Roe v Wade is on deck

[Loren Pechtel]

Where abortion is lawful, it is less common than where it is unlawful.

Yes indeed.

I'm surprised there's over a million abortions in America per year.

The rate of abortions dropped from million/year in the 1980's to 90's, to the 600k range in the 2000's. (See link for the graph).

Until 2023... After SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade and the states starting banning abortions, the number went up over a million again. (See this link for a graph).

Interesting how it turns up when the Turd was elected.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the pattern.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You really don’t know this state of affairs? That’s an honest question. You really didn’t now that many many people don’t know, for example, that if you take antibiotics your birth control pills stop working? You think everyone, both men and women, know exactly how to use a condom or a diaphragm or a pill?

Are you truly not aware of how uninformed most people, both male and female, are about reproductive health?

And how many get pregnant because of sabotage of contraception? Poking holes in condoms or diaphragms.

And given the poor state of sex ed, how many guys know that a condom kept in their wallet isn't reliable. Nor in many climates is one kept in the car. And how many know that once you've opened a condom if it doesn't get used it needs to be discarded?

But you do know, don’t you, that entities like the Catholic church do their very best to undermine this? Campaigns about how condoms are bad, and will even harm you, and that hormonal birthn control equals abortion somehow. They and others like evangelicals do everything they can, they spend BILLIONS of dollars a year trying to make sure misinformation gets out to make sex as risky as possible. They do this on purpose.

Yup, the real enemy is obviously contraception, not abortion.

If they don't, then there's a strong case for mandatory preventive measures. Measures which are "demonstrably" the best way to prevent abortion.


If they arent able to prevent themselves getting pregnant theres a strong case for mandatory interventions on their behalf and in their own interest.

It sounds a lot like you are saying you get to decide that certain people should be forced to have medical intervention.
I’m curious, though, why you only talk about women. Wouldn’t it be a lot more effective to make mandatory sterilizations of men?

I’m curious why that option has not crossed your mind? Don’t the men getting people pregnant demonstrate that they can’t be trusted to have sperm? Shouldn’t we get them all vasectomies asap? For their own good?

I think he means stuff like the IUD. Long acting reversible. Men have nothing of the sort at present.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Given the kinds and frequencies of side effects for women’s birth control it would seem to make more sense for men to carry the majority of the burden for contraception. So, mandatory Reversible vasectomies would be the best approach for Lion’s argument. That would seem to be the best overall reduction of abortions with the least harm overall.

Except no such thing exists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not so fast.

Firstly, 24% condoms plus 13% pill equals 39%
Where's the other 61% ? Long acting methods?

A vasectomy "sometime last month" isn't meaningful.
Starting on oral contraceptives "sometime last month" isn't meaningful.

Secondly, this (self-reported) anecdotal data of "almost half" is HUGELY at odds with the statistical empirical data showing contraceptive effectiveness of > 95%

How can this gap be reconciled?

95% is for consistent and correct. (Actually, probably something in the 98-99% range.) Real world numbers aren't as good. (Which is the problem with your answer of abstinence--the real world numbers are bad.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Secondly, this (self-reported) anecdotal data of "almost half" is HUGELY at odds with the statistical empirical data showing contraceptive effectiveness of > 95%

They are not at odds at all, much less HUGELY.

How do you figure an alleged/anecdotal 50% contraception failure rate is not a huge difference when compared with an empirically verified >95% success rate ???

Because you completely do not understand statistics. There's no reason the numbers should be related at all as they are sampling very different populations. A woman whose contraception worked is not going to show up in the pool of those having an abortion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ignoring the fact it is none of their business, prolifers have no problem putting the life of an actual human life (child bearing female) at risk or even death in order to preserve the potential of human life, so your argument is pretty weak.

To avoid the dreaded "abortion". Even if there's no potential life to save.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll take it as read that pictures of mutilated, aborted human bodies don't move you emotionally.

A lot of stuff from the medical world can be pretty shocking without showing any wrongdoing.

 

[Ford]

Ignoring the fact it is none of their business, prolifers have no problem putting the life of an actual human life (child bearing female) at risk or even death in order to preserve the potential of human life, so your argument is pretty weak.

To avoid the dreaded "abortion". Even if there's no potential life to save.

That's the thing that sort of puts the lie to the whole "every life is sacred" thing. You've got a woman in an ER, the doctors have said "if we do not terminate this pregnancy, she will 100% die tonight", and the pro-lifer is like "yeah, but that would be morally wrong in my book. Can't we just wait and see what happens?"

A short time later, the woman goes into sepsis. She might die even if they manage to complete the procedure, may suffer long-term health problems and will probably never be able to have children again, but then and only then the "every life is sacred" guy will maybe, just maybe, grudgingly admit that something should probably be done to save the life of the mother. But they won't like it one bit.

That's not pro-life.

 

[Elixir]

Ignoring the fact it is none of their business, prolifers have no problem putting the life of an actual human life (child bearing female) at risk or even death in order to preserve the potential of human life, so your argument is pretty weak.

To avoid the dreaded "abortion". Even if there's no potential life to save.

That's the thing that sort of puts the lie to the whole "every life is sacred" thing. You've got a woman in an ER, the doctors have said "if we do not terminate this pregnancy, she will 100% die tonight", and the pro-lifer is like "yeah, but that would be morally wrong in my book. Can't we just wait and see what happens?"

A short time later, the woman goes into sepsis. She might die even if they manage to complete the procedure, may suffer long-term health problems and will probably never be able to have children again, but then and only then the "every life is sacred" guy will maybe, just maybe, grudgingly admit that something should probably be done to save the life of the mother. But they won't like it one bit.

That's not pro-life.

Why it comes to STUPID questions like that, I will never know. Pro-lifers are uniformly trying to infuse our legal system with their superstitious religious beliefs. That is FORBIDDEN by the Constitution - the one that they and their orange avatar are trying to shred. It’s not ambiguous.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ignoring the fact it is none of their business, prolifers have no problem putting the life of an actual human life (child bearing female) at risk or even death in order to preserve the potential of human life, so your argument is pretty weak.

To avoid the dreaded "abortion". Even if there's no potential life to save.

That's the thing that sort of puts the lie to the whole "every life is sacred" thing. You've got a woman in an ER, the doctors have said "if we do not terminate this pregnancy, she will 100% die tonight", and the pro-lifer is like "yeah, but that would be morally wrong in my book. Can't we just wait and see what happens?"

It's a test, God will save her and the desire of the doctor to murder will be exposed.

 

[Janice Rael]

umm "And how many get pregnant because of sabotage of contraception? Poking holes in condoms or diaphragms."

Diaphragms, haha, in the 2020s? They're rare. They were rare in the 1980s when I had one.

 

[ZiprHead]

Savage attack on Republicans against IVF.

 

[ZiprHead]

Anather savage ad by the same group that made the one above.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://wapo.st/3V3e9hi

Chips are down, this is what is at stake. GOP votes against the right to contraception.

 

[lpetrich]

GOP Attack on Reform Prosecutors Now Attack on Abortion Rights - May 16 2024, 9:00 a.m. - The Intercept

After the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the landmark case Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization, many Republican dominated state governments quickly moved to ban all or some abortions. Many of the populous cities in these state, however, are dominated by Democratic Party politics. In those cities, elected prosecutors pledged not to prosecute reproductive care, setting up a clash with state-level governments.

The clash came first in Florida, where in 2022, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis became the first state official to suspended an elected prosecutor who said they would not charge people who sought abortions. In January, a three-judge federal appeals circuit panel said DeSantis’s decision to suspend Former States Attorney Andrew Warren violated First Amendment provisions for protected speech, including Warren’s comments on protecting abortion and transgender care.

Since then, at least five states have introduced legislative measures to strip power from elected prosecutors who have made similar pledges. Over the last two years, Republicans in Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, South Carolina, and Texas have introduced or passed legislation making it easier to prosecute people who seek abortions.

 

[Janice Rael]

Why should the Democrats fight for routine reproductive healthcare when they can lose an abortion-themed word war instead?

 

[Janice Rael]

See also: Why should the Democrats fight for comprehensive healthcare when they can lose a Medicare-themed word war instead?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

See also: Why should the Democrats fight for comprehensive healthcare when they can lose a Medicare-themed word war instead?

I know you weren't born after 2009 and are aware that the Democrats managed to pull off the ACA, barely... (Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Nelson fucked us over on that), and were slaughtered for it by the electorate... who now look at ACA generally favorably. The Democrats can only do what the electorate generally has the stomach for. And in the 2010 midterms it was costly. So the electorate is as much to blame, if not more, for the lack of comprehensive health care in this nation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

See also: Why should the Democrats fight for comprehensive healthcare when they can lose a Medicare-themed word war instead?

Because they understand it wouldn't be as simple as it looks on the surface.

Medicare and especially Medicaid engage in some heavy-handed market manipulation that could not be done economy-wide without causing the system to collapse.

 

[Janice Rael]

See also: Why should the Democrats fight for comprehensive healthcare when they can lose a Medicare-themed word war instead?

Because they understand it wouldn't be as simple as it looks on the surface.

Medicare and especially Medicaid engage in some heavy-handed market manipulation that could not be done economy-wide without causing the system to collapse.

Wrong reasons and also wrong thread so why not do the New Thread thing? I gotta jet.

Medicare For All is a sabotage name, period. It's an absolute abortion, and I know this is the abortuuary thread. But i won't elaborate here

Do we not make new threads and tag others on IIDB?

I said that to make a point about the post above it. I also knew the derail potential and said so.

Loren you have already talked over me and past me. I said what I said.