’s mutually exclusive that people only support the unborn child and don’t give a shit after they are born is ridiculous.
To be transparent, I don’t think I will ever get over the belief that new life is created at conception. New life wouldn’t ever exist if not for starting somewhere. It’s not viable outside of the womb, sure, but a newborn baby would die too if not for being fed by the mother and taken care of after birth either. Anyways, a complete ban on abortions is not smart and can lead to scary situations and I have seen the light in that sense.
Thanks, and sorry for the long post. Not here to fight, but that’s what was on my mind when I decided to come back to this thread…
If you look a few posts back I definitely support a woman taking the fathers feelings into consideration.
I’m probably in the minority but I’m ok with assisted suicide and with the freedom to use drugs as long as you can keep it your thing without harming others in any way shape or form. Women don’t discuss their abortions, don’t admit to them. A woman can keep an abortion all to herself for the rest of her life…..are you starting to see this now as women see this? It’s not difficult, most of the men around here get it. I’m not seeing a lot of other women willing to discuss this which proves my point. It’s a thing that belongs only to that women…no one else is going to feel the same way about it….it’s a unique feeling to each individual. It’s truly for no one else to decide.
To be honest I have come a long way in my views on this. I guess you could say I am even pro-choice now at the end of the day.
Just a few thoughts that still circle in my mind on the topic though…
To the famous “My body, my choice” phrase, there has been and always will be governance over personal autonomy. Does the same sentiment follow suit with things like assisted suicide or decriminalizing all drugs for most people here? Or just pick and choose based on topic?
Also I still struggle with the idea that a man should have no say in any of this. Before you come for my head here, I get that the mother carries the burden in so many more ways for either deciding to carry or not, but in the end it took two consenting people in most cases, it just happens that biologically the female carries more of the burden. If both parties agreed that a condom was sufficient and you get unlucky, the man in the equation may want the child or may not and the response to that is who cares? I still can’t get to that point. Is it a slippery slope when it comes to instances of rape and the likes? Certainly. But I hope there can be a balance that takes the man into account especially if both parties decided going into it they were both prepared for the consequences of their actions and found any preparation they took sufficient.
And finally, the argument that I always found kind of silly is “well why don’t you care about the kids after they are born? Why don’t you support helping the mom more in xyz way? Why not force the father to in xyz way be more supportive? Why not adopt 5 kids and prove it” …To that I say, I DO support that and I do wish our government was more progressive in support. Now I know I am just one person and government figure heads / extremists may suck and wont take action in that way, but to say it’s mutually exclusive that people only support the unborn child and don’t give a shit after they are born is ridiculous.
To be transparent, I don’t think I will ever get over the belief that new life is created at conception. New life wouldn’t ever exist if not for starting somewhere. It’s not viable outside of the womb, sure, but a newborn baby would die too if not for being fed by the mother and taken care of after birth either. Anyways, a complete ban on abortions is not smart and can lead to scary situations and I have seen the light in that sense.
Thanks, and sorry for the long post. Not here to fight, but that’s what was on my mind when I decided to come back to this thread…
I can say that I absolutely believe assisted suicide should be legal. Second, using drugs is not illegal in most, if any states. Addiction isn't illegal anywhere. It's possession and distribution that is illegal.
Regarding the welfare state, for several years in my youth, my manager was the archbishop of the local LDS community. They are adamantly pro life, based on the fundamental doctrine of their Church. And that was always a bone with me, forcing women to bear children and then they're on their own. I give the LDS community a lot of credit as they have tremendous support networks for their tribe. The rest of the pro life community comes nowhere near them.
Great minds…we were typing the exact same thing at the same time!
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.
The majority of Christian’s are for, and do use, contraceptives. And many who don’t, don’t care that you do. There just isn’t this big push to ban it, almost no one wants to.
It’s taken 50 years to not ban abortion, but to potentially reverse a ruling that would leave it up to the states. Why would something no one wants be banned in 10 years? It just doesn’t make sense to me that this is a logical fear. Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind.
1/2 of all pregnancies are unplanned. My hometown has 2 pharmacies and one won’t fill legal prescriptions for birth control. For a while there wasn’t a 2nd pharmacy. It’s been like that since I was a kid. It’s a big assumption to make that it’s easy to go somewhere else, not everyone can.
Access and affordability of contraception are issues even today. My wife has a cousins in New Jersey and she and her husband are both pharmacists and neither fills birth control. Obviously also not the morning after pill or other medications of that type.
I always said I was going to go to pharmacy school get a job as a pharmacist in a one pharmacy town and say “I’m a Christian scientist” all medications are against my religion so I can’t morally fill them for my customers. The only medication I believe in is prayer.
Something tells me I wouldn’t get away with not filling heart medication because of my religious views, but I could absolutely get away with it for birth control. Double standard? Absolutely
I’ve heard stories like that before, but believe they are uncommon or rare. I disagree with a pharmacist not filling medication for birth control. But that is also not the same as banning it. When people are saying a ban on contraceptives is next, I take that to mean all forms and will not be allowed to be sold. That is just never going to happen. That’s different than a pharmacist not filling a prescription. Laws protecting pharmacists from filling prescriptions they don’t want to does seem plausible, a full on ban does not. I’m also surprised there aren’t other means to get them, mail orders or anything. Not saying that makes it right. But if there were laws protecting pharmacists it would probably become easier to fill meds online too.
Here is an entirely plausible law.
Texas already has a law that refers parents who give their minor children access to gender affirmation care for possible prosecution for child abuse.
What’s stopping them from saying any girl under 18 years old can’t get birth control and any doctor or parent who seeks out the medication are guilty of abuse. most girls start the pill at 16. That’s a logical birth control target.
Some states could make birth control only available to married women. Why wouldn’t they? It goes along with basically everything else they have been saying and that’s how it use to be as unmarried women shouldn’t be having sex to begin with.
“In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of birth control. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut marked the beginning of an era of change for sexual and reproductive rights in the United States. Ruling that the states had no right to ban contraception for married couples, the landmark decision in the Griswold v. Connecticutcase established — for the first time — a constitutional right to privacy regarding reproductive decisions that paved the way for the legalization of birth control for unmarried couples, and ultimately, Roe v Wade and safe and legal abortion.”
That right to privacy IS the basis for Roe v Wade as well as many other court cases including birth control, a right that no longer exists
Make no mistake reproductive issues are more about controlling women than they are about pregnancy. As soon as women entered the workforce post WWII in large numbers men lost a lot of control,and they have been trying to get it back ever since. Women are more educated than men on the whole and it’s only a matter of time until they out earn men too. Keeping them taking care kids and making decisions about their bodies for them is about control. It’s 100 percent true that if men got pregnant we wouldn’t even be having this conversation
I was disappointed when that thread on the TX law got shut down, I was interested in having a conversation on that. I’ve been well aware of some impacts and mental health issues involved. But wasn’t too informed on the basis of medical treatments. What I learned from reading a little is that Texas law aligns with the WPATH (world professional association for transgendered health) guidelines. They recommend an age of at least 16 before introducing hormone therapy because how it impacts the body, can alter growth and so on. I don’t see a reason to be upset with laws that follow the guidelines set by the leading health organization in that area, unless there is reason to believe said organization has faulty data. But I haven’t seen that. Sp I don’t see that ad a comparison. It’s not like Texas made laws just willy nilly and random ages to discriminate. It was based on health recommendations from a leading organization. Therefore I can’t see that as justification that a state is just going to willy nilly make laws about birth control. If there is medical research about when it is safe to take birth control, then yes, maybe some states will have laws around that. And why is that bad, if it’s based on health recommendations from leading doctors?
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.
The majority of Christian’s are for, and do use, contraceptives. And many who don’t, don’t care that you do. There just isn’t this big push to ban it, almost no one wants to.
It’s taken 50 years to not ban abortion, but to potentially reverse a ruling that would leave it up to the states. Why would something no one wants be banned in 10 years? It just doesn’t make sense to me that this is a logical fear. Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind.
1/2 of all pregnancies are unplanned. My hometown has 2 pharmacies and one won’t fill legal prescriptions for birth control. For a while there wasn’t a 2nd pharmacy. It’s been like that since I was a kid. It’s a big assumption to make that it’s easy to go somewhere else, not everyone can.
Access and affordability of contraception are issues even today. My wife has a cousins in New Jersey and she and her husband are both pharmacists and neither fills birth control. Obviously also not the morning after pill or other medications of that type.
I always said I was going to go to pharmacy school get a job as a pharmacist in a one pharmacy town and say “I’m a Christian scientist” all medications are against my religion so I can’t morally fill them for my customers. The only medication I believe in is prayer.
Something tells me I wouldn’t get away with not filling heart medication because of my religious views, but I could absolutely get away with it for birth control. Double standard? Absolutely
I’ve heard stories like that before, but believe they are uncommon or rare. I disagree with a pharmacist not filling medication for birth control. But that is also not the same as banning it. When people are saying a ban on contraceptives is next, I take that to mean all forms and will not be allowed to be sold. That is just never going to happen. That’s different than a pharmacist not filling a prescription. Laws protecting pharmacists from filling prescriptions they don’t want to does seem plausible, a full on ban does not. I’m also surprised there aren’t other means to get them, mail orders or anything. Not saying that makes it right. But if there were laws protecting pharmacists it would probably become easier to fill meds online too.
Here is an entirely plausible law.
Texas already has a law that refers parents who give their minor children access to gender affirmation care for possible prosecution for child abuse.
What’s stopping them from saying any girl under 18 years old can’t get birth control and any doctor or parent who seeks out the medication are guilty of abuse. most girls start the pill at 16. That’s a logical birth control target.
Some states could make birth control only available to married women. Why wouldn’t they? It goes along with basically everything else they have been saying and that’s how it use to be as unmarried women shouldn’t be having sex to begin with.
“In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of birth control. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut marked the beginning of an era of change for sexual and reproductive rights in the United States. Ruling that the states had no right to ban contraception for married couples, the landmark decision in the Griswold v. Connecticutcase established — for the first time — a constitutional right to privacy regarding reproductive decisions that paved the way for the legalization of birth control for unmarried couples, and ultimately, Roe v Wade and safe and legal abortion.”
That right to privacy IS the basis for Roe v Wade as well as many other court cases including birth control, a right that no longer exists
Make no mistake reproductive issues are more about controlling women than they are about pregnancy. As soon as women entered the workforce post WWII in large numbers men lost a lot of control,and they have been trying to get it back ever since. Women are more educated than men on the whole and it’s only a matter of time until they out earn men too. Keeping them taking care kids and making decisions about their bodies for them is about control. It’s 100 percent true that if men got pregnant we wouldn’t even be having this conversation
I was disappointed when that thread on the TX law got shut down, I was interested in having a conversation on that. I’ve been well aware of some impacts and mental health issues involved. But wasn’t too informed on the basis of medical treatments. What I learned from reading a little is that Texas law aligns with the WPATH (world professional association for transgendered health) guidelines. They recommend an age of at least 16 before introducing hormone therapy because how it impacts the body, can alter growth and so on. I don’t see a reason to be upset with laws that follow the guidelines set by the leading health organization in that area, unless there is reason to believe said organization has faulty data. But I haven’t seen that. Sp I don’t see that ad a comparison. It’s not like Texas made laws just willy nilly and random ages to discriminate. It was based on health recommendations from a leading organization. Therefore I can’t see that as justification that a state is just going to willy nilly make laws about birth control. If there is medical research about when it is safe to take birth control, then yes, maybe some states will have laws around that. And why is that bad, if it’s based on health recommendations from leading doctors?
The HPV vaccine is recommended at 13 for girls, that’s science. Before they are sexually active. Science plays no basis for any decisions most conservatives take on reproductive health, STD’s, or Transgender health care. As the religious right is convinced it “encourages sexual behaviour” if you are protected.
They will use science of it helps their position, but that’s not the same thing as basing a decision on science. In any case you are a minor until 18 in reference to gender affirming care. It’s putting the government directly between a family and their doctor. The state only does this on issues that affect these types of groups. In any other setting they believe in absolute parental rights. If you believe the state is enforcing this out of a genuine concern for transgender teens, you are sorely mistaken
when your kid is gay or transgender you know way earlier than that . All of these issues abortion, gay rights, transgender issues etc are connected and a targeted effort to deny rights to people who aren’t like them or who don’t believe what they believe. It’s an attack on multiple fronts at the same time, and it’s by design
To be honest I have come a long way in my views on this. I guess you could say I am even pro-choice now at the end of the day.
Just a few thoughts that still circle in my mind on the topic though…
To the famous “My body, my choice” phrase, there has been and always will be governance over personal autonomy. Does the same sentiment follow suit with things like assisted suicide or decriminalizing all drugs for most people here? Or just pick and choose based on topic?
Also I still struggle with the idea that a man should have no say in any of this. Before you come for my head here, I get that the mother carries the burden in so many more ways for either deciding to carry or not, but in the end it took two consenting people in most cases, it just happens that biologically the female carries more of the burden. If both parties agreed that a condom was sufficient and you get unlucky, the man in the equation may want the child or may not and the response to that is who cares? I still can’t get to that point. Is it a slippery slope when it comes to instances of rape and the likes? Certainly. But I hope there can be a balance that takes the man into account especially if both parties decided going into it they were both prepared for the consequences of their actions and found any preparation they took sufficient.
And finally, the argument that I always found kind of silly is “well why don’t you care about the kids after they are born? Why don’t you support helping the mom more in xyz way? Why not force the father to in xyz way be more supportive? Why not adopt 5 kids and prove it” …To that I say, I DO support that and I do wish our government was more progressive in support. Now I know I am just one person and government figure heads / extremists may suck and wont take action in that way, but to say it’s mutually exclusive that people only support the unborn child and don’t give a shit after they are born is ridiculous.
To be transparent, I don’t think I will ever get over the belief that new life is created at conception. New life wouldn’t ever exist if not for starting somewhere. It’s not viable outside of the womb, sure, but a newborn baby would die too if not for being fed by the mother and taken care of after birth either. Anyways, a complete ban on abortions is not smart and can lead to scary situations and I have seen the light in that sense.
Thanks, and sorry for the long post. Not here to fight, but that’s what was on my mind when I decided to come back to this thread…
If you look a few posts back I definitely support a woman taking the fathers feelings into consideration.
I’m probably in the minority but I’m ok with assisted suicide and with the freedom to use drugs as long as you can keep it your thing without harming others in any way shape or form. Women don’t discuss their abortions, don’t admit to them. A woman can keep an abortion all to herself for the rest of her life…..are you starting to see this now as women see this? It’s not difficult, most of the men around here get it. I’m not seeing a lot of other women willing to discuss this which proves my point. It’s a thing that belongs only to that women…no one else is going to feel the same way about it….it’s a unique feeling to each individual. It’s truly for no one else to decide.
I’m more than willing to discuss this but my mind has been too muddled lately to articulate as I’d prefer. We’ll chalk it up to chemo brain 😛 But yes, it’s highly personal and in many cases, no one else’s business.
And, I’m totally with you on your drug and assisted suicide stances!
To be honest I have come a long way in my views on this. I guess you could say I am even pro-choice now at the end of the day.
Just a few thoughts that still circle in my mind on the topic though…
To the famous “My body, my choice” phrase, there has been and always will be governance over personal autonomy. Does the same sentiment follow suit with things like assisted suicide or decriminalizing all drugs for most people here? Or just pick and choose based on topic?
Also I still struggle with the idea that a man should have no say in any of this. Before you come for my head here, I get that the mother carries the burden in so many more ways for either deciding to carry or not, but in the end it took two consenting people in most cases, it just happens that biologically the female carries more of the burden. If both parties agreed that a condom was sufficient and you get unlucky, the man in the equation may want the child or may not and the response to that is who cares? I still can’t get to that point. Is it a slippery slope when it comes to instances of rape and the likes? Certainly. But I hope there can be a balance that takes the man into account especially if both parties decided going into it they were both prepared for the consequences of their actions and found any preparation they took sufficient.
And finally, the argument that I always found kind of silly is “well why don’t you care about the kids after they are born? Why don’t you support helping the mom more in xyz way? Why not force the father to in xyz way be more supportive? Why not adopt 5 kids and prove it” …To that I say, I DO support that and I do wish our government was more progressive in support. Now I know I am just one person and government figure heads / extremists may suck and wont take action in that way, but to say it’s mutually exclusive that people only support the unborn child and don’t give a shit after they are born is ridiculous.
To be transparent, I don’t think I will ever get over the belief that new life is created at conception. New life wouldn’t ever exist if not for starting somewhere. It’s not viable outside of the womb, sure, but a newborn baby would die too if not for being fed by the mother and taken care of after birth either. Anyways, a complete ban on abortions is not smart and can lead to scary situations and I have seen the light in that sense.
Thanks, and sorry for the long post. Not here to fight, but that’s what was on my mind when I decided to come back to this thread…
There is no other other instance where the government is attempting to force people to grow something inside their own bodies when they don't want to, so comparing abortion to drug use (which, as someone else pointed out, isn't actually illegal unless it endangers others, i.e. DUIs, performing surgery while high, etc). As for doctor assisted suicide... It is disgusting that this isn't legal in all states (it IS legal in several states). The government grants more rights to animals than they do humans when it comes to suffering.
As for the man having a say.... Yeah, sure, the man should have a say.... but when it comes to laws controlling what women grow inside their own bodies, at the end of the day men simply cannot have a say, and I don't think that = who cares? It = tough shit. Biology is indeed the determining factor, as that is what makes it so the woman has something growing in her, and therefore must have autonomy over it, no matter how much that might suck for the father of the fetus. And remember, that included BOTH sides of the coin. Plenty of men WANT women to have an abortion and she refuses. But I don't see anyone calling for men to be able to force a woman to have an abortion... but that would be ridiculous and inhumane to tell a woman to remove something growing inside of her own body. Well, same goes for forcing her to keep it in her against her will.
Glad you've come a long ways on this important issue!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I addressed that above....
Yeah, the fathers "should" have a say. But it is up to the woman at the end of the day anyhow, so the man having a say is legally and otherwise irrelevant. If the woman wants to change her mind because of what the man says, fine (although let's hope he hasn't manipulated her into that decision, or worse). But if not, tough shit.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.
These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that. No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.
One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.
The majority of Christian’s are for, and do use, contraceptives. And many who don’t, don’t care that you do. There just isn’t this big push to ban it, almost no one wants to.
It’s taken 50 years to not ban abortion, but to potentially reverse a ruling that would leave it up to the states. Why would something no one wants be banned in 10 years? It just doesn’t make sense to me that this is a logical fear. Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind.
1/2 of all pregnancies are unplanned. My hometown has 2 pharmacies and one won’t fill legal prescriptions for birth control. For a while there wasn’t a 2nd pharmacy. It’s been like that since I was a kid. It’s a big assumption to make that it’s easy to go somewhere else, not everyone can.
Access and affordability of contraception are issues even today. My wife has a cousins in New Jersey and she and her husband are both pharmacists and neither fills birth control. Obviously also not the morning after pill or other medications of that type.
I always said I was going to go to pharmacy school get a job as a pharmacist in a one pharmacy town and say “I’m a Christian scientist” all medications are against my religion so I can’t morally fill them for my customers. The only medication I believe in is prayer.
Something tells me I wouldn’t get away with not filling heart medication because of my religious views, but I could absolutely get away with it for birth control. Double standard? Absolutely
I’ve heard stories like that before, but believe they are uncommon or rare. I disagree with a pharmacist not filling medication for birth control. But that is also not the same as banning it. When people are saying a ban on contraceptives is next, I take that to mean all forms and will not be allowed to be sold. That is just never going to happen. That’s different than a pharmacist not filling a prescription. Laws protecting pharmacists from filling prescriptions they don’t want to does seem plausible, a full on ban does not. I’m also surprised there aren’t other means to get them, mail orders or anything. Not saying that makes it right. But if there were laws protecting pharmacists it would probably become easier to fill meds online too.
Here is an entirely plausible law.
Texas already has a law that refers parents who give their minor children access to gender affirmation care for possible prosecution for child abuse.
What’s stopping them from saying any girl under 18 years old can’t get birth control and any doctor or parent who seeks out the medication are guilty of abuse. most girls start the pill at 16. That’s a logical birth control target.
Some states could make birth control only available to married women. Why wouldn’t they? It goes along with basically everything else they have been saying and that’s how it use to be as unmarried women shouldn’t be having sex to begin with.
“In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of birth control. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut marked the beginning of an era of change for sexual and reproductive rights in the United States. Ruling that the states had no right to ban contraception for married couples, the landmark decision in the Griswold v. Connecticutcase established — for the first time — a constitutional right to privacy regarding reproductive decisions that paved the way for the legalization of birth control for unmarried couples, and ultimately, Roe v Wade and safe and legal abortion.”
That right to privacy IS the basis for Roe v Wade as well as many other court cases including birth control, a right that no longer exists
Make no mistake reproductive issues are more about controlling women than they are about pregnancy. As soon as women entered the workforce post WWII in large numbers men lost a lot of control,and they have been trying to get it back ever since. Women are more educated than men on the whole and it’s only a matter of time until they out earn men too. Keeping them taking care kids and making decisions about their bodies for them is about control. It’s 100 percent true that if men got pregnant we wouldn’t even be having this conversation
I was disappointed when that thread on the TX law got shut down, I was interested in having a conversation on that. I’ve been well aware of some impacts and mental health issues involved. But wasn’t too informed on the basis of medical treatments. What I learned from reading a little is that Texas law aligns with the WPATH (world professional association for transgendered health) guidelines. They recommend an age of at least 16 before introducing hormone therapy because how it impacts the body, can alter growth and so on. I don’t see a reason to be upset with laws that follow the guidelines set by the leading health organization in that area, unless there is reason to believe said organization has faulty data. But I haven’t seen that. Sp I don’t see that ad a comparison. It’s not like Texas made laws just willy nilly and random ages to discriminate. It was based on health recommendations from a leading organization. Therefore I can’t see that as justification that a state is just going to willy nilly make laws about birth control. If there is medical research about when it is safe to take birth control, then yes, maybe some states will have laws around that. And why is that bad, if it’s based on health recommendations from leading doctors?
The HPV vaccine is recommended at 13 for girls, that’s science. Before they are sexually active. Science plays no basis for any decisions most conservatives take on reproductive health, STD’s, or Transgender health care. As the religious right is convinced it “encourages sexual behaviour” if you are protected.
They will use science of it helps their position, but that’s not the same thing as basing a decision on science. In any case you are a minor until 18 in reference to gender affirming care. It’s putting the government directly between a family and their doctor. The state only does this on issues that affect these types of groups. In any other setting they believe in absolute parental rights. If you believe the state is enforcing this out of a genuine concern for transgender teens, you are sorely mistaken
when your kid is gay or transgender you know way earlier than that . All of these issues abortion, gay rights, transgender issues etc are connected and a targeted effort to deny rights to people who aren’t like them or who don’t believe what they believe. It’s an attack on multiple fronts at the same time, and it’s by design
Maybe the motives are bad, maybe not. The fact remains the law follows the guidelines of the leading health organization in the field. I’m not sure how you can argue against that. And these recommendations are not based on when they know they’re gay, it’s based on how their body is developing and how medications can negatively impact that. Can weaken bone structure and stunt growth for one. That was on the WPATH website for hormone treatment. There are other medications and controlled substances that are illegal to give to minors for similar reasons. So I’m failing to see how this opens the doors to bring back segregation, ban contraceptives, etc that some are claiming are coming next.
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
To be honest I have come a long way in my views on this. I guess you could say I am even pro-choice now at the end of the day.
Just a few thoughts that still circle in my mind on the topic though…
To the famous “My body, my choice” phrase, there has been and always will be governance over personal autonomy. Does the same sentiment follow suit with things like assisted suicide or decriminalizing all drugs for most people here? Or just pick and choose based on topic?
Also I still struggle with the idea that a man should have no say in any of this. Before you come for my head here, I get that the mother carries the burden in so many more ways for either deciding to carry or not, but in the end it took two consenting people in most cases, it just happens that biologically the female carries more of the burden. If both parties agreed that a condom was sufficient and you get unlucky, the man in the equation may want the child or may not and the response to that is who cares? I still can’t get to that point. Is it a slippery slope when it comes to instances of rape and the likes? Certainly. But I hope there can be a balance that takes the man into account especially if both parties decided going into it they were both prepared for the consequences of their actions and found any preparation they took sufficient.
And finally, the argument that I always found kind of silly is “well why don’t you care about the kids after they are born? Why don’t you support helping the mom more in xyz way? Why not force the father to in xyz way be more supportive? Why not adopt 5 kids and prove it” …To that I say, I DO support that and I do wish our government was more progressive in support. Now I know I am just one person and government figure heads / extremists may suck and wont take action in that way, but to say it’s mutually exclusive that people only support the unborn child and don’t give a shit after they are born is ridiculous.
To be transparent, I don’t think I will ever get over the belief that new life is created at conception. New life wouldn’t ever exist if not for starting somewhere. It’s not viable outside of the womb, sure, but a newborn baby would die too if not for being fed by the mother and taken care of after birth either. Anyways, a complete ban on abortions is not smart and can lead to scary situations and I have seen the light in that sense.
Thanks, and sorry for the long post. Not here to fight, but that’s what was on my mind when I decided to come back to this thread…
If you look a few posts back I definitely support a woman taking the fathers feelings into consideration.
I’m probably in the minority but I’m ok with assisted suicide and with the freedom to use drugs as long as you can keep it your thing without harming others in any way shape or form. Women don’t discuss their abortions, don’t admit to them. A woman can keep an abortion all to herself for the rest of her life…..are you starting to see this now as women see this? It’s not difficult, most of the men around here get it. I’m not seeing a lot of other women willing to discuss this which proves my point. It’s a thing that belongs only to that women…no one else is going to feel the same way about it….it’s a unique feeling to each individual. It’s truly for no one else to decide.
I’m more than willing to discuss this but my mind has been too muddled lately to articulate as I’d prefer. We’ll chalk it up to chemo brain 😛 But yes, it’s highly personal and in many cases, no one else’s business.
And, I’m totally with you on your drug and assisted suicide stances!
Hey you! I knew you’d feel the same way and I know you’d chime in for sure but you’re excused for quite awhile being as you’re the resident VIP/miracle woman! Hope all is going as well as it possibly can….rest, take care, be safe.
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
It all about the man’s money
men are all about “it’s my money” in a divorce, and they fight tooth and nail to keep what’s “theirs”, but then a woman saying “it’s my body and my choice what to do” and then all of a sudden it’s not fair she gets to decide on her own. If A man doesnt want the kid he shouldn’t have to pay for it or if he wants the kid then she has to keep it. Both are attempts to get to decide a course of action in a way that benefits the man.
I don’t know a single divorced man who believes their ex got a fair amount in a divorce even if it’s 50/50. To a man it’s she took “my money”. It’s never “our money”. I know a lot of divorced men so my observation pool is large.
It’s basically male psychology for a lot of men to think what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is also mine. The expectation of having a say is really an expectation they can decide what works best for them.
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
It all about the man’s money
men are all about “it’s my money” in a divorce, and they fight tooth and nail to keep what’s “theirs”, but then a woman saying “it’s my body and my choice what to do” and then all of a sudden it’s not fair? If I don’t want the kid I shouldn’t have to pay for it or if I want the kid then you have to keep it. Both are attempts to get to decide a course of action in a way that benefits the man.
I don’t know a single divorced man who believes their ex got a fair amount in a divorce even if it’s 50/50. To a man it’s she took “my money”. It’s never “our money”. I know a lot of divorced men so my observation pool is large.
It’s basically male psychology for a lot of men to think what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is also mine. The expectation of having a say is really an expectation they can decide what works best for them.
Yeah, you're totally right (yes guys, not all men. But most).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
It all about the man’s money
men are all about “it’s my money” in a divorce, and they fight tooth and nail to keep what’s “theirs”, but then a woman saying “it’s my body and my choice what to do” and then all of a sudden it’s not fair? If I don’t want the kid I shouldn’t have to pay for it or if I want the kid then you have to keep it. Both are attempts to get to decide a course of action in a way that benefits the man.
I don’t know a single divorced man who believes their ex got a fair amount in a divorce even if it’s 50/50. To a man it’s she took “my money”. It’s never “our money”. I know a lot of divorced men so my observation pool is large.
It’s basically male psychology for a lot of men to think what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is also mine. The expectation of having a say is really an expectation they can decide what works best for them.
Yeah, you're totally right (yes guys, not all men. But most).
I view myself as an enlightened male 🤣
male privilege is real and admitting it is important
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
and in those cases where a man was told the woman is on the pill but really isnt. what then in those cases?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
and in those cases where a man was told the woman is on the pill but really isnt. what then in those cases?
Then nothing, lol. He still decided to stick it in her. More fool him for just believing what someone says like that, hahaha. WHEN YOU STICK IT IN, YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE. Unless you had a vasectomy, in which case you have nothing to worry about. I mean, you ask that question... What if she says she's on birth control, is telling the truth, and is then the 1 out of 100 women who gets pregnant anyhow?? If you're not fixed, don't have sex, or it's your fault if you get stuck with a baby. Period.
My mind keeps going on this, lol.... Just thinking about if a woman just believed a guy when he said he's fixed, but then gets pregnant because he lied.... and then apparently some would think she has no legal responsibility for the baby she gives birth to... What a ridiculous idea.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
and in those cases where a man was told the woman is on the pill but really isnt. what then in those cases?
It’s your responsibility to protect yourself. Again it’s putting the responsibility on someone other than yourself. Condoms are for men, they should wear one
no birth control is 100 percent effective. That’s the risk in having sex. Taking a risk but then taking no responsibility for an outcome, that’s just wrong
-it’s her responsibility to ensure a pregnancy doesn’t happen.
-if she gets pregnant I should get to give up parental rights and financial responsibility if I don’t want it
-if I want it then she has to keep it even if she doesn’t want it.
which outcome benefits her? Not a single one. doesn’t anyone else see it?
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
and in those cases where a man was told the woman is on the pill but really isnt. what then in those cases?
Then nothing, lol. He still decided to stick it in her. More fool him for just believing what someone says like that, hahaha. WHEN YOU STICK IT IN, YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE. Unless you had a vasectomy, in which case you have nothing to worry about. I mean, you ask that question... What if she says she's on birth control, is telling the truth, and is then the 1 out of 100 women who gets pregnant anyhow?? If you're not fixed, don't have sex, or it's your fault if you get stuck with a baby. Period.
My mind keeps going on this, lol.... Just thinking about if a woman just believed a guy when he said he's fixed, but then gets pregnant because he lied.... and then apparently some would think she has no legal responsibility for the baby she gives birth to... What a ridiculous idea.
It's a man's job to support his pregnant partner/gf/one night stand in whichever decision she makes. Period. It's that simple. 95% of the time a woman carries the lifetime burden of that child. Unfortunately, there's too high a percentage of men that don't live up to their end of the bargain. Maybe it isn't 'fair' that it's ultimately a woman's decision, but she is the one that will carry, give birth, nurse, and in many cases be the full time care giver. Forever. Now certainly there's deadbeat moms out there, but I'm guessing a fraction of deadbeat dads. At the end of the day, it's not a 50/50 decision. Yes a woman should hear the father out in either side, but it's her decision.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,323
To be honest I have come a long way in my views on this. I guess you could say I am even pro-choice now at the end of the day.
Just a few thoughts that still circle in my mind on the topic though…
To the famous “My body, my choice” phrase, there has been and always will be governance over personal autonomy. Does the same sentiment follow suit with things like assisted suicide or decriminalizing all drugs for most people here? Or just pick and choose based on topic?
Also I still struggle with the idea that a man should have no say in any of this. Before you come for my head here, I get that the mother carries the burden in so many more ways for either deciding to carry or not, but in the end it took two consenting people in most cases, it just happens that biologically the female carries more of the burden. If both parties agreed that a condom was sufficient and you get unlucky, the man in the equation may want the child or may not and the response to that is who cares? I still can’t get to that point. Is it a slippery slope when it comes to instances of rape and the likes? Certainly. But I hope there can be a balance that takes the man into account especially if both parties decided going into it they were both prepared for the consequences of their actions and found any preparation they took sufficient.
And finally, the argument that I always found kind of silly is “well why don’t you care about the kids after they are born? Why don’t you support helping the mom more in xyz way? Why not force the father to in xyz way be more supportive? Why not adopt 5 kids and prove it” …To that I say, I DO support that and I do wish our government was more progressive in support. Now I know I am just one person and government figure heads / extremists may suck and wont take action in that way, but to say it’s mutually exclusive that people only support the unborn child and don’t give a shit after they are born is ridiculous.
To be transparent, I don’t think I will ever get over the belief that new life is created at conception. New life wouldn’t ever exist if not for starting somewhere. It’s not viable outside of the womb, sure, but a newborn baby would die too if not for being fed by the mother and taken care of after birth either. Anyways, a complete ban on abortions is not smart and can lead to scary situations and I have seen the light in that sense.
Thanks, and sorry for the long post. Not here to fight, but that’s what was on my mind when I decided to come back to this thread…
Some interesting points and questions there, D. Here's my take:
Abortion: Other means af avoiding unwanted pregnancy are always the best choice. But ultimately, a woman should have the choice to have an abortion.
Assisted suicide: I have found this to be a greatly misunderstood topic. I followed SB380, the California End of Life Option Act closely and gained a lot of insight from a professor I had worked with in the early 2000's. She was also very active in supporting this bill. I went with here to the state capitol to attend hearing on the bill. Once I understood the protections couched in this bill, I actually began to see it as rather compromised and weak, but it's better than nothing. The terrible pain and suffering this bill has prevented is huge. I would expand these measure and not put people through the extra grief, but like I said, it's better than nothing.
Decriminalizing all drugs: A strong affirmative. I belief it the pushers and big-time gangsters that need to be cracked down on, not the users. Again, this is a subject that is widely distorted by media and popular opinion. There would be far fewer addicts if drugs were legalized and recovery and sobriety programmed were made more available and well staffed.
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Well, here is one we can all agree on! The mayhem that kind of thing creates is great fun!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind.
Seems like a fear tactic when people like Swalwell tweet that out. And must be working if people think that is actually happening next.
banning something or further restring something that already has a history of being restricted in many ways isn’t an illogical leap to make especially because that’s already the reality in a lot of places today.
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx
I’m also surprised there aren’t other means to get them, mail orders or anything. Not saying that makes it right. But if there were laws protecting pharmacists it would probably become easier to fill meds online too.
“In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of birth control. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut marked the beginning of an era of change for sexual and reproductive rights in the United States. Ruling that the states had no right to ban contraception for married couples, the landmark decision in the Griswold v. Connecticutcase established — for the first time — a constitutional right to privacy regarding reproductive decisions that paved the way for the legalization of birth control for unmarried couples, and ultimately, Roe v Wade and safe and legal abortion.”
That right to privacy IS the basis for Roe v Wade as well as many other court cases including birth control, a right that no longer exists
Make no mistake reproductive issues are more about controlling women than they are about pregnancy. As soon as women entered the workforce post WWII in large numbers men lost a lot of control,and they have been trying to get it back ever since. Women are more educated than men on the whole and it’s only a matter of time until they out earn men too. Keeping them taking care kids and making decisions about their bodies for them is about control. It’s 100 percent true that if men got pregnant we wouldn’t even be having this conversation
Here's the other interesting thing that can work in the favor of D's. Remember this was a draft opinion from Feb. It may have been toned down already and who knows what the final will say. Perhaps it will only significantly reduce the right, who knows? The point is the D's get to campaign on the harshest language out there between now and election day. This gives a window into what Alito really thinks, regardless of the final opinion.
To the famous “My body, my choice” phrase, there has been and always will be governance over personal autonomy. Does the same sentiment follow suit with things like assisted suicide or decriminalizing all drugs for most people here? Or just pick and choose based on topic?
And finally, the argument that I always found kind of silly is “well why don’t you care about the kids after they are born? Why don’t you support helping the mom more in xyz way? Why not force the father to in xyz way be more supportive? Why not adopt 5 kids and prove it” …To that I say, I DO support that and I do wish our government was more progressive in support. Now I know I am just one person and government figure heads / extremists may suck and wont take action in that way, but to say it’s mutually exclusive that people only support the unborn child and don’t give a shit after they are born is ridiculous.
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
Regarding the welfare state, for several years in my youth, my manager was the archbishop of the local LDS community. They are adamantly pro life, based on the fundamental doctrine of their Church. And that was always a bone with me, forcing women to bear children and then they're on their own. I give the LDS community a lot of credit as they have tremendous support networks for their tribe. The rest of the pro life community comes nowhere near them.
Sp I don’t see that ad a comparison. It’s not like Texas made laws just willy nilly and random ages to discriminate. It was based on health recommendations from a leading organization. Therefore I can’t see that as justification that a state is just going to willy nilly make laws about birth control.
If there is medical research about when it is safe to take birth control, then yes, maybe some states will have laws around that. And why is that bad, if it’s based on health recommendations from leading doctors?
when your kid is gay or transgender you know way earlier than that . All of these issues abortion, gay rights, transgender issues etc are connected and a targeted effort to deny rights to people who aren’t like them or who don’t believe what they believe. It’s an attack on multiple fronts at the same time, and it’s by design
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
And these recommendations are not based on when they know they’re gay, it’s based on how their body is developing and how medications can negatively impact that. Can weaken bone structure and stunt growth for one. That was on the WPATH website for hormone treatment.
There are other medications and controlled substances that are illegal to give to minors for similar reasons. So I’m failing to see how this opens the doors to bring back segregation, ban contraceptives, etc that some are claiming are coming next.
men are all about “it’s my money” in a divorce, and they fight tooth and nail to keep what’s “theirs”, but then a woman saying “it’s my body and my choice what to do” and then all of a sudden it’s not fair she gets to decide on her own. If A man doesnt want the kid he shouldn’t have to pay for it or if he wants the kid then she has to keep it. Both are attempts to get to decide a course of action in a way that benefits the man.
male privilege is real and admitting it is important
and in those cases where a man was told the woman is on the pill but really isnt. what then in those cases?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
no birth control is 100 percent effective. That’s the risk in having sex. Taking a risk but then taking no responsibility for an outcome, that’s just wrong
-it’s her responsibility to ensure a pregnancy doesn’t happen.
-if she gets pregnant I should get to give up parental rights and financial responsibility if I don’t want it
-if I want it then she has to keep it even if she doesn’t want it.
which outcome benefits her? Not a single one.
doesn’t anyone else see it?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"