Roe v Wade is on deck

[Rhea]

There's a reason I don't usually bother discussing this issue on the internet.

I'm sorry I posted in this thread.
Bless Your Heart.
Tom

A number of people addressed your posts with discussion.

What made you decide to respond to this one instead of those engaging with you?

 

[Rhea]

Gender discrimination has nothing to do with abortion as men can’t get pregnant.

I'm sure you believe that.

Bless Your Heart.
Tom

What does this response mean? Do you think that because only women can get pregnant, that it constitutes gender discrimination against men?

I don’t understand.

Here’s some gender discrimination:
If you don’t want to donate your blood or parts of your organs to someone, even if you are the cause for their need, you can say no. In fact, even if your body is dead, no one can take the parts nless oyu gave permission.

Unless you are a woman. Who has sex. Then people like you think it’s okay to proclaim that her organs and blood must be donated.

That is some high caliber gender discrimination right there.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No. What's going on is I'm expecting her to act like a responsible adult rather than favoring a system that always sides with the woman regardless of fairness.

You're beating your head against a brick wall.

Gender discrimination is a terrible thing, unless it benefits females. Then it's required.
Get over yourself dude.
Tom

Gender discrimination has nothing to do with abortion as men can’t get pregnant.

I'm sure you believe that.

Bless Your Heart.
Tom

Show us on this doll where the mean ol' woman hurt your fee fees.....

There's a reason I don't usually bother discussing this issue on the internet.

I'm sorry I posted in this thread.
Bless Your Heart.
Tom

Me too. You are derailing it regarding child support when the question is about abortion rights, in which there wouldn’t be a child.

The woman is the only person who is actually involved with carrying a fetus to term and giving birth, so it is hard to take anyone seriously when they think donating sperm gives a sperm donator a say as to whether a woman has to have a baby or abortion.

Support of said child is a post birth issue, not a pre birth issue.

 

[Elixir]

Gender discrimination has nothing to do with abortion as men can’t get pregnant.

I'm sure you believe that.

Bless Your Heart.
Tom

What does this response mean?

Let me translate:
"I now find myself in an awkward situation, unable to address the points that have been made in counter to my previous assertions. All I know how to do now is to be dismissive".

 

[Toni]

Abortion is a difficult topic, one that most people find extremely difficult to separate from deeply held beliefs and even deeper emotions. This is the biggest reason I think that it should be up to the person who is pregnant to decide--unless she is too young to be able to understand what is happening, in which case I think that either her parents or a court appointed guardian should help make the decision, under the advisement of medical professionals. Because unfortunately, sometimes 9 and 10 and 11 and 12 year olds do get pregnant. They shouldn't, of course. Of course, they conceived under conditions that could only be termed rape and abuse. They are too young to fully comprehend the physical, emotional, social or economic risks and ramifications of pregnancy at their age. The risk to the physical health of a pregnant child is significant. So is the risk to her emotional health. This also applies to some people who are severely developmentally challenged to the extent that they cannot comprehend or make meaningful decisions about their bodies--they were raped and someone with their best interests at heart needs to make decisions.

Aside from such cases, a woman's choice must be respected.

 

[TomC]

There's a reason I don't usually bother discussing this issue on the internet.

I'm sorry I posted in this thread.
Bless Your Heart.
Tom

A number of people addressed your posts with discussion.

What made you decide to respond to this one instead of those engaging with you?

What I got was a bunch of strawmanning.
Such as

Here’s Tom saying that married heterosexual couples have to STOP HAVING SEX COMPLTELY so that he can say what women do with their bodies.

At least y'all didn't go straight for the "You just want to enslave women!", which I have gotten before.
I've been around this block a couple of times.
Tom

 

[Worldtraveller]

You'd think you'd learn....

 

[Rhea]

What I got was a bunch of strawmanning.
Such as

Here’s Tom saying that married heterosexual couples have to STOP HAVING SEX COMPLTELY so that he can say what women do with their bodies.

You said that anyone who didn’t want a baby should make the choice to not have sex.

Here’s you:

I think all parents who choose to make a baby have Chosen a level of responsibility. Biology dictates some of the responsibilities, but they're there nevertheless.

So if a married couple has sex, and gets pregnant, you think the woman should not have access to an abortion.

And if a married couple does not want to “choose to make s baby,” the way to do this is to avoid sex.

On what way is this a straw man?

What do you think a married couple should do to guarantee they will not need an abortion?

 

[Rhea]

Here’s you again Tom, making crystal clear that your solution is for married couples to abstain until their 70s because birth control and even surgery are not guaranteed.

To avoid children correctly for Tom, they must abstain.

I'm also Pro-Choice.
As long as we understand that Choice includes refraining from potentially fertile sex.
Once two people have Chosen differently, they aren't the only ones involved any more.

There is a 100% safe, effective, and free form of birth control. Pregnancy is always the result of Choice.

 

[prideandfall]

If you're not ready to deal with an oops you're not ready for sex in the first place.

wait wait wait...
how is an abortion not dealing with an oops? that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[TomC]

You said that anyone who didn’t want a baby should make the choice to not have sex.

No, I didn't.

To begin with, there are many ways of having sex that aren't potentially fertile sex. Homosex rules!

Also, a combination of readily accessible birth control methods reduces the chance of a pregnancy to "negligible". One is more likely to be killed by a terrorist than get pregnant, if both are using the best birth control.

Of course, even if she's on The Pill, he's wearing a condom, and they're using the "rhythm" method, pregnancy isn't impossible.

The bottom line, morally, to me, is this.
Sex and procreation are powerful forces in human lives. They must be treated as such. Nobody is entitled to sex. With freedom comes responsibility, especially when a new and utterly vulnerable human being comes into being by a process that is clearly understood by all competent adults.
Tom

 

[prideandfall]

No. What's going on is I'm expecting her to act like a responsible adult rather than favoring a system that always sides with the woman regardless of fairness.

pro tip: women get 100% of the bias because women get 100% of the pregnant.

 

[prideandfall]

The bottom line, morally, to me, is this.
Sex and procreation are powerful forces in human lives. They must be treated as such. Nobody is entitled to sex. With freedom comes responsibility, especially when a new and utterly vulnerable human being comes into being by a process that is clearly understood by all competent adults.
Tom

ok disclaimer: abortion debates being what they are there would be a natural suspicion as to my motives here, so i want to be up front on something:
i disagree (vehemently) with your conclusions but i'm genuinely interested in your logic here, and i'm not asking to trap you or try to score a rhetorical point or anything.

"responsibility" to me denotes some kind of... how to put this... a system in place that either enforces a rule or expects adherence to it.
in your estimation, what is the source for this responsibility?
and more importantly, what is the reason that the responsibility should be taken seriously or obliged?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Also, a combination of readily accessible birth control methods reduces the chance of a pregnancy to "negligible".

One is more likely to be killed by a terrorist than get pregnant, if both are using the best birth control.

Of course, even if she's on The Pill, he's wearing a condom, and they're using the "rhythm" method, pregnancy isn't impossible.

And there you have it folks.

We go from pregnancy odds using pill, condom, and while listening to Peart drum solo "negligible" to "isn't impossible" negating the first half of their post useless.

And continuing on the "isn't impossible", in the aggregate, even at 99% effectiveness, that means some people will be getting pregnant even if the protocols are helping most others avoid getting pregnant. And when "some people" means over 80 to 90 million heterosexual adult women in America, those numbers add up!

The bottom line, morally, to me, is this.
Sex and procreation are powerful forces in human lives. They must be treated as such. Nobody is entitled to sex. With freedom comes responsibility, especially when a new and utterly vulnerable human being comes into being by a process that is clearly understood by all competent adults.
Tom

So, that isn't remotely a position on abortion, in fact, it isn't really even a moral position at all. "with freedom comes responsibility" doesn't actually mean anything when you don't say what the responsibility actually is.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You said that anyone who didn’t want a baby should make the choice to not have sex.

No, I didn't.

To begin with, there are many ways of having sex that aren't potentially fertile sex. Homosex rules!

That seems like a moral issue, to me. I'm married, we had three kids, and wanted to have sex without more kids. So, knowing that all forms of birth control have a failure rate, you're saying that if i want sex, which i did and do, my choices are not to have sex, or to have homosex with someone other than my wife. I kinda remember there being a promise made about not doing that, out loud in front of several witnesses.

 

[Worldtraveller]

There's so much wrong to unpack here, I'm not sure I have enough crayons.

Maybe later, after I've had a few shots of whiskey to deal with this level of inanity.

 

[Rhea]

Also, a combination of readily accessible birth control methods reduces the chance of a pregnancy to "negligible". One is more likely to be killed by a terrorist than get pregnant, if both are using the best birth control.

So you’re okay with abortions for people who are using a combination of readily accessible birth control methods, but who end up pregnant?

 

[Toni]

Here’s you again Tom, making crystal clear that your solution is for married couples to abstain until their 70s because birth control and even surgery are not guaranteed.

To avoid children correctly for Tom, they must abstain.

I'm also Pro-Choice.
As long as we understand that Choice includes refraining from potentially fertile sex.
Once two people have Chosen differently, they aren't the only ones involved any more.

There is a 100% safe, effective, and free form of birth control. Pregnancy is always the result of Choice.

Of course, abstaining does not prevent a woman from becoming pregnant as a result of being raped.

Of course, we could all just be gay and have gay only sex, which Tom seems to think would be just great. I'm not sure he's up to that much competition but hey....

And here I thought that all the talk about gay people trying to recruit straight people was just bigotry.....

 

[Keith&Co.]

Also, a combination of readily accessible birth control methods reduces the chance of a pregnancy to "negligible". One is more likely to be killed by a terrorist than get pregnant, if both are using the best birth control.

So you’re okay with abortions for people who are using a combination of readily accessible birth control methods, but who end up pregnant?

I take issue with 'readily accessible.' Not everyone has dependable access to birth control. And if we consider incest, Uncle Happy may not be able to make sure his niece is using birth control. And expecting Uncle Happy to act responsibly in the consistent use of birth control while molesting his underage niece is a non-starter.
My son's girlfriend decided to use birth control while away at college, as a 'just in case' measure. She wasn't having sex with my kid, she was just aware that predators are out there and wanted protection from at least that consequence in worst-case scenario.
But she needed her father's permission due to being on his insurance. He almost didn't grant it. Some parents won't.

When i was growing up, i sometimes worked the register at my grandparents' drugstore. The state had an age limit for condoms but our policy was if they were smart enough to ask for it, we sold it. The other drug store in town called the boy's parents for asking.

Every ship i was on, the corpsman handed out condoms every time we were in port. Protests about 'I'm married and faithful' just meant you stood there that much longer before you could go ashore. Take the damned thing and if you don't use it, yay.
Two my XOs, however, tried to prevent this distribution of condoms in liberty ports. They feared that readily available birth control would encourage people to engage in illicit sex. The corpsmen didn't care about licit or illicit, they just didn't want to have to touch your penis as it turned black and fell off.

So as much as abortion is a touchy subject wiht opinionated people screwing things up for everyone, SEX is also a touchy subject, with opinionated people screwing things up for everyone. You cannot decide policy on abortion based on the availability of birth control when that's not established.

 

[Toni]

Also, a combination of readily accessible birth control methods reduces the chance of a pregnancy to "negligible". One is more likely to be killed by a terrorist than get pregnant, if both are using the best birth control.

So you’re okay with abortions for people who are using a combination of readily accessible birth control methods, but who end up pregnant?

I take issue with 'readily accessible.' Not everyone has dependable access to birth control. And if we consider incest, Uncle Happy may not be able to make sure his niece is using birth control. And expecting Uncle Happy to act responsibly in the consistent use of birth control while molesting his underage niece is a non-starter.
My son's girlfriend decided to use birth control while away at college, as a 'just in case' measure. She wasn't having sex with my kid, she was just aware that predators are out there and wanted protection from at least that consequence in worst-case scenario.
But she needed her father's permission due to being on his insurance. He almost didn't grant it. Some parents won't.

When i was growing up, i sometimes worked the register at my grandparents' drugstore. The state had an age limit for condoms but our policy was if they were smart enough to ask for it, we sold it. The other drug store in town called the boy's parents for asking.

Every ship i was on, the corpsman handed out condoms every time we were in port. Protests about 'I'm married and faithful' just meant you stood there that much longer before you could go ashore. Take the damned thing and if you don't use it, yay.
Two my XOs, however, tried to prevent this distribution of condoms in liberty ports. They feared that readily available birth control would encourage people to engage in illicit sex. The corpsmen didn't care about licit or illicit, they just didn't want to have to touch your penis as it turned black and fell off.

So as much as abortion is a touchy subject wiht opinionated people screwing things up for everyone, SEX is also a touchy subject, with opinionated people screwing things up for everyone. You cannot decide policy on abortion based on the availability of birth control when that's not established.

I was first prescribed birth control pills at the student health center on my college campus. There was no bill sent to my father's insurance. In fact, I believe that with regards to birth control, if she was 18, her father's insurance COULD NOT have informed him, assuming she was 18 for any medication and perhaps not for birth control, except in some states. In any case, Planned Parenthood would prescribe without informing any parent. Just throwing that out there for anyone who knows a kid who might need it.