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
its a little wordy but the alternative is I am Pro-noneofmyfuckingbusinessunlessIamdirectlyinvolvedeventhenasamanmyinputislimited
Your alternative should be practiced by more men, as it is spot on.
in another lifetime, I was recently discharged from usn due to alcoholism. back home living on a married buddys couch , "seeing" this woman. was dismissive of her and hating myself and what passed for my life. One night she made something very clear that stuck with me and shaped my stance in this. fuck, 35 years ago.
She said, if she happened to get pregnant while seeing me, she wouldnt tell me. she would just abort.
sitting on that for a time, I understood. The person she knew was in no way a potential father. I was barely a human being ffs.
I came to the conclusion that even if I was a party to a pregnancy the most I could hope for was input and that the final decision was not mine to make or really be a part of.
being well on the other side of that and how and who I was then, I am grateful I never had kids along the way. wouldnt have been fair to the mother and the child(ren) .
Still in the face of everything that came after , I understood my place in such a situation. that understanding is as firm as ever.
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
19 yrs sober come April. In a profession I wanted since I'm a kid (trucking). A wife who likes it that I'm home every day and laughs at my goofy ass jokes and a dog that cant wait to see me.
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
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
its a little wordy but the alternative is I am Pro-noneofmyfuckingbusinessunlessIamdirectlyinvolvedeventhenasamanmyinputislimited
Your alternative should be practiced by more men, as it is spot on.
in another lifetime, I was recently discharged from usn due to alcoholism. back home living on a married buddys couch , "seeing" this woman. was dismissive of her and hating myself and what passed for my life. One night she made something very clear that stuck with me and shaped my stance in this. fuck, 35 years ago.
She said, if she happened to get pregnant while seeing me, she wouldnt tell me. she would just abort.
sitting on that for a time, I understood. The person she knew was in no way a potential father. I was barely a human being ffs.
I came to the conclusion that even if I was a party to a pregnancy the most I could hope for was input and that the final decision was not mine to make or really be a part of.
being well on the other side of that and how and who I was then, I am grateful I never had kids along the way. wouldnt have been fair to the mother and the child(ren) .
Still in the face of everything that came after , I understood my place in such a situation. that understanding is as firm as ever.
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
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
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
Yea, they’re not weird. Not at all. But all women should be like this. Don’t wanna be replaced, dontcha know?
The Collins family, from left: Titan Invictus, Simone, Industry Americus, Malcolm, Torsten Savage and Octavian George play around in their backyard after gathering for a portrait in Audubon, Pennsylvania, on Dec. 28. (Rachel Wisniewski for The Washington Post)
It’s a new year, which, for Simone Collins, means a new pregnancy.
This will be her sixth pregnancy since 2019, and, if all goes well, Collins will bear her fifth child by December. She approaches each the way an endurance athlete does a marathon. She and her husband, Malcolm, have waited exactly nine months since the birth of their last child, Industry Americus (“Indy” for short), to give Simone’s body adequate time to recover.
She goes through a barrage of exams, starting with a hysteroscopy and a uterine biopsy to “get the lay of the land,” and “very detailed” bloodwork. She will take the hormone medication necessary for transferring a frozen embryo into her uterus. At home, she exercises, walking for hours on a compact treadmill she keeps at her desk, and “eats really well”: plain yogurt, no added sugar; hard-boiled eggs; a “slurry” of blended vegetables.
When it’s time to give birth, Simone will have a Caesarean section — because of complications that arose when she delivered her first child, Octavian George, all of the births have been C-sections. With each surgery, the risk of future complications — including death — increases. But Simone, 37, wants to do this at least three more times — ideally as many as 10. They have 32 embryos left.
“I’m happy to die in labor,” Simone said in early January, fresh out of the fertility clinic. That’s because, for Malcolm and Simone Collins, a large family isn’t just a personal preference; as pronatalists, they believe that bearing as many children as possible is what’s necessary to avoid an apocalyptic future.
“It’s objectively dangerous what she’s doing,” said Malcolm, 38, steering their car toward home. “When she says she’s a pronatalist, she’s putting her life on the line in service of her belief system.”
for those that don’t want to click the link, here’s the premise:
a woman has a son. Son is now 23. Goes into kidney failure. His mom is the only viable match. There is no law in any state in the US that compels her to give him that kidney to save his life. Even if she were to die, she STILL has autonomy over her own kidneys. Even if it means her son dies.
REPUBLICANS WANT MORE BODILY AUTONOMY FOR A CORPSE THAN TO PREGNANT WOMEN.
TELL ME AGAIN HOW IT’S ACTUALLY ABOUT THE LIFE OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND NOT CONTROL OVER WOMEN.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
The Supreme Court has declined to consider overturning a 25-year-old precedent that upheld "buffer zone" laws — limiting how close protesters can get to abortion clinic entrances.
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
MONTANA REPUBLICANS WANT TO PROHIBIT WOMEN FROM TRAVELING FOR ABORTIONS, CHARGE THEM WITH ‘ABORTION TRAFFICKING’
A new bill in the Montana Legislature would prohibit “abortion trafficking,” with criminal penalties for anyone who assists a pregnant woman in receiving an abortion even if outside the state. ⬇️
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
Under a new GOP bill, nearly all Missouri households — except those with the highest incomes — could fully satisfy their state income tax bill by redirecting their payment from the state to anti-abortion centers.
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
New Justice Department leaders say past enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is "the prototypical example" of what they call "the weaponization of law enforcement."
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
for those that don’t want to click the link, here’s the premise:
a woman has a son. Son is now 23. Goes into kidney failure. His mom is the only viable match. There is no law in any state in the US that compels her to give him that kidney to save his life. Even if she were to die, she STILL has autonomy over her own kidneys. Even if it means her son dies.
REPUBLICANS WANT MORE BODILY AUTONOMY FOR A CORPSE THAN TO PREGNANT WOMEN.
TELL ME AGAIN HOW IT’S ACTUALLY ABOUT THE LIFE OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND NOT CONTROL OVER WOMEN.
I can't click on the link while at work. But I'm trying to understand this. You want there to be laws that require people to be donors? And giving a woman that freedom not to donate, even to her own son after she dies, is controlling the woman? I'm an organ donor, and I think everyone should be. But I don't think it should be law. And I don't see how allowing the woman to chose to not be a donor is an attempt to control women? I know you're connecting it to abortion. But I just don't see the link. Forcing her to donate her kidneys would fit your argument. I know you're saying if it was about life, then people would be forced to be donors. I just don't see that as a comparison.
for those that don’t want to click the link, here’s the premise:
a woman has a son. Son is now 23. Goes into kidney failure. His mom is the only viable match. There is no law in any state in the US that compels her to give him that kidney to save his life. Even if she were to die, she STILL has autonomy over her own kidneys. Even if it means her son dies.
REPUBLICANS WANT MORE BODILY AUTONOMY FOR A CORPSE THAN TO PREGNANT WOMEN.
TELL ME AGAIN HOW IT’S ACTUALLY ABOUT THE LIFE OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND NOT CONTROL OVER WOMEN.
I can't click on the link while at work. But I'm trying to understand this. You want there to be laws that require people to be donors? And giving a woman that freedom not to donate, even to her own son after she dies, is controlling the woman? I'm an organ donor, and I think everyone should be. But I don't think it should be law. And I don't see how allowing the woman to chose to not be a donor is an attempt to control women? I know you're connecting it to abortion. But I just don't see the link. Forcing her to donate her kidneys would fit your argument. I know you're saying if it was about life, then people would be forced to be donors. I just don't see that as a comparison.
the point is she is under no legal obligation to keep her son alive via donation YET is forced to give birth.
in effect allowing for power over the death of one circumstance but not the other.
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
for those that don’t want to click the link, here’s the premise:
a woman has a son. Son is now 23. Goes into kidney failure. His mom is the only viable match. There is no law in any state in the US that compels her to give him that kidney to save his life. Even if she were to die, she STILL has autonomy over her own kidneys. Even if it means her son dies.
REPUBLICANS WANT MORE BODILY AUTONOMY FOR A CORPSE THAN TO PREGNANT WOMEN.
TELL ME AGAIN HOW IT’S ACTUALLY ABOUT THE LIFE OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND NOT CONTROL OVER WOMEN.
I can't click on the link while at work. But I'm trying to understand this. You want there to be laws that require people to be donors? And giving a woman that freedom not to donate, even to her own son after she dies, is controlling the woman? I'm an organ donor, and I think everyone should be. But I don't think it should be law. And I don't see how allowing the woman to chose to not be a donor is an attempt to control women? I know you're connecting it to abortion. But I just don't see the link. Forcing her to donate her kidneys would fit your argument. I know you're saying if it was about life, then people would be forced to be donors. I just don't see that as a comparison.
The opposite. The mother is allowed to choose (even after death) in one situation but not the other, even when her life is in danger.
That’s why it’s not about life of s child, it’s about control of women. If it was about life, R’s would have made organ donorship mandatory under the law.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
for those that don’t want to click the link, here’s the premise:
a woman has a son. Son is now 23. Goes into kidney failure. His mom is the only viable match. There is no law in any state in the US that compels her to give him that kidney to save his life. Even if she were to die, she STILL has autonomy over her own kidneys. Even if it means her son dies.
REPUBLICANS WANT MORE BODILY AUTONOMY FOR A CORPSE THAN TO PREGNANT WOMEN.
TELL ME AGAIN HOW IT’S ACTUALLY ABOUT THE LIFE OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND NOT CONTROL OVER WOMEN.
I can't click on the link while at work. But I'm trying to understand this. You want there to be laws that require people to be donors? And giving a woman that freedom not to donate, even to her own son after she dies, is controlling the woman? I'm an organ donor, and I think everyone should be. But I don't think it should be law. And I don't see how allowing the woman to chose to not be a donor is an attempt to control women? I know you're connecting it to abortion. But I just don't see the link. Forcing her to donate her kidneys would fit your argument. I know you're saying if it was about life, then people would be forced to be donors. I just don't see that as a comparison.
The opposite. The mother is allowed to choose (even after death) in one situation but not the other, even when her life is in danger.
That’s why it’s not about life of s child, it’s about control of women. If it was about life, R’s would have made organ donorship mandatory under the law.
I do believe there are exceptions in the states with abortions bans that include when the life of the mother is in danger. Almost no one wants a zero exception abortion ban, especially when the mother's life is in danger. So she would not be forced to give up her life in order to give birth. Just like she wouldn't be forced to give up her kidneys after death.
edit -I just google'd what state has the most strict abortion laws, and it cam back Idaho, but they have exceptions for rape, incest and medical emergencies
Mandatory organ donorship seems very extreme.
The majority of pro-lifers are for exceptions. While there are no-exceptions groups out there, that is not what most people want. At the very least the life of the mother, but also cases of incest, rape and sometimes disabilities. I've also mentioned this before, the breakdown of men to women who are pro-life is pretty close to 50/50, so I don't see it as a control. When I mentioned that before, the response was these women are just brainwashed by their husbands. But I don't buy that, it's not going to be 50/50 if it's about gender.
K, don’t focus on that one “even when life is in danger” part. The rest applies.
Tell me honestly: do you REALLY believe that if men gave birth, this would be legislated, or even discussed?
I’d wager 99% of the people writing the legislation are male. And as we’ve witnessed this election, many people voted because they were for his policies until they realized it affected them. I’d also wager most of that 50% of pro birthers are affluent white women who, when daughter Gretchen is suddenly in a “bind”, she quietly goes on a solo vacation, probably “backpacking somewhere in the Andes (AKA shipped off to a blue state for a discreet “procedure”). And the rest who don’t fit that category are imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else.
Post edited by HughFreakingDillon on
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
K, don’t focus on that one “even when life is in danger” part. The rest applies.
Tell me honestly: do you REALLY believe that if men gave birth, this would be legislated, or even discussed?
I’d wager 99% of the people writing the legislation are male. And as we’ve witnessed this election, many people voted because they were for his policies until they realized it affected them. I’d also wager most of that 50% of pro birthers are affluent white women who, when daughter Gretchen is suddenly in a “bind”, she quietly goes on a solo vacation, probably “backpacking somewhere in the Andes (AKA shipped off to a blue state for a discreet “procedure”). And the rest who don’t fit that category are imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else.
Yes, I actually believe that first part. A large portion of them anyway. Because, again, how do you get 50/50 men to women supporting it if it was about men controlling women? There isn't much of a point in arguing a hypothetical, as neither of us can prove our point. But the 50/50 breakdown is a big reason I believe that, I can't explain it otherwise.
I'm sure your Gretchen scenario isn't uncommon. Hypocrites are everywhere. Some of the biggest pro-earthers fly private jets too and have multiple mansions. It's nature to want to be the exceptionn when it applies to you. But I've always seen abortion different than a men controlling women issue. It's about what right outweighs the other? The right to life or the right to choose? 90% of the time (yes, before anyone asks, I arbitrarily made up that stat) that's what its about. Pro life doesn't mean you want to restrict women's right, but that you believe the right to life outweighs that. Some people believe that right is cemented at conception, some at 10 or 12 weeks, some when there's a heart beat, some at viability, and some never at all until it's born. For me, I believe that right should exist at viability, about 22 weeks. With exceptions for health. What's the difference if it's inside or outside the womb, if it is able to survive? Some states have created strict requirements for abortion, and I get why there is issue with that. But some states have almost zero restrictions, and I get why that upsets others as well. I have no problem banning abortions at 34 weeks without medical reasons. I doubt that is happening very often either. But just because it is rare doesn't mean there can't be laws about it.
If pro-birthers gave a single fuck about life, they’d be the first ones supporting the underprivileged kids all over the country. You know, what their savior teaches them to do. Instead, they cut lunch programs and purposely increase the wealth gap.
Believe it or not, many conservative women believe their place is in the kitchen and vessels for their man.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
If pro-birthers gave a single fuck about life, they’d be the first ones supporting the underprivileged kids all over the country. You know, what their savior teaches them to do. Instead, they cut lunch programs and purposely increase the wealth gap.
Believe it or not, many conservative women believe their place is in the kitchen and vessels for their man.
I'm sure plenty of women believe that, but not nearly as many who consider themselves pro-choice. What school lunch programs are you referring to? The one I've been hearing about recently is reducing the schools that give free lunch to the entire school. Currently, if 25% of the school or more qualifies for free lunch, then the whole school gets free lunch. That was lowered from 40% a few years ago. We've enjoyed that the last few years as my kids' school, as well as about half in their district, qualify for free lunch. SO instead of making them lunch every day, they eat at school for free. But I also think it's a little excessive. They want to raise the requirement to 60% of the school. Kids can still get their free lunch if they qualify, it just won't be the entire school unless 60% or more qualify. Nothing about that seems unreasonable to me. But the headlines I keep seeing are "Trump wants to take away free lunch from 2 million school aged children." While that is true, those 2 million don't qualify for a free lunch program, and are like my kids, and attend a school where only 1 in 4 kids qualify. No one wants to take away from this kids who qualify, just make the parents who can, like myself, feed their own kids. It's a huge cost and unnecessary. And very few countries in the world have a broader free lunch program, but yet we're getting slammed for already doing more than what should be expected in my opinion.
If pro-birthers gave a single fuck about life, they’d be the first ones supporting the underprivileged kids all over the country. You know, what their savior teaches them to do. Instead, they cut lunch programs and purposely increase the wealth gap.
Forced birth will also increase the wealth gap, but pay no attention to that... wealthy conservatives are definitely concerned about the sanctity of life here.
If pro-birthers gave a single fuck about life, they’d be the first ones supporting the underprivileged kids all over the country. You know, what their savior teaches them to do. Instead, they cut lunch programs and purposely increase the wealth gap.
Forced birth will also increase the wealth gap, but pay no attention to that... wealthy conservatives are definitely concerned about the sanctity of life here.
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
If a lower class family in a red state struggling to make ends meet has an accidental pregnancy that they can't afford? Tough shit, you're having that baby.
If a middle class family in a red state just starting to get ahead in life has an accidental pregnancy? Tough shit, you're having that baby.
Upper class family in a red state has an accidental pregnancy? NP, it's off to a blue state to get it taken care of.
Win / win for the upper class. They maintain their status quo & continue to get ahead while everyone else suffers... it's the American way.
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
" the administration asked on Tuesday to participate in Supreme Court arguments alongside South Carolina in a case about whether states can exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs, even for non-abortion services. South Carolina seeks to disqualify any abortion provider from Medicaid because it claims that “payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion.” Arguments are on April 2. If the Supreme Court sides with the state, it would mean people with Medicaid can’t use their insurance at Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers, which would decimate people’s access to affordable birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and more. "
Meanwhile people genuinely think the government is targeting transgenders in the interest of safety for our girls and women.
Comments
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
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
Hope you're doing well! ✌️
1996; 9/28 New York
1997: 11/14 Oakland, 11/15 Oakland
1998: 7/5 Dallas, 7/7 Albuquerque, 7/8 Phoenix, 7/10 San Diego, 7/11 Las Vegas
2000: 10/17 Dallas
2003: 4/3 OKC
2012: 11/17 Tulsa(EV), 11/18 Tulsa(EV)
2013: 11/16 OKC
2014: 10/8 Tulsa
2022: 9/20 OKC
2023: 9/13 Ft Worth, 9/15 Ft Worth
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
1996; 9/28 New York
1997: 11/14 Oakland, 11/15 Oakland
1998: 7/5 Dallas, 7/7 Albuquerque, 7/8 Phoenix, 7/10 San Diego, 7/11 Las Vegas
2000: 10/17 Dallas
2003: 4/3 OKC
2012: 11/17 Tulsa(EV), 11/18 Tulsa(EV)
2013: 11/16 OKC
2014: 10/8 Tulsa
2022: 9/20 OKC
2023: 9/13 Ft Worth, 9/15 Ft Worth
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
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
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
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
AUDUBON, Pa.
It’s a new year, which, for Simone Collins, means a new pregnancy.
This will be her sixth pregnancy since 2019, and, if all goes well, Collins will bear her fifth child by December. She approaches each the way an endurance athlete does a marathon. She and her husband, Malcolm, have waited exactly nine months since the birth of their last child, Industry Americus (“Indy” for short), to give Simone’s body adequate time to recover.
She goes through a barrage of exams, starting with a hysteroscopy and a uterine biopsy to “get the lay of the land,” and “very detailed” bloodwork. She will take the hormone medication necessary for transferring a frozen embryo into her uterus. At home, she exercises, walking for hours on a compact treadmill she keeps at her desk, and “eats really well”: plain yogurt, no added sugar; hard-boiled eggs; a “slurry” of blended vegetables.
When it’s time to give birth, Simone will have a Caesarean section — because of complications that arose when she delivered her first child, Octavian George, all of the births have been C-sections. With each surgery, the risk of future complications — including death — increases. But Simone, 37, wants to do this at least three more times — ideally as many as 10. They have 32 embryos left.
“I’m happy to die in labor,” Simone said in early January, fresh out of the fertility clinic. That’s because, for Malcolm and Simone Collins, a large family isn’t just a personal preference; as pronatalists, they believe that bearing as many children as possible is what’s necessary to avoid an apocalyptic future.
“It’s objectively dangerous what she’s doing,” said Malcolm, 38, steering their car toward home. “When she says she’s a pronatalist, she’s putting her life on the line in service of her belief system.”
Continues
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/of-interest/2025/02/01/malcolm-and-simone-collins-pronatalism/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.instagram.com/p/DGOxbJ8NBDo/?igsh=MWV4d2tqeHRzNHQwNA==
for those that don’t want to click the link, here’s the premise:
a woman has a son. Son is now 23. Goes into kidney failure. His mom is the only viable match. There is no law in any state in the US that compels her to give him that kidney to save his life. Even if she were to die, she STILL has autonomy over her own kidneys. Even if it means her son dies.
TELL ME AGAIN HOW IT’S ACTUALLY ABOUT THE LIFE OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND NOT CONTROL OVER WOMEN.
-EV 8/14/93
The Supreme Court has declined to consider overturning a 25-year-old precedent that upheld "buffer zone" laws — limiting how close protesters can get to abortion clinic entrances.
It's a serious setback for abortion opponents.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-challenges-abortion-clinic-buffer-zone-laws-rest-rcna180658
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
A new bill in the Montana Legislature would prohibit “abortion trafficking,” with criminal penalties for anyone who assists a pregnant woman in receiving an abortion even if outside the state. ⬇️
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
Read the full story: https://propub.li/43shxYW
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
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
But I'm trying to understand this. You want there to be laws that require people to be donors? And giving a woman that freedom not to donate, even to her own son after she dies, is controlling the woman?
I'm an organ donor, and I think everyone should be. But I don't think it should be law. And I don't see how allowing the woman to chose to not be a donor is an attempt to control women?
I know you're connecting it to abortion. But I just don't see the link. Forcing her to donate her kidneys would fit your argument.
I know you're saying if it was about life, then people would be forced to be donors. I just don't see that as a comparison.
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
-EV 8/14/93
edit -I just google'd what state has the most strict abortion laws, and it cam back Idaho, but they have exceptions for rape, incest and medical emergencies
Mandatory organ donorship seems very extreme.
The majority of pro-lifers are for exceptions. While there are no-exceptions groups out there, that is not what most people want. At the very least the life of the mother, but also cases of incest, rape and sometimes disabilities. I've also mentioned this before, the breakdown of men to women who are pro-life is pretty close to 50/50, so I don't see it as a control. When I mentioned that before, the response was these women are just brainwashed by their husbands. But I don't buy that, it's not going to be 50/50 if it's about gender.
-EV 8/14/93
There isn't much of a point in arguing a hypothetical, as neither of us can prove our point. But the 50/50 breakdown is a big reason I believe that, I can't explain it otherwise.
I'm sure your Gretchen scenario isn't uncommon. Hypocrites are everywhere. Some of the biggest pro-earthers fly private jets too and have multiple mansions. It's nature to want to be the exceptionn when it applies to you.
But I've always seen abortion different than a men controlling women issue.
It's about what right outweighs the other? The right to life or the right to choose? 90% of the time (yes, before anyone asks, I arbitrarily made up that stat) that's what its about. Pro life doesn't mean you want to restrict women's right, but that you believe the right to life outweighs that.
Some people believe that right is cemented at conception, some at 10 or 12 weeks, some when there's a heart beat, some at viability, and some never at all until it's born.
For me, I believe that right should exist at viability, about 22 weeks. With exceptions for health. What's the difference if it's inside or outside the womb, if it is able to survive?
Some states have created strict requirements for abortion, and I get why there is issue with that. But some states have almost zero restrictions, and I get why that upsets others as well. I have no problem banning abortions at 34 weeks without medical reasons. I doubt that is happening very often either. But just because it is rare doesn't mean there can't be laws about it.
-EV 8/14/93
What school lunch programs are you referring to?
The one I've been hearing about recently is reducing the schools that give free lunch to the entire school. Currently, if 25% of the school or more qualifies for free lunch, then the whole school gets free lunch. That was lowered from 40% a few years ago. We've enjoyed that the last few years as my kids' school, as well as about half in their district, qualify for free lunch. SO instead of making them lunch every day, they eat at school for free. But I also think it's a little excessive. They want to raise the requirement to 60% of the school. Kids can still get their free lunch if they qualify, it just won't be the entire school unless 60% or more qualify. Nothing about that seems unreasonable to me. But the headlines I keep seeing are "Trump wants to take away free lunch from 2 million school aged children." While that is true, those 2 million don't qualify for a free lunch program, and are like my kids, and attend a school where only 1 in 4 kids qualify. No one wants to take away from this kids who qualify, just make the parents who can, like myself, feed their own kids.
It's a huge cost and unnecessary. And very few countries in the world have a broader free lunch program, but yet we're getting slammed for already doing more than what should be expected in my opinion.
need workers, the younger the better..
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
If a middle class family in a red state just starting to get ahead in life has an accidental pregnancy? Tough shit, you're having that baby.
Upper class family in a red state has an accidental pregnancy? NP, it's off to a blue state to get it taken care of.
Win / win for the upper class. They maintain their status quo & continue to get ahead while everyone else suffers... it's the American way.
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
" the administration asked on Tuesday to participate in Supreme Court arguments alongside South Carolina in a case about whether states can exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs, even for non-abortion services. South Carolina seeks to disqualify any abortion provider from Medicaid because it claims that “payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion.” Arguments are on April 2. If the Supreme Court sides with the state, it would mean people with Medicaid can’t use their insurance at Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers, which would decimate people’s access to affordable birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and more. "
Meanwhile people genuinely think the government is targeting transgenders in the interest of safety for our girls and women.