Overturning Roe v Wade?

[djAdvocate]

May 6, 2022 12:49:05 GMT -5 Icelandic Woman said:

agnosticism is not atheism either.
but i will be damned if i don't get lumped in with "them"
by FANATICAL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.

[billisonboard]

May 6, 2022 15:00:45 GMT -5 justme said:

May 6, 2022 11:28:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Thank you for the info on the requirement for father consent.

Sounds like you see a national registry of all male DNA as an easier sell than a no cost to individual mother process. Considering that DNA data can also be used in multiple ways, I see it as far less likely to be done.

I think it'd be far easier to convince them that the DNA won't be a concern for them because their good Christian folk that believe what they say and do what they say them convince them to "give money" to "slut" women who "opened their legs" to the wrong man and should take personal responsibility for their choices (while ignoring that abortion is a form of said responsibility) including financial cost.

Which is more likely to get the anti-abortionists to rally behind:

DNA registration so we can hold those that have indiscriminate sex responsible for their actions!

Or

Let's make it child support cases free so single unwed mothers can track down their one night stand.


I don't think either are likely, but I think the registry could be easily spun to line up with their ideals where actually supporting the babies they're forcing to be birthed is an utter pipe dream.

What DNA can tell us the government as well as parenthood.

[kadee79]

Here is one woman's opinion which is the absolute truth....
You need to click on the tweet to read the rest of her comments.....

[billisonboard]

May 6, 2022 21:58:54 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

Here is one woman's opinion which is the absolute truth....
You need to click on the tweet to read the rest of her comments.....

It isn't the absolute truth. Here is at least one reason why:

When used correctly every time you have sex, male condoms are 98% effective. This means 2 out of 100 people will become pregnant in 1 year when male condoms are used as contraception. link

[justme]

May 6, 2022 22:30:01 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 6, 2022 21:58:54 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

Here is one woman's opinion which is the absolute truth....
You need to click on the tweet to read the rest of her comments.....

It isn't the absolute truth. Here is at least one reason why:

When used correctly every time you have sex, male condoms are 98% effective. This means 2 out of 100 people will become pregnant in 1 year when male condoms are used as contraception. link

Probably shouldn't use facts that require thousands of humans to all be 100% perfect every time.

[justme]

I both cackled and groaned. It was a weird sound.

[billisonboard]

May 6, 2022 23:46:28 GMT -5 justme said:

May 6, 2022 22:30:01 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

It isn't the absolute truth. Here is at least one reason why:

When used correctly every time you have sex, male condoms are 98% effective. This means 2 out of 100 people will become pregnant in 1 year when male condoms are used as contraception. link

Probably shouldn't use facts that require thousands of humans to all be 100% perfect every time.

Yes but if I use the 85% effective it allows for "men intentionally misuse them". This number effectively counters:

"But ALL unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men." link

Thus the Twitter posting is not absolutely true.

[justme]

May 7, 2022 0:03:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 6, 2022 23:46:28 GMT -5 justme said:

Probably shouldn't use facts that require thousands of humans to all be 100% perfect every time.

Yes but if I use the 85% effective it allows for "men intentionally misuse them". This number effectively counters:

"But ALL unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men." link

Thus the Twitter posting is not absolutely true.

Some do. Some are just human.

I don't fully agree with the supposition that men are 100% responsible for all unwanted pregnancies. I think the point was more to turn society's long held stance of blaming women on its head.

But I also don't disagree with the idea that given men can impregnate essentially limitless women in a calendar year and women can only be pregnant once (given the idea of this thread of outlawing abortion) unless there's fortuitous timing (and frankly an asshole partner that won't let you heal) - the bang for your buck would be in restricting men.

It's kind of (forgive the 1am analogy) akin to wanting to do something about the insect population and deciding to leave the mosquitoes alone and instead focus on the locus that come once a year.

[teen persuasion]

May 7, 2022 0:03:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 6, 2022 23:46:28 GMT -5 justme said:

Probably shouldn't use facts that require thousands of humans to all be 100% perfect every time.

Yes but if I use the 85% effective it allows for "men intentionally misuse them". This number effectively counters:

"But ALL unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men." link

Thus the Twitter posting is not absolutely true.

I think this is an important idea to dissect.

If I remove a few modifiers, we have the statement:
"All pregnancies are caused by the ejaculations of men."

I believe this can be taken as a true statement.

Unwanted pregnancies would be a subset of all pregnancies, so returning that modifier to the statement does not affect its status as true.
"All unwanted pregnancies are caused by the ejaculations of men."

Thus, your objection must be to the modifier "irresponsible".

The arguments you've used against the truth of the Twitter post statement revolve around the effectiveness of condoms.  I can only presume you are trying to argue that those using condoms are "responsible", vs others who do not are in the "irresponsible" subset.  So your argument is that even some "responsible" condom users have contraceptive failure (either 2% or 15%) which result in unwanted pregnancies.

However, I don't believe that is the intended interpretation in the Twitter thread.  I believe "irresponsible ejaculations" there means any ejaculations into a female body, given the discussions of pull out as another option, and distinguishing that female orgasms are unrelated to pregnancy.  Further, remember that the thread began with discussion of female contraception and its issues/drawbacks, so the assumption appears to be that contraception use WOULD be expected.  This is a large part of the abortion choice debate - even using contraception perfectly, unwanted pregnancies occur at some rate - is abortion an acceptable way to deal with them?

[billisonboard]

May 7, 2022 0:19:13 GMT -5 justme said:

May 7, 2022 0:03:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Yes but if I use the 85% effective it allows for "men intentionally misuse them". This number effectively counters:

"But ALL unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men." link

Thus the Twitter posting is not absolutely true.

Some do. Some are just human.

I don't fully agree with the supposition that men are 100% responsible for all unwanted pregnancies. I think the point was more to turn society's long held stance of blaming women on its head.

But I also don't disagree with the idea that given men can impregnate essentially limitless women in a calendar year and women can only be pregnant once (given the idea of this thread of outlawing abortion) unless there's fortuitous timing (and frankly an asshole partner that won't let you heal) - the bang for your buck would be in restricting men.

It's kind of (forgive the 1am analogy) akin to wanting to do something about the insect population and deciding to leave the mosquitoes alone and instead focus on the locus that come once a year.

What is the point of the tweet?

I've been listening to men grandstand about women's reproductive rights, and I'm convinced men actually have zero interest in stopping abortion. Here's why…

In listening to some men talk, I am convinced that some men are totally invested in ending abortion. So it is of to an interesting start.

I think men do need to take vastly more responsibility to prevent pregnancy in situations they are personally involved. Not sure what is meant by "restricting men". I support better efforts at education, research and development of male contraception that is not stopped until it is on the market (with risks equal to female contraception), and a strong push to encourage vasectomy (I personally did my part to ensure I prevented any unwanted pregnancies shortly after the born of my second child).

My 7am/only one cup of coffee analogy might not be better but here it goes: it is akin to wanting to do something about the mosquito population by killing any that land on you but not doing anything to drain the swamp in which they breed. We need to do a hell of a lot of work to create a healthy society in area of sexuality.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

But Republicans aren't interested in sexual education and actual reproductive choice and responsibility.

They are about punishment and control. Of women.

Even though the tweet is accurate. I can't get pregnant unless my partner shoots his load.

But nobody is proposing that we limit men's ability to ejaculated. Nobody is proposing men face jail time for refusing to take responsibility for their half of causing an unwanted pregnancy.

Could you imagine a Republican senator being hauled off to jail after getting his mistress knocked up and expecting her to deal with it?

If Democrats proposed that as a solution I can hear the wailing. You shouldn't penalize men.for acting on their urges! Birth control isn't 100% effective you can hold them responsible for that!

The majority of your average men.are supportive of my rights and just as invested in not having a kid.

Those pushing for these laws need to be called out on their shit. If your aren't going to control the other half of baby making WTF gives them the right to control mine?

Especially in cases where I had no consent? You're punishing women.for a crime committed against them. If men couldn't shoot their load then I'm protected. Conservatives aren't interested in protecting me though.

[billisonboard]

May 7, 2022 8:28:50 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

May 7, 2022 0:03:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Yes but if I use the 85% effective it allows for "men intentionally misuse them". This number effectively counters:

"But ALL unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men." link

Thus the Twitter posting is not absolutely true.

I think this is an important idea to dissect.

If I remove a few modifiers, we have the statement:
"All pregnancies are caused by the ejaculations of men."

I believe this can be taken as a true statement.

Unwanted pregnancies would be a subset of all pregnancies, so returning that modifier to the statement does not affect its status as true.
"All unwanted pregnancies are caused by the ejaculations of men."

Thus, your objection must be to the modifier "irresponsible".

The arguments you've used against the truth of the Twitter post statement revolve around the effectiveness of condoms.  I can only presume you are trying to argue that those using condoms are "responsible", vs others who do not are in the "irresponsible" subset.  So your argument is that even some "responsible" condom users have contraceptive failure (either 2% or 15%) which result in unwanted pregnancies.

However, I don't believe that is the intended interpretation in the Twitter thread.  I believe "irresponsible ejaculations" there means any ejaculations into a female body, given the discussions of pull out as another option, and distinguishing that female orgasms are unrelated to pregnancy.  Further, remember that the thread began with discussion of female contraception and its issues/drawbacks, so the assumption appears to be that contraception use WOULD be expected.  This is a large part of the abortion choice debate - even using contraception perfectly, unwanted pregnancies occur at some rate - is abortion an acceptable way to deal with them?

Actually, the point I am countering is the "ALL" (capitalization in the original).

Is an ejaculation into a condom an ejaculation into the female body? As a male, I consider the proper use of a condom as the best way that males can assume responsibility to prevent pregnancy (and STDs) in consensual sexual intercourse. If that is considered to be irresponsible, I am at a total loss as to what I might do as a male short of never engaging in any consensual sexual relations unless pregnancy is the desired outcome.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Technically yes. If your inside your stuff is too even when wrapped.

It's just, hopefully, contained. But things happen my brother is an example of that.

So yes the only way to 100% prevent pregnancy is you in no size shape or form ejaculate in a woman.

Is that fair? No but if I'm 100% held liable for any accidents no matter how small the risk of it happening I'm not taking the risk.
[br


Is that fair? No. But that is the world conservatives are trying to set up and have been since they.started pushing abstinence only education and purity balls.

My flower is only supposed to be given when there are babies to be made.

Unless he wants it or is rich enough to pay to fly me somewhere or hire a private doctor to make the problem go away.

[teen persuasion]

May 7, 2022 9:34:49 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 7, 2022 8:28:50 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

I think this is an important idea to dissect.

If I remove a few modifiers, we have the statement:
"All pregnancies are caused by the ejaculations of men."

I believe this can be taken as a true statement.

Unwanted pregnancies would be a subset of all pregnancies, so returning that modifier to the statement does not affect its status as true.
"All unwanted pregnancies are caused by the ejaculations of men."

Thus, your objection must be to the modifier "irresponsible".

The arguments you've used against the truth of the Twitter post statement revolve around the effectiveness of condoms.  I can only presume you are trying to argue that those using condoms are "responsible", vs others who do not are in the "irresponsible" subset.  So your argument is that even some "responsible" condom users have contraceptive failure (either 2% or 15%) which result in unwanted pregnancies.

However, I don't believe that is the intended interpretation in the Twitter thread.  I believe "irresponsible ejaculations" there means any ejaculations into a female body, given the discussions of pull out as another option, and distinguishing that female orgasms are unrelated to pregnancy.  Further, remember that the thread began with discussion of female contraception and its issues/drawbacks, so the assumption appears to be that contraception use WOULD be expected.  This is a large part of the abortion choice debate - even using contraception perfectly, unwanted pregnancies occur at some rate - is abortion an acceptable way to deal with them?

Actually, the point I am countering is the "ALL" (capitalization in the original).

Is an ejaculation into a condom an ejaculation into the female body? As a male, I consider the proper use of a condom as the best way that males can assume responsibility to prevent pregnancy (and STDs) in consensual sexual intercourse. If that is considered to be irresponsible, I am at a total loss as to what I might do as a male short of never engaging in any consensual sexual relations unless pregnancy is the desired outcome.

I think Drama covered it pretty well, but I'll add just my $.02.


Yes, if we are following the conservative christian rulebook, you should only engage in potentially baby making activities when you 100% want a baby to result.  Sexual activity just for fun, for marital bonding, whatever, is not approved.

Whether that worldview is realistic is up for debate.

Whether that worldview should be legally applied to citizens that don't subscribe to that worldview (in a country that claims to be founded on separation of church and state) is another debate.

When repercussions of unapproved activities fall only on one half of the duo involved, systematically, while the other half of the duo has no repercussions, is it any surprise that even just a few of the first group are calling for a Lysistrata solution?

Billis, thanks for engaging in this debate with us.  We (women) are tired of bearing the responsibility and blame (where I believe blame is counterproductive) for an activity that takes two to reach an unwanted outcome.  This creates an imbalance between the groups involved - which prompts the desire to put more restrictions or repercussions on that other group - the men.  It's a knee-jerk reaction, to the punitive side effects of this abortion issue.  Now I think proactively preventing as many unwanted pregnancies as possible is a better plan, and recruiting both halves of the equation to achieve this goal would be optimal, vs the current legalistic trend. 


What would be your suggestions to recruit more men to the prevention side, instead of the restriction trend we are seeing?

[kadee79]

And now, here is a bit more of the reasoning of the SC....

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Comprehensive co-ed sex education is what has proven to have the most success.

It teaches you how your partners body works and teaches you it takes two to tango you are both equally responsible to protect yourselves from pregnancy and disease.

Conservatives do not want this because the OFG people may have happy healthy and even multiple sex partners where both parties enjoy it and are respected.

I want to add not only does abstinence only not work in regards to pregnancy but STDs are upticking in younger groups because they haven't been made aware or understand the risks.

[kadee79]

And don't believe that they aren't coming for contraception too....

[weltschmerz]

Male contraception? They won't take it. 'Side effects? No thanks!'
Women have been experiencing side effects from hormonal contraception for generations.

www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/03/500549503/male-birth-control-study-killed-after-men-complain-about-side-effects

In any case, how would you know they're telling the truth? 'Trust me baby! I'm on the pill!'

[teen persuasion]

May 7, 2022 12:25:40 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

And now, here is a bit more of the reasoning of the SC....

...relinquished at birth or within the first month of life...

So why would you reference a source that directly contradicts your starting argument?  

[djAdvocate]

i hope you will forgive me for saying this, but it is great to see the women on this board so engaged.  i hope that carries through the next TWO election cycles, because this country needs you..

[weltschmerz]

The more the US Republicans dig in their heels in the US, the more abortion rights are being protected in Canada.

Justin Trudeau promises more protection for abortion rights in Canada
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says his government will act to ensure Canadians have access to abortion no matter where they live in the country, and also ensure that no future government can take that right away.

www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/05/04/justin-trudeau-promises-more-protection-for-abortion-rights-in-canada.html

Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino said he is also working to provide clear guidance to border officers that any Americans who disclose they are entering Canada to have an abortion should not be turned away.

Yes, our leader is 'woke'.....and that's a good thing.

[justme]

So can we not just start a religion where the central tenement is god telling women you have a god given right to decide when you carry a pregnancy, and this god created abortion and told doctors to help women.

And then sue the government for going against my religious beliefs.

I'm pretty sure we could get a few million signing up for this religion. Just need a name for it, maybe a messiah, and a couple other tenements to flesh it out.

[weltschmerz]

May 7, 2022 13:17:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i hope you will forgive me for saying this, but it is great to see the women on this board so engaged.  i hope that carries through the next TWO election cycles, because this country needs you..

I'm engaged and enraged....I feel so bad for American women. I'm furious at the what the Talibangelists are doing.

[djAdvocate]

May 7, 2022 13:39:13 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

May 7, 2022 13:17:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i hope you will forgive me for saying this, but it is great to see the women on this board so engaged.  i hope that carries through the next TWO election cycles, because this country needs you..

I'm engaged and enraged....I feel so bad for American women. I'm furious at the what the Talibangelists are doing.

did you just make this up?

[weltschmerz]

May 7, 2022 13:42:49 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 7, 2022 13:39:13 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I'm engaged and enraged....I feel so bad for American women. I'm furious at the what the Talibangelists are doing.

did you just make this up?

I wish.....

[weltschmerz]

I'm not that clever.

[djAdvocate]

May 7, 2022 13:48:53 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I'm not that clever.

oh, yr clever enough, weltz.

[djAdvocate]

to be clear about what i said earlier- i worried that we (liberals and OTHERS that care about civil liberties) would become so disengaged by what Democrats offer that we would just allow the GOP to run the table in the midterms.  i GENUINELY feel that there is an opportunity for Democrats to retain the Senate at a minimum (which would leave them holding the keys for court appointments.  you can't doubt how important that is, any longer), and possibly take a run at keeping the House.

this might be the issue that gives this away.  it is actually massively unpopular to take away abortion.  it could end up being a pivotal issue.  the more analysis on this comes out, the more favorable it is to Democrats.

[pulmonarymd]

I would like to make 2 points:

1 I see the outrage against men. But, about 1/2 of all women identify as pro-life. If it was only men who are doing it, how would republicans win elections? The legislators may be male, but they are doing it with the support of a large number of women.

2 A male contraceptive is needed. But, would you trust a man who you were not in a committed relationship in to tell you the truth? When men complain that a women told them that the had birth control covered but they lied, we are told we shouldn’t have trusted them. And how effective does it need to be to be trusted? Stopping millions of sperm is more difficult than stopping one egg.

[teen persuasion]

May 7, 2022 13:17:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i hope you will forgive me for saying this, but it is great to see the women on this board so engaged.  i hope that carries through the next TWO election cycles, because this country needs you..

Engaged is great.  But discussing it on a message board only gets us so far.

I've never been very politically inclined, before Trump.  But things have gone downhill, rapidly.  It's not just the same-old same-old, politicians are all the same, blah blah blah.  So I need to figure out the rules, the algorithm (I think of things this way), to reverse engineer the outcome I want (because following the common advice to vote has had no effect).

So what can we effectively DO?

How do we put pressure on?

Economically - punish states thru boycotts, or boycotts on companies funding these politicians? I've definitely seen multiple tweets about students not even considering college offers in anti-abortion states.

Voice our displeasure at the Supreme court so they rethink? I don't think they care about popularity at this point.

Increase pressure for packing the court, or statehood for D.C. + PR, or recombining states like Virginia/West Virginia and the Dakotas?

Find all the legal holes in the reverse Roe draft to squash it?

Amend the Constitution? As if that has a chance now with the current divisions.

Other ideas?