JBB

JBB

The Truth About America's Abortion Problem

  
By:  JBB  •  Opinions  •  one month ago  •  264 comments

The Truth About America's Abortion Problem
Making abortions illegal does not stop demand for termination services. What it does is make criminals of women and their doctors and further overcrowd our already overcrowded prisons!

Making abortions illegal does not reduce the steady demand for terminations by even one case. The real abortion rate in Mexico and Czechoslovak, where elective abortions are mostly illegal, is at least twice that of the United States which plainly illustrates the only pertinent point.

Making abortions illegal does not stop women from aborting. What it does is to make criminals of the women, their doctors and often even family members who merely cooperated in the process. 

The demand for terminations is mostly  dictated by the numbers of unwanted pregnancies which is primarily due to poor women already having more children than they can provide for. Doing three simple things has been proven to almost eliminate the demand for termination services. Those things are...

1. Require comprehensive sex education for all students prior to puberty.

2. Make all forms of birth control easily available and affordable.

3. Provide all women with family planning services such as are provided by Planned Parenthood.

By doing those three simple things and we could drastically reduce the incidence of terminations. Unfortunately though, those who are most opposed to reproductive choice are also those standing in the way of actually doing anything to actually help the situation. It seems that all the wretched hypocrites in the damn gop realky want to do is to put poor women and their goid doctors into their godforsaken for profit prisons. Is that plain enough for you now? 

If all the good godfearing women in America who have ever made the difficult and painful choice to terminate for whatever their reasons were sent to prisons tonight then church pews across America would be half empty tomorrow morning.

The whole thing is infuriating and you should damn the gop for it all!

Tags

jrBlog - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JBB
1  author  JBB    one month ago

Can We Deal With The Truth?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1  Gordy327  replied to  JBB @1    one month ago
The Truth About America's Abortion Problem

The only real problem I see with abortion are antiabortionists (or anti-choicers, if you prefer).

 
 
 
lady in black
2  lady in black    one month ago

If Roe were reversed women would burn this country to the ground 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @2    one month ago

abortion rights are the law. every time a new seat opens up, some go into a tizzy thinking Roe will be overturned.

not likely at all 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    one month ago
not likely at all 

I tend to agree. But antiabortionists sure love to keep trying to do just that.

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1.2  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1.3  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.1    one month ago

There is a big difference between setting reasonable and responsible limits on the occurrences of it and actually outlawing it.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @2.1.3    one month ago

The current limit on allowing abortions is up to the point of viability. After that, it's done only for medical necessity. Before that, it's a woman's free willed choice. That seems reasonable to me and I can accept those terms. But it seems many antiabortionists cannot, which makes them totally unreasonable.

 
 
 
JBB
2.1.5  author  JBB  replied to  MAGA @2.1.2    one month ago

You didn't respond appropriately there either!

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @2.1.3    one month ago

So I'm curious, what do you think is a "reasonable and responsible limit?" 

 
 
 
JBB
2.1.7  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    one month ago

What are you willing to do to reduce the demand for termination services? We know how to do it!

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.7    one month ago

I wish, in this day and age, that people would know how to prevent pregnancies. 

Alas, we know many just aren't smart enough to figure it out.

I always say have as many abortions as you choose and can afford.

I don't look at it as my responsibility to educate others on it or to help pay for it.

I believe it is a personal responsibility

 
 
 
JBB
2.1.9  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    one month ago

So, you do not take any responsibility at all...

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.9    one month ago

I do take responsibility for myself and my immediate family.

don't get it twisted

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.1.11  Kathleen  replied to  JBB @2.1.9    one month ago

Lets face it,when two people get in the mood, sometimes they do not think of the consequences of what can happen. There are some occasions when birth control did not work, but most of the time it does. If you are being careless then the responsibility falls on both people. Now, if she told her male partner that she took birth control and she really didn't then I think that is very wrong. 

I am pro choice, but I think people need to be more responsible for their behavior.

 
 
 
JBB
2.1.12  author  JBB  replied to  Kathleen @2.1.11    one month ago

Did the points made in the article escape you?

There are known proven ways to dramatically reduce both the demand for terminations and the incidence of abortions. The demand is dictated by unwanted pregnancies. Making abortions illegal does not one thing to stop unwanted pregnancies. All it does is make criminals of women and their doctors. 

Sex education and birth control work. Judgemental opinions do not. Got it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Kathleen @2.1.11    one month ago

I believe it is the personal responsibility thing that throws them for a loop

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.14  Tacos!  replied to  Kathleen @2.1.11    one month ago
I think people need to be more responsible for their behavior.

When you make everything all about government programs, people are no longer responsible for their own behavior. It's now considered some kind of cruel, personal attack to hold people accountable for the choices they make.

Unless that choice is to not wear a mask during a pandemic.

 
 
 
JBB
2.1.15  author  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.14    one month ago

Then why in hell do you not think that government interference in women's reproductive rights and freedoms is government overreach? If women and doctors were put into prison for having or performing terminations then SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE that is government. The police and the courts and the jails are government. If you don't think that government should be involved so much in people's lives and personal business then why in hell would you ever want to involve government in the most private of decisions people could ever make.

Again, making abortions illegal does not stop the demand for termination services. All laws regarding abortion in any way are by definition GOVERNMENT! What about that can you not understand? 

[deleted]

I cannot imagine anything could ever be any more "Nanny State" than our government telling American woman that they must give birth against their personal will or else suffer legal punishments! 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @2.1.15    one month ago
Then why in hell do you not think that government interference in women's reproductive rights and freedoms is government overreach?

I didn't say anything about that, so i don't know where you are getting that idea.

If you don't think that government should be involved so much in people's lives and personal business

I didn't say anything about how much government should be involved in anyone's life. My message was that when you look to government to be responsible for all problems, it absolves individuals of being responsible for any of their own behavior that might contribute to those problems.

Again, making abortions illegal does not stop the demand for termination services. All laws regarding abortion in any way are GOVERNMENT! What about that can you not understand?

I didn't suggest doing anything with abortion laws. I didn't even mention abortion laws. You are attributing ideas and comments to me that I have not expressed.

 
 
 
JBB
2.1.17  author  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.16    one month ago

Then you admit you have been entirely off topic all along and engaging in superfluous idiotic arguments unrelated to the subject matter.

Nobody here asked for your meaningless participation. Adults were trying to discuss the serious topic of our laws regarding abortion. 

If that is not what you are here to do also then kindly show your unnecessarily argumentative behind to the nearest exit...

As your author here and as host...please just go away. Thank you in advance for your kind  and prompt compliance to my genuine request. Sincerely, JBB...

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.18  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @2.1.17    one month ago
Then you admit you have been entirely off topic all along and engaging in superfluous idiotic arguments unrelated to the subject matter.

I don't admit to any such thing. My post addressed specific points in your article. But if you are unsure, we could have a moderator or Perrie review it.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.1.19  Raven Wing  replied to  JBB @2.1.9    one month ago
So, you do not take any responsibility at all...

384

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @2    one month ago
If Roe were reversed women would burn this country to the ground 

Women Lives Matter (WLM)? jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

Besides, reversing Roe would set a very dangerous precedent.

 
 
 
MAGA
2.2.1  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2    one month ago

It would be like reversing Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson.  Roe vs. Wade is every bit as vile and evil as those decisions were.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @2.2.1    one month ago
It would be like reversing Dred Scott!  

No, it wouldn't. It would be the exact opposite.

Roe vs. Wade is every bit as vile and evil as those decisions were.  

Merely your opinion. Dredd & Plessy restricted rights. Roe expanded them. Roe was a very good decision!

 
 
 
MAGA
2.2.3  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.2    one month ago

Roe legalized human extermination and ending the right to even exist for some of us.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @2.2.3    one month ago
Roe legalized human extermination and ending the right to even exist for some of us.  

Such hyperbole. It's no wonder anti-abortionists consistently lose on the issue. Maybe you should try putting emotion aside and formulate a rational argument.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.2.5  lady in black  replied to  MAGA @2.2.3    one month ago

You do realize abortion has been around since the dawn of man.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @2.2.5    one month ago
You do realize abortion has been around since the dawn of man.

And it will probably be around even if it were prohibited. Of course, that would be going socially backwards (which seem to want to do) and likely would not be safe. At least current abortion laws make abortions legal and safe.

 
 
 
JBB
2.2.7  author  JBB  replied to  MAGA @2.2.3    one month ago

If you ever know of anyone killing babies then please do report it to the police immediately for murder is illegal. If, on the other hand, you are babbling about women making the legal choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy during the first months of pregnancy than you should mind your own damn business for once...

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.8  Ender  replied to  JBB @2.2.7    one month ago

Doncha know, some of them actually believe donald when he says people are killing babies after they are born...

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @2.2.8    one month ago
some of them actually believe donald when he says people are killing babies after they are born...

Some actually believe a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus is a "baby" too. Is such mentality just plain stupidity or a disconnect from reality? Or both?

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.10  MrFrost  replied to  MAGA @2.2.3    one month ago

Roe legalized human extermination and ending the right to even exist for some of us.  

Just out of curiosity....if abortion is outlawed...exactly how many unwanted babies will you be adopting? 100? 1000? I mean, you will have to do it on your own...no help with education, clothing, healthcare, or food because the GOP votes against that stuff...every...single...time. So how are you going to pay for all these unwanted babies that you will adopt? 

 
 
 
MAGA
2.3  MAGA  replied to  lady in black @2    one month ago

And the women who are pro life will stop it from happening....

 
 
 
JBB
2.3.1  author  JBB  replied to  MAGA @2.3    one month ago

How long do you think that a woman who chooses to have  an abortion should spend in prison? Or, do you think she should get the death penalty? And, what about the doctor? What about a friend who only drives her to and from the abortionist? If you really believe it should be a crime to get an abortion then you should be up front about the penalties which you propose. So, what do you think? 

 
 
 
lady in black
2.3.2  lady in black  replied to  MAGA @2.3    one month ago

Um, nope, there are more prochoice women and prolife women are only prolife until they get an abortion

 
 
 
JBB
2.3.3  author  JBB  replied to  lady in black @2.3.2    one month ago

Doesn't want to admit he is for death penalty!

 
 
 
MAGA
2.3.4  MAGA  replied to  JBB @2.3.3    one month ago

I am for the death penalty for certain especially bad crimes but getting an abortion is a lesser crime.  The doctor and the clinic are the ones that should pay any fines or jail time for performing an abortion if almost all abortions were made illegal. 

 
 
 
JBB
2.3.5  author  JBB  replied to  MAGA @2.3.4    one month ago

Newsflash - Handmaid's Tale is a horror story!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.3.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  JBB @2.3.5    one month ago

Wait - it's not an instruction manual?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.7  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.3.6    one month ago
it's not an instruction manual?

I suppose that depends on whom you ask.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.3.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.7    one month ago

Too true.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.3.9  lady in black  replied to  JBB @2.3.5    one month ago

I've read the book and watched the series.  Anyone that would want to live in that kind of world needs their head examined.  Women reduced to human incubators for the infertile and men in charge calling the shots.  Never!

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.10  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @2.3.9    one month ago

In this world, some antiabortionists want the same thing: relegate women to being human incubators and/or as second class citizens by removing certain rights or bodily autonomy.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.3.11  lady in black  replied to  Gordy327 @2.3.10    one month ago

Unfortunately you speak the truth.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.3.12  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @2.3.11    one month ago

I'm sorry. I'll try to lie a little more often then, Lol

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  lady in black @2    one month ago

The woman on Trump's fast track to the SC will do just that.  That is why Trump wants her.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3  Gordy327    one month ago
Doing three simple things has been proven to almost eliminate the demand for termination services. Those things are...

1. Require comprehensive sex education for all students prior to puberty.

2. Make all forms of birth control easily available and affordable.

3. Provide all women with family planning services such as are provided by Planned Parenthood.

These are all simple and effective means for eliminating unwanted pregnancies and/or the need for abortions. But I would add the following:

1. Comprehensive sex ed prior to puberty and all throughout high school, when hormones really kick in. So we're talking at least grades 5 or 6-12 to start teaching about sex. Unfortunately, there are parents out there who have a stick up their @ss when it comes to sex ed, either because of personal, religious, and/or cultural influence. Parental opposition is a big roadblock and a disservice to children. That needs to be dealt with.

2. Make all forms of birth control easily available and affordable: make condom vending machines available in high schools and birth control pills available over the counter. Pediatricians and high school medical staff should be able to freely inquire about a child's sexual activity or habits and provide birth control if needed.

3. Provide all women with family planning services such as are provided by Planned Parenthood: Absolutely and I'd even include men too. Include information packets in sex ed classes with contact information to PP and other related sources.

 
 
 
JBB
3.1  author  JBB  replied to  Gordy327 @3    one month ago

That is all quite reasonable. Do notice though that those most adamantly opposed to our reproductive freedoms are not interested in the ways we know to practically eliminate the demand for terminations...

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  JBB @3.1    one month ago
That is all quite reasonable.

Thank you. I thought so too.

Do notice though that those most adamantly opposed to our reproductive freedoms are not interested in the ways we know to practically eliminate the demand for terminations...

Indeed. Some seem to view sex as bad or "dirty" (that's the best way jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif ) and don't want any mention of it whatsoever, including sex ed, birth control, ect.. It's a very antiquated and ignorant way of thinking which frankly, has no place in our modern world. Not to mention it only exacerbates the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

 
 
 
JBB
3.1.2  author  JBB  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.1    one month ago

I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal but still happened anyway...if the girl or her family had enough money to pay for one. Poor girls were expected to give up on their futures and to just get married. If not they were shunned and relegated to lifelong poverty!

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  JBB @3.1.2    one month ago
if the girl or her family had enough money to pay for one.

And those that couldn't pay for one had to resort to back alley "doctors" for an abortion, which sometimes left them mutilated or dead. If abortion were severely restricted or prohibited, it's possible we'd see history repeating itself. Or we'd become like other countries that outlawed abortions such as Romania, which did not end well.

 
 
 
lady in black
3.1.4  lady in black  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.3    one month ago

Long before roe v. wade a relative of mine (was told this story and it happened before I was born in 1962) had an abortion done by a butcher and bled to death in the street. 

And you wonder why I am prochoice, that is just one reason.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @3.1.4    one month ago

that is horrible!

luckily, abortion is now legal

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @3.1.4    one month ago
had an abortion done by a butcher and bled to death in the street. 

Your relative was likely not the only one to suffer such a fate. Quite terrible indeed.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

If a conservative-packed SCOTUS were to reverse Roe vs Wade I intend to invest in companies that manufacture wire coat hangers, and I would invite the whole SCOTUS to take a tour of the top floor ward of Toronto's Sick Children's Hospital and spend the day helping the staff care for the monsters whose parents retched when they even looked at them and were not qualified to care for them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    one month ago

Democrats almost always fear-monger about that every time a Republican President gets a SC pick.

it is settled law and I defy anyone to point out Justices currently serving feel otherwise

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    one month ago

Not only am I not a Democrat, but you surely know I'm not even an American.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.1    one month ago

so you took a page out of their playbook. its basically all the same anyways.

and for the record and to set things right, I never claimed you were either a Democrat or an American

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.2    one month ago

Look who's talking about "Playbooks".  You never called me a Democrat or an American, so why did you reply to my comment addressing Democrats, which is an insinuation that I at least have the same principles as one.  As it happens I have some principles of Democrats and some of Republicans - being neither, I don't adhere to party guidelines as so many here do and I can actually think for myself. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.3    one month ago

because you pushed the Democrats' fear mongering tactics about Roe being overturned.

I just calls them like I sees them!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.4    one month ago

I feel the same way about it no matter what country does not give women reasonable rights about their own bodies.  So the American Democrats emulate MY feelings, rather than my following American Democrat principles. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.5    one month ago

whatever

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.7  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.2    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2  Gordy327  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    one month ago
If a conservative-packed SCOTUS were to reverse Roe vs Wade

I know that's a concern for some. But I don't think it will actually happen. Although, individual states will probably attempt to restrict abortion to the point where legal challenges may bring it before the SCOTUS. Still, the SCOTUS was fairly conservative when Roe was originally decided. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2    one month ago

Was the court ever as strong conservatively as 6 - 3?

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.2.1    one month ago

I don't recall off the top of my head.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    one month ago

That's morbid, Buzz, but I do see where you're coming from

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    one month ago
1. Require comprehensive sex education for all students prior to puberty.

2. Make all forms of birth control easily available and affordable.

3. Provide all women with family planning services such as are provided by Planned Parenthood.

We pretty much do these things already, and have for a long time. Is it 100%? Of course not. And I would endorse improving all of those things (though the family planning part doesn't have to be Planned Parenthood per se).

I'm pretty sure most kids get sex ed in school (often by the 5th or 6th grade or so), and have for generations. 97% get sex ed by the time they are 18.

Birth control is easier to get and cheaper to buy all the time (When I was young, I had to ask the pharmacist for condoms. Now you can just pick them up off the rack or buy them online.).

Planned Parenthood or other providers are right there for people who want to use them. But many don't until it's time to get an abortion.

The implication seems to be that abortions happen because we don't have those 3 things. I don't believe for one minute that even a significant number of abortions (much less a majority) happen with women or couples who had no sex education, couldn't find or afford any kind of contraception, and had no access to family planning. People are just not that ignorant, poor, and deprived - at least not in the many thousands that we are talking about. They know how babies are made. They just don't take steps to prevent it. 

(Some do take those steps and still get pregnant. I'm not talking about them.)

I see a parallel with the covid pandemic. People think we need some kind of miracle legal or social policy from government to arrest transmission. That's not what we need. What we need is people who are willing to take responsibility.

As a timely example, as I write this, the house across the street from me is hosting a Sweet 16 party. There are a few dozen people milling about in the yard and the house. They have a bounce house. A MFing bounce house.

Meanwhile, my kids can't go to school, and my father in law is on lockdown at his assisted living facility, when he was in the hospital, we couldn't visit him. My wife can't get her hair or nails done. We can't eat in restaurants. All because our county can't satisfy 6 metrics from the governor. We've reduced deaths and hospitalizations. Where are we lacking? Too many new cases. Is that Trump's fault or anyone in government? No. It's because people like the assholes across the street have decided they don't give a fuck. They know better. They just don't care enough to make a small sacrifice.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @5    one month ago

All forms of birth control are easily available and affordable?  IUDs aren't available and affordable to all.  Neither is tubal ligation.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1    one month ago
Neither is tubal ligation.

I remember someone back in the old NV days who said she never wanted kids and actually tried to get a tubal ligation. But she was denied because the doctor thought she would change her mind, as if she wasn't capable of deciding for herself.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.1    one month ago

One of my employees had two children, knew she didn't want to have any more, and asked for a tubal, and her doctor argued with her.  "What if one of your kids dies?"  She asked him if another child would be a replacement for the dead one.  She got her tubal.

https://www.insider.com/a-woman-needed-husbands-consent-to-get-her-tubes-tied-2020-2

According to federal government policy, women do not need their spouse's consent to have their tubes tied, though that was a requirement decades ago. In 1974 states like Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia   required spousal consent   for procedures, but by the end of the 1970s, the requirement had been challenged by a   handful of court cases,   and federal courts ruled state spousal consent laws unconstitutional – though the Supreme Court has never issued a judgment on the matter, so it isn't completely resolved.

Today, some private hospitals and providers   still have these policies   and won't perform the operation without the consent of both spouses.

Women have been denied the procedure for a multitude of reasons, from being too young, unmarried, or having only one child.

In a 2012, a woman named Monica Trombley   wrote for Slate   about having to fight to get the procedure at age 26. "The paternalistic treatment of doctors telling me they were going to 'talk me out of it' still ticks me off," she wrote.

In 2014 the   Chicago Tribune   reported on Lori Witt's quest to get her tubes tied. She was told she was too young and might change her mind about having children.

A woman named Erin Thompson told Vice  in 2019 that it took her two years to get her tubes tied. To qualify, she needed to get cleared by a psychologist and write a two-page paper defending her choices. It took her husband a week to get a vasectomy. 

This issue was prevalent enough that the ethics committee of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was forced to release an   advisory   in 2017, telling their doctors not to condescend to female patients wanting their tubes tied.

"A request for sterilization in a young woman without children should not automatically trigger a mental health consultation," they wrote. "Although physicians understandably wish to avoid precipitating sterilization regret in women, they should avoid paternalism."
 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.2    one month ago
and her doctor argued with her.  "What if one of your kids dies?" 

WTF? What kind of question is that?

She asked him if another child would be a replacement for the dead one.  She got her tubal.

Good answer.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1    one month ago
All forms of birth control are easily available and affordable? 

I wouldn't say so. And I didn't.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.4    one month ago
We pretty much do these things already, and have for a long time.

Were you excluding bullet point #2 when you typed this?

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.6  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.2    one month ago
"What if one of your kids dies?"

It's time for her to find another doctor, what a stupid thing to say to a patient.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.5    one month ago

Did you miss the part where I said it wasn't 100% and that I thought we could do better? Here's the thing: If you're really worried about preventing pregnancy, and you can't get an IUD or tubal ligation, you can probably get an alternative pretty easily and cheaply. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.6    one month ago

This was 30+ years ago, when she and her family were stationed overseas because her husband was in the Navy.  The base provided medical care to families, but there wasn't much choice in doctors.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.7    one month ago

"Not 100%" isn't the same as the two most reliable forms of contraception being either financially out of reach or difficult to obtain for many women.  Yes, there are alternatives.  None are nearly as reliable.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.9    one month ago
"Not 100%" isn't the same as the two most reliable forms of contraception being either financially out of reach or difficult to obtain for many women.  Yes, there are alternatives.  None are nearly as reliable."

EXACTLY!  Thank you.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.11  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.8    one month ago

Okay. I do think that now, it would be more available. That happen to be a insulated incident.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.9    one month ago

Do you think that's what's driving all the abortions? Just people who can't get IUDs or get their tubes tied?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.12    one month ago

You're the one who said "We pretty much do these things already" in response to a quote that says "Make all forms of birth control easily available and affordable."  We don't make all forms of birth control easily available and affordable.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.11    one month ago

It is not 'more available.'  It's not an 'insulated incident.'  Many women are discouraged/not allowed to get their tubes tied if they don't already have children or do not want children or already have children.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.13    one month ago

Also certain folks are trying to make all forms of birth control not so readily available.  Like the morning after pill or medical abortions as a for instance.  

 
 
 
JBB
5.1.16  author  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.12    one month ago

Read the article or do some research. The demand for terminations is mainly driven by women already having more children than they can care for financially or emotionally. If you want to reduce the number of abortions then you must reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. There are known proven ways of doing this. Plural. No one thing controls all aspects, you should already know this and so there is no excuse for such impertinence or to play dumb merely for argument sake! 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.17  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.11    one month ago

It was available at the time, and that's the doctor who performed it for her, after disregarding that whole bedside manner thing.

But if you read my quoted link in the same comment, women are still often expected to jump through hoops to get tubal ligation.  At some hospitals, a woman still needs her husband's consent to get a tubal.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.18  Kathleen  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.14    one month ago

I am sure many GYN's would do it if you wanted it done.  It's really up to the patient, I don't know why they would refuse. Unless you have a health problem that would risk your life or other problems. If you go to a doctor that does not do them, then I am sure you could find a doctor that would. 

The question is, who would flat out refuse it?  It's a good birth control method that many women have had done. It is an operation and it does have risks. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.19  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.17    one month ago

Really? If I went to my GYN, he would do it with only my permission.  Like I said, it is a operation, so they have to consider your general health too.

Do they ask for a wife's signature if they wanted a vasectomy?

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.20  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @5.1.16    one month ago

I don't see a discussion in your comment. Just a personal attack. I have engaged with the content of your article and commented on it. I took no jabs at you or anyone else. I have shown you no disrespect. Your accusations are unfounded.

Read the article or do some research. 

I did and I even included a link to some of it. Seems dishonest of you to imply that I didn't.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.18    one month ago
The question is, who would flat out refuse it?

Catholic hospitals.  Many communities have only hospitals run by the Catholic church.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-catholic-bishops-are-shaping-health-care-in-rural-america/

In 2011, the earliest year for which data was available, at least 29 communities only had a Catholic hospital to rely on for most of their care. By 2016, that number had grown to 45, according to MergerWatch, 1   an organization that is opposed to health care providers operating under religious restrictions and tracks how religious doctrine has shaped the U.S. health care system. That’s 10 percent of the 459 hospitals that were classified as the sole hospitals in their community in 2016, according to the database referenced by MergerWatch.

...

During the first half of her decade-long tenure in Marshfield, Dr. Kaplan said there were essentially no restrictions on the care she could provide, other than abortions, which weren’t allowed. Halfway through her time there, she said, the local bishop adopted a stricter policy and suddenly she wasn’t allowed to do tubal ligations after a C-section or prescribe contraceptives. “It was at best intrusive, and at worst life-threatening,” Dr. Kaplan said.

Soon after the change in policy, both doctors recall being formally reprimanded for performing tubal ligations during emergency C-sections in the hospital. There were other patients who, as a result of the policy changes, couldn’t receive birth control, even when their health could have been endangered by getting pregnant again. Dr. Kaplan remembers one patient who wanted to have her tubes tied but couldn’t get the procedure done because of the hospital’s policy. The woman ended up getting pregnant again within months, with a pregnancy so complicated that the patient had to make over 100 doctor visits and ended up delivering two months early.
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.19    one month ago

It varies by hospital.  I have also heard of doctors wanting a wife's input regarding her husband's vasectomy.

And of course they have to consider a woman's general health.  The thing is, a tubal is less likely to endanger a woman's health than a pregnancy, and pregnancy itself can be dangerous for some women.  A tubal is their most reliable way to avoid those dangers.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.23  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.21    one month ago
Many communities have only hospitals run by the Catholic church.

Are there any hospitals that are not run by the Catholic church? Most women that can afford to have their tubes tied could travel a little further to one. Plus the GYN usually works out of certain hospitals.  So if the GYN will do it, then the hospital he works out of will.

I think if you rally wanted it done... you could have it done Sandy.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.24  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.23    one month ago

Distance can be a barrier, Kathleen.  Especially for poor women in rural areas (the areas with less hospital choice), where public transportation is nonexistent.  If we want fewer abortions, we should remove barriers to contraception.  We shouldn't be making it harder, then whining (not you, because I know you're pro-choice) about women getting abortions.

Goes back to that whole "easily available and affordable" thing.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.25  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.22    one month ago
I have also heard of doctors wanting a wife's input regarding her husband's vasectomy.

That is considerate, but is that legal?  It's his body, just like the woman's body. When he signs for the operation, I can't see his wife having to sign it, just him.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.26  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.25    one month ago

Any doctor can refuse to perform an elective procedure for any reason that is not discriminatory.  If he or she would make that requirement of all married men asking for a vasectomy, it is not illegal.  Same as it's not illegal for doctors or private hospitals to require a husband's consent for a woman to have tubal ligation.  You and I may not like it, but it's not illegal.

It is, however, a barrier to contraception.

 
 
 
Ender
5.1.27  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.24    one month ago

They can and have tried many things to make it impossible to get it done.

From requiring a hospital tag, limiting it to a two week window, etc.

There is only one place in my state where one could have it done. For some people that could be a four hour drive.

Then add in the religious dogma that is against any form of birth control, making it harder to attain.

I find this whole, if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant have her tubes tied, thing to be very condescending and sexist.

A woman may not want to have a child at a young age and wait until she is more secure at a later date.

For some it is an all or nothing approach.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.28  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.24    one month ago

They can use other forms of contraception. Some woman do not like the idea. They may have health issues too.  That is a last resort other then hysterectomy, but they will not do that unless you have a good reason to do it, like cancer.  Most woman that do this do not want anymore children. 

I see it as more of a individual base kind of thing then a large population general thing with tube tying.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.29  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.26    one month ago

I would think only for health reasons. 

Something does not sound right with that.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.30  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.28    one month ago

Of course they can use other forms of contraception.  But for the woman who wants no more children, or never wanted children, tubal ligation is the most reliable method.  And some women can't take hormonal contraception (I couldn't, last time I tried - my blood pressure skyrocketed within a few days), that leaves barrier methods like diaphragms and condoms, which are the least reliable.

Which will lead to more abortions.

The point is, that to decrease the number of abortions, we should decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies.  The best way to do that is to make it easy to avoid unwanted pregnancies, by whatever methods the women prone to conceiving those pregnancies find works best for them.  If it's tubal ligation, they should be able to get a tubal ligation on demand, without having to drive across the state, or satisfy some doctor's personal conditions about why they want a tubal, or have a certain number of children (that they may or may not want or be able to support) first, or be a certain age, or make sure their husbands are satisfied with the number of pregnancies they got out of their incubators.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.31  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.29    one month ago

Of course not.  No man should be forced into parenthood by a doctor's wishes, or his wife's.  The same goes for women regarding their doctors' wishes, or their husbands'.  But the fact of the matter is that it happens (more for women than men, it seems), and it's legal, and it leads to unwanted pregnancies, which in turn leads to abortions.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.32  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.30    one month ago

I am going to look more into this, I have family members in the medical field that I can talk to. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.33  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.31    one month ago

The question is, what percentage of abortions are for this reason. In order to cut down on having abortions, we need to find out what is the biggest reason that woman are becoming pregnant when they don't want to be.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.34  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.32    one month ago

Here's a link:

https://physiciansnews.com/2002/02/14/when-a-physician-may-refuse-to-treat-a-patient/

A physician is not required to prescribe or render medical treatment that the physician deems ethically inappropriate or medically ineffective. A physician may refuse to treat a patient when the physician has a moral or religious objection to the care that is sought by the patient. If a physician decides not to provide services to a patient on religious, ethical or moral grounds, the physician should discuss the reasons for the refusal with the patient, inform the patient of other resources or providers that can competently respond to the patient’s needs, and document the discussion with the patient in the patient’s medical record.

If a physician thinks it is unethical or immoral for one spouse to deprive the other of children (and some do), they can refuse a tubal or a vasectomy.  If the physician has religious objections to contraception, including sterilization, they can refuse a tubal or vasectomy.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.35  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.33    one month ago

There is no one reason.  But it is obvious to me that reliable contraception will decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions.  If a woman has trouble accessing or paying for contraception, or is limited to less reliable methods by her circumstances, financial or otherwise, she is more likely to find herself pregnant when she doesn't want to be.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.36  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.34    one month ago

I read that on the link, but it also said if they refuse to do the procedure, then they should provide the patient with information where they can be treated.  Would a doctor refuse and not give them resources and information about where they can be taken care of?

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.37  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.35    one month ago

I was under the impression that The Affordable Care Act helped with that. It’s does not?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.38  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.36    one month ago

Yes, and if the nearest facility is miles away?  Say you're in some rural community where it's an hour or more drive to the nearest hospital that even has an OR, and you find out that you can't have some procedures done, because the doctor or hospital don't like them.  Would you consider that procedure to now be "easily available and affordable" as we both seem to think that contraception should be?  Can everyone afford to take another day off of work, drive even farther, to find a hospital or doctor who will perform the procedure?  For a minimum wage earner with no paid medical leave and no or limited insurance coverage, and possible transportation issues, the problems should be pretty clear.  Ironically, these are the folks least likely to be able to support an unexpected child.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.39  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.37    one month ago

It helps, for those who are covered.  Not everybody is.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.40  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.31    one month ago

The flip side to that is no woman should be forced into parenthood by a man or someone opposed to abortion.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.41  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.38    one month ago

There is not too much you can do about it then. If the doctor feels it is unethical then you have no choice. The only suggestion would be is to force them to do it. Is that the solution? Fire the doctor? Provide another doctor in the same location to do the procedure?  

What would be the solution, specifically.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.42  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.39    one month ago

What about Medicaid? 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.43  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.41    one month ago
Provide another doctor in the same location to do the procedure?  

This, to me.

Or government support for healthcare facilities, so that communities aren't left to the mercies of religiously-based hospitals who put their interpretations of scriptures ahead of patient's best interests.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.44  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.43    one month ago

That I agree with. Also, modifying your behavior would help too. Unless it is by accident thinking you are okay with the method of birth control you are taking, to be more careful with your sexual activities. If you and your partner know that nether of you are on any type of birth control, you are taking a risk and being irresponsible. Don’t you agree?

I feel that some things are preventable and people have to start taking responsibility for their actions. I think some of these pregnancies could have been avoided if they simply used their common sense.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.46  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.44    one month ago

Using contraception is common sense.  Common sense dictates that we should make it easy for couples to exercise their common sense by removing barriers to contraception.  Don't you agree?  

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.47  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.46    one month ago

Do you agree with my comment?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.48  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.47    one month ago

I agree that people need to be responsible with their reproductive decisions.  And I believe there are barriers to them being able to do so, and that ignoring or downplaying those barriers is not helpful.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.49  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.45    one month ago

I still think you can find some sort of community center that may help you. There is always someone that can guide you. Around 89% can get it, so the other 11% must have someplace to go. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.50  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.48    one month ago

Also downplaying being responsible for your behavior isn’t either. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.51  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.46    one month ago

Using protection is wise, and thinking before you act is wise too.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.52  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.49    one month ago
the other 11% must have someplace to go. 

Yeah, they can go to the pharmacy and buy condoms, which have a 13% failure rate with typical use.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.53  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.50    one month ago
Also downplaying being responsible for your behavior isn’t either. 

Nobody here is doing that.  How is wanting to make contraception available and affordable downplaying responsibility?  I don't think anyone here who is advocating for contraception is doing so in the hopes that folks will chuck their condoms or birth control pills in the trash without using them.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.54  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.53    one month ago

I never said that using birth control is irresponsible, however, I did say that having sex without birth control is. I don’t seem to see too much on here about behavior if they are not on any kind of birth control. I think that is important. That is me..... 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.55  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.54    one month ago

Yes, sex ed, contraception, and family planning services were all mentioned, with the intent that nobody be responsible enough to use them /s

The expectation of responsibility is implied, Kathleen.  None of these suggestions implies that couples need someone to blow the whistle to stop them if they don't have a condom ready, or plans to provide birth control pills that don't get taken, or sex ed classes with the expectation that students will sleep through them.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.56  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.55    one month ago

I don’t think you understand what I am saying. Yes, some do not take it seriously enough. Notice I am not being sarcastic, just straight forward.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.57  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.56    one month ago

Good grief, Kathleen, do you seriously think that anybody here expects that any of these measures will work without the couples involved being responsible enough to use them?  Of course we expect them to be responsible.  We all know that a condom doesn't work in the box.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.58  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.57    one month ago

Who knows... not everyone has common sense. Frankly, it’s very noticeable with some on here. So it’s hard to determine who would be responsible or not when it comes to sex. That’s too personal.

Btw, do you think 823,000 abortions in one year is because of contraceptives not working properly?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.59  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.58    one month ago
do you think 823,000 abortions in one year is because of contraceptives not working properly?  

Where did you get that figure from? But according to the Guttmacher Institute, half of women who were using contraceptives became pregnant. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.60  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.59    one month ago
But according to the Guttmacher Institute, half of women who were using contraceptives became pregnant. 

Both partners should be using them.

And it is possible that in that poll, some women may have lied about the use of them.  After getting an abortion, it is entirely possible she might have said that instead of looking like she and her partner were too dumb to use them.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.61  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.59    one month ago

From the Guttmacher Institute fact sheet. That was in 2017. 

So then if it’s half ( which is a lot) then how would you explain the rest? 

Also, some people double up. They both use protection. That could help, if they agreed to do that. 

My point is, I am sure a lot of carelessness is involved. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.62  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.60    one month ago
Both partners should be using them.

Ideally, both do. But this is not an ideal world and failure can still occur.

And it is possible that in that poll, some women may have lied about the use of them. After getting an abortion, it is entirely possible she might have said that instead of looking like she and her partner were too dumb to use them.

Possible, but no reason to assume that's the case.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.63  Kathleen  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.60    one month ago

True, you don’t know who is telling the truth.

I think a lot of it is carelessness between them.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.64  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.61    one month ago
My point is, I am sure a lot of carelessness is involved. 

I'm sure that plays a part. But regardless if one or both use or do not use contraceptives, or contraceptives fail, abortion is something that must always be legal, available, and safe.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.65  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.64    one month ago

I am pro choice so I never said abortion should not be available. I was just saying if we tried harder, we could reduce them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.66  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.62    one month ago
Ideally, both do. But this is not an ideal world and failure can still occur.

There would undoubtedly be fewer abortions if both partners use contraceptives every time.

Possible, but no reason to assume that's the case.

I am not assuming that in all cases, or even the majority of cases. But to pretend that it doesn't happen like that is a confounding way to think, imo.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.67  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.66    one month ago
There would undoubtedly be fewer abortions if both partners use contraceptives every time.

Probably. But some people think that as long as 1 person is using contraceptives, then that is good enough. And in many cases, it is. But not always.

I am not assuming that in all cases, or even the majority of cases. But to pretend that it doesn't happen like that is a confounding way to think, imo.

Since we have no idea how many might be lying, we cannot make the assumption. All we have is the data as presented. But it's reasonable to think the reported number is at least a ballpark estimation of the actual number.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.68  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.65    one month ago
I am pro choice so I never said abortion should not be available.

I wasn't implying that is what you were saying.

I was just saying if we tried harder, we could reduce them.

True. But regardless of how or even if they're reduced or not, we can agree abortion should always be an available option.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.69  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.68    one month ago

I am glad you were able to see the point I was trying to make. Like Obama said, make abortions available and ‘rare’. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.70  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.69    one month ago

Everybody got your point, Kathleen.  We just all realize that any method of contraception must actually be used to be effective, and that utilization requires responsibility.

And some of us object to the fact that while you seemed to start out agreeing that contraception should be readily available and affordable, you then started to dither, and doubted that access is restricted for some women despite multiple links provided, and said that if one method wasn't available, to just use something else, and then just chalked unwanted pregnancy up to lack of responsibility, ignoring the fact that we are all very much aware when we mention contraception that one must be responsible enough to use it for it to work.  You backpedalled.

 
 
 
Ender
5.1.71  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.70    one month ago

I don't think there is one person around here that has not given into temptation at one time.

Especially being a teenager.

Acting like it is all just as easy as a simple choice is bypassing human instinct, if not and/or emotion.

In other words I guess, shit happens.

What gets me most of all with a lot of it, whatever happens or the end result may be, it is not the business of anyone else beside the parties involved. At all.

Telling other what is right and wrong is only dictating what others can or should do. Most times without even knowing any circumstances involved.

Really weird to me that some do not see simple facts.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.72  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.70    one month ago

I disagree with your assessment about where my comments were going.  I more less brought up another important matter that you did not like.

I am giving this a rest. Bedtime.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.73  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @5.1.71    one month ago

I've always been pretty careful, and have never had an unwanted pregnancy, but I've also always had access to contraception.  Starting in my mid-30s, though, I could no longer take the Pill (caused very high blood pressure for me, when it had been on the low side before), so that left me fewer and less reliable options.  So, while I've always used contraception, I was lucky not to be in that 13%.  Of course, I had insurance, so I would have had access to tubal ligation, had it become necessary.  I'm lucky enough not to live in a community where the only hospital objects to contraception or sterilization.

 
 
 
Ender
5.1.74  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.73    one month ago

Come on now. We all had at least one breakdown.  Haha

I imagine you have to beat them off with a spiked club. So you can do whatever you want. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

Sorry the pill had that impact on you. For some I have read it helps and even regulates.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.75  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.61    one month ago
My point is, I am sure a lot of carelessness is involved. 

You're probably right. Your conclusion seems indisputable.

OTOH, that doesn't change our obligations as a society. We know that an unwanted pregnancy will probably lead to serious problems.

We must try to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Sex education, contraception, over and over. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.76  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @5.1.74    one month ago
I imagine you have to beat them off with a spiked club. So you can do whatever you want.

Ah, if only.  But thanks.

Yeah, it was 118/68 the day I went to the doctor.  She told me to take my blood pressure a few weeks in, and to watch for signs of blood clots, due to my age.  Two or 3 weeks later, I felt like I was coming down with the flu - ached all over, fatigue, but no fever.  I had my assistant take my BP, and it was 150/110.  Holy crap!  So, couldn't take that anymore.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.77  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.76    one month ago

That’s high, hope you keep a good eye on it. I take BP medicine too. I am on a new type, so I take my BP everyday and I keep a chart. It runs in my family. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.78  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.77    one month ago

Thank you.  It is back to normal without meds now, but I spent about 6 months on BP meds.  It runs in my family, too.  Glad you're taking care of yours.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.79  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.78    one month ago

So far so good, thank you. I have been cutting down on the salt too. Hard because things taste flat without it.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.80  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.43    one month ago
Or government support for healthcare facilities, so that communities aren't left to the mercies of religiously-based hospitals who put their interpretations of scriptures ahead of patient's best interests.

In rural America that's all that available. There may be county health departments but that could mean a 50 mile drive one way. I would like to see more government operated medical facilities that can provide birth control information and actual medication and devices

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.81  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.59    one month ago

My mom used to say..."For the pill to be truly effective, hold it between your knees."

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.82  Gordy327  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.81    one month ago

Well, she's not entirely wrong, lol

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.83  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.82    one month ago

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bbl-1
6  bbl-1    one month ago

Still can't figure out why so called 'freedom loving' conservatives wish to legislate laws giving the government the power to force a woman or family to bear a child they do not need, want, can not afford or are simply not interested for their own personal reasons. 

Pro life people?  Really?  So what does that actually mean?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @6    one month ago

there are plenty of conservatives who don't object to abortion.

I am one of them

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.1.1    one month ago

had you read more of my posts you would have already known that

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.3  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    one month ago

What you personally believe is immaterial here.

The discussion is about law and public policy!

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1.3    one month ago

so everyone's opinion here is in the same boat!

and WHY would you bother you ask me questions about this then?

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.5  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.4    one month ago

Why do you think anyone wants you opinion?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1.5    one month ago

if you dont want my opinion, why are you STILL  asking me questions?

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.7  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.6    one month ago

You didn't answer questions. It isn't about you!

So, you say you disagree with the gop's policy.

What are you personally going to do about it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1.7    one month ago

not a fucking thing. and I will feel good about it!

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.9  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.8    one month ago

As they say in Texas, "All hat and no cattle"...

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1.9    one month ago

?

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.11  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.10    one month ago

Figure it out...

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1.7    one month ago

what are you doing?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1.11    one month ago

nah, don't care enough

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.14  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.12    one month ago

From here on ignoring you trolling this article!

You have contributed nothing except to troll...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.15  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JBB @6.1.9    one month ago

I heard this one when stationed in TX...."Beware of steers who act like bulls."

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.2  Gordy327  replied to  bbl-1 @6    one month ago
Still can't figure out why so called 'freedom loving' conservatives wish to legislate laws giving the government the power to force a woman or family to bear a child they do not need, want, can not afford or are simply not interested for their own personal reasons. 

I still can't figure out why some people think a woman's personal decision is any of their business.

 
 
 
bbl-1
6.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2    one month ago

Unless conservative wish to have a 'certain power' over a portion of the population ( women ) in the same manner certain uber religious Islamic states have.

After all, aren't the roots of the Taliban's religious interpretations grounded in the Abrahamic religion?

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  bbl-1 @6.2.1    one month ago
After all, aren't the roots of the Taliban's religious interpretations grounded in the Abrahamic religion?

So are christian fundamentalists. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
6.2.3  bbl-1  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2.2    one month ago

My point exactly.  They are the same.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  bbl-1 @6.2.3    one month ago
My point exactly.  They are the same.

I suspect they would disagree. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
6.2.5  bbl-1  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2.4    one month ago

Of course they would disagree.  But they are the same.  Only difference is one side has larger and more powerful weapons.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7  Bob Nelson    one month ago

There is no reason - ethical, logical, or Biblical - to oppose abortion. All such arguments are artificial constructs, with no basis in reality.

The actual reason anyone opposes abortion is that we all have an inborn reflex to protect our young. This reflex has been hijacked by the anti-choice people, and applied to blobs of tissue that in no way qualify as "babies". Unless we seriously examine the foundations of our pro- or anti- positions, we can make no progress.

The motives most often cited for banning abortion cannot be sustained in any serious discussion. Anti-choicers must therefore resort to dishonest subterfuges... while claiming to act for morality. They must - and do - derail any attempt to seriously examine the topic.

The current legal situation in the US has nothing to do with morality. It is a "Judgement of Solomon" compromise between pure emotion and exhausted reason.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @7    one month ago
The motives most often cited for banning abortion cannot be sustained in any serious discussion. Anti-choicers must therefore resort to dishonest subterfuges... while claiming to act for morality. They must - and do - derail any attempt to seriously examine the topic.

I think you hit the nail on the head right there.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @7    one month ago
There is no reason - ethical, logical, or Biblical - to oppose abortion. All such arguments are artificial constructs, with no basis in reality.

I tend to agree. Most, if not all arguments against abortion I have seen are more emotionally based rather than rational. I could probably construct a fairly rational argument for abortion, but that will probably cause some people to go into an emotional tizzy.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.3  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @7    one month ago

I haven't seen 1 anti-abortionist put forth a logical, rational argument as to why abortion should be prohibited. Usually all they muster is emotional appeals or rhetoric, religious belief, or flat out misinformation or lies. It's especially ridiculous when they base their arguments on morality.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.3.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @7.3    one month ago
It's especially ridiculous when they base their arguments on morality.

Exactly. 

They are "holier than thou"... while unable to explain their position.

There are many who have never thought through their position, despite being very vehement. These people simply follow their leaders. They have abandoned their own minds and consciences.

Their leaders are smart enough to think it through. Since that process must necessarily conclude that prohibiting abortion causes pain for no good reason... they are just plain evil. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.3.2  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.3.1    one month ago
They are "holier than thou"... while unable to explain their position.

Who needs explanations when one has sanctimony?

There are many who have never thought through their position, despite being very vehement. These people simply follow their leaders.

Some do seem to simply parrot others while ignoring actual facts. It's willful ignorance at its best.

They have abandoned their own minds and consciences.

Often their positions and "arguments" do seem quite irrational.

Their leaders are smart enough to think it through.

That I'm not so sure.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8  Perrie Halpern R.A.    one month ago

I would just like to say, that a law that is not part of the constitution, can be reversed. Even if it was in the constitution, it could be reversed, but it would be harder to do. So those who say that there is no danger of Roe v Wade being reversed with a conservative court, are wrong. It is an absolute possibility. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8    one month ago

Perrie, I don't think anyone said abortion rights couldn't be reversed. Only that it is unlikely. However, doing so would set a very dangerous legal precedent. Unfortunately,  the abortion debate seems to be more emotionally driven than rationally.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
9  Greg Jones    one month ago

So, according to the pro-abortionists, abortion is an effective method of birth control that should have no restrictions as to the stage of the pregnancy or the age of the female

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @9    one month ago

Who said that specifically? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1    one month ago

trumpturd and his supporters.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @9    one month ago
pro-abortionists

What is this word? 

I have never met anyone who favors abortions.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.2    one month ago
What is this word? 

Something anti-abortionists made up, which is willfully disingenuous. Then there are those who are willfully ignorant by equating pro-choice to pro-abortion.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.2.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @9.2.1    one month ago

I note that Greg didn't answer. That would have been preferable. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.2.2    one month ago

MAGA has not answered either. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
9.2.4  bbl-1  replied to  Gordy327 @9.2.3    one month ago

MAGA can't answer.  Remember when Chris Matthews asked him if punishment should be given to women seeking abortion?  Trump replied yes but could not or would not answer what the punishment would be.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  bbl-1 @9.2.4    one month ago
MAGA can't answer.

I'm not surprised.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
9.2.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Gordy327 @9.2.5    one month ago

More like won't.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9.2.6    one month ago

Exactly. But not surprising either.

 
 
 
Kathleen
10  Kathleen    one month ago

Abortion is a HUGE issue and I think it would be catastrophic if they attempted to abolish it. Most politicians realize that. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.1  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @10    one month ago

Politicians in some states have attempted to abolish abortion by passing (unconstitutional) laws which severely restrict abortion. And yes, it would be catastrophic if abortion was abolished. There are real world examples of this too.

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1    one month ago
some states

I was referring to the whole country. I do understand that if it is left up to the states, that would make it much harder to get an abortion. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @10.1.1    one month ago
I was referring to the whole country.

I know. I was just pointing out that some states are already actively trying to abolish abortion to various degrees.

 
 
 
JBB
10.2  author  JBB  replied to  Kathleen @10    one month ago

Yet reversal of Roe V Wade has been a central part of the gop's official platform for forty five years...

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @10.2    one month ago

prove it or it is just your opinion

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.2.3  Kathleen  replied to  JBB @10.2    one month ago
gop's official platform for forty five years...

Not all republicans are against abortion. There are a lot of moderate republicans like myself that are pro choice and more less conservative on other issues and not the social issues.

 
 
 
JBB
10.2.4  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @10.2.2    one month ago

It is common knowledge. You can look it up!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8274866/

 
 
 
JBB
10.2.5  author  JBB  replied to  Kathleen @10.2.3    one month ago

The Republican Party speaks for Republican and not the individual members of the gop...

If it is in the gop platform then it is gop policy. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @10.2.4    one month ago

I suggest you read your sources before linking them.

shoe me the GoP platform reversing roe for the last. 45 years as you claimed

 
 
 
JBB
10.2.7  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @10.2.6    one month ago

Look it up yourself. You can't refute the truth!

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @10.2.7    one month ago

I did, it doesn't exist

 
 
 
JBB
10.2.9  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @10.2.8    one month ago
 
 
 
Texan1211
10.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @10.2.9    one month ago

you should always read your sources FIRST.

 
 
 
JBB
10.2.11  author  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @10.2.10    one month ago

You should go and read every single official Republican Party Platform from 1976 through 2016 which are all explicitly for making abortions illegal! Every single one of them!

Prove me wrong. I double dog dare you to try!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.2.12  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JBB @10.2.11    one month ago

Republicans are against them until their side dishes need one.

 
 
 
charger 383
11  charger 383    one month ago

Overpopulation is the problem neither party wants to talk about

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @11    one month ago
Overpopulation is the problem neither party wants to talk about

But it's a problem we have to deal with. Or it'll deal with us.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.2  Kathleen  replied to  charger 383 @11    one month ago

Then again, you can’t tell people how many kids they can have either. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  Kathleen @11.2    one month ago

Even if they're having them on the taxpayer's dime?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.2.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  bbl-1 @11.2.1    one month ago

Do you really want to go into the swamp of economic injustice that leads to ignorance... 

That argument is dubious, and opens a huge can of worms. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.2.3  bbl-1  replied to  Bob Nelson @11.2.2    one month ago

You are correct 100%.  But----what happened to 'fiscal conservatism'?-----Or----Was that too always a mirage created for the weak and insipid?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  bbl-1 @11.2.3    one month ago
Was that... always a mirage created for the weak and insipid?

Yes. 

Whenever worries about the nation’s finances have been confronted with the GOP's other agendas - armament, social constraints, ... - the financial worries have been dismissed. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.2.5  Kathleen  replied to  bbl-1 @11.2.1    one month ago

Strange comment coming form a liberal....

I don't think it's right to expect other people to pay for your children. 

Do you?

 
 
 
JBB
11.2.6  author  JBB  replied to  Kathleen @11.2.5    one month ago

In a perfect world all children would be loved, wanted and provided for. This is not a perfect world. We euthanize unwanted dogs and cats by the millions. What do you propose we do for unwanted children? There would be millions more of them mainly in poor underdeveloped countries if terminations were not a choice. 

My point which most seem intent on ignoring is that a modern enlightened nation can and should do the things proven to drastically reduce unwanted pregnancies. Abortions wouldn't be much if an issue if we did.

But no! All you want to talk about is money and who pays and who is responsible while taking no personal responsibility for the politics of the party you support and its leader Trump who are plainly intent upon making it a punishable critical offense to get or to assist in abortions. Is that what you want or not?

If you support Trump and the gop it is YOU!

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  JBB @11.2.6    one month ago
We euthanize unwanted dogs and cats by the millions.

It's odd how we consider that "humane," but not when it comes to the terminally ill or those in pain. But I digress.

There would be millions more of them mainly in poor underdeveloped countries if terminations were not a choice. 

Yes, and we can see which countries such a scenario has occurred. It is not a good outcome.

Abortions wouldn't be much if an issue if we did

It shouldn't be much of an issue now. But it is mainly because of the irrationality of those who make it an issue. Especially those opposed to it.

 
 
 
Gazoo
11.2.8  Gazoo  replied to  JBB @11.2.6    one month ago

“What do you propose we do for unwanted children?”

how about we greatly increase the number of immigrants into the country, along with illegals, that rely on public assistance? That should greatly improve the lives of the American children you speak of.

“All you want to talk about is money and who pays”

generally, folks that actually work for their money want to know what it’s being used for, whereas people who rely on others for their existence think it grows on trees.

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.2.9  bbl-1  replied to  Kathleen @11.2.5    one month ago

1.  You do not know what a 'liberal' is.

2.  Answer is----------------------one could say that the upper income tiers benefit the most from the tax structures so thusly one could also surmise that the upper income tiers are benefitting the most with their own personal child rearing expenses.  This axe is double sided.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.2.10  Kathleen  replied to  JBB @11.2.6    one month ago

I guess you didn’t pay attention. 

I am pro-choice, but you don’t care because I am not leaning left. 

It is NOT ME. 

Yes... personal responsibility is important 

I can support whom ever I want.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.2.11  Kathleen  replied to  bbl-1 @11.2.9    one month ago

I use to be one so yes... I do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Kathleen @11.2.10    one month ago

To me, it just sounds like you are a one-issue voter--that you recognize that there are more than just one important thing in the world. Congratulations on that.

I, too, am a conservative in favor of abortion, and like you, I wish people would do more to prevent them by taking personal responsibility.

I always say, have as many abortions as you choose and can afford to pay for.

 
 
 
JBB
11.2.13  author  JBB  replied to  Kathleen @11.2.10    one month ago

Yes, I believe cognitive dissonance is holding two opposing beliefs simultaneously...

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @11.2.12    one month ago
like you are NOT a one-issue voter-

SORRY!

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.2.15  bbl-1  replied to  Kathleen @11.2.11    one month ago

Don't believe you.

 
 
 
Gazoo
11.2.16  Gazoo  replied to  JBB @11.2.13    one month ago

Being able to look at each issue individually and forming a judgement on that issue is critical thinking, not cognitive dissonance.  
Some are more simple. They see someone that leans one way or the other, labels them, categorizes them, and automatically assumes they know how that person feels about all issues. When that person says something that conflicts with the assumption(s) made about them, they often become the object of insults.

 
 
 
JBB
11.2.17  author  JBB  replied to  Kathleen @11.2.10    one month ago

256

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.2.18  Kathleen  replied to  bbl-1 @11.2.15    one month ago

I don’t care what you believe.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.2.19  Kathleen  replied to  Gazoo @11.2.16    one month ago

Exactly.

 
 
 
JBB
11.2.20  author  JBB  replied to  Gazoo @11.2.16    one month ago

Being pro-choice while supporting a man and a party that are adamantly anti-choice is by definition text book cognitive dissonance...

 
 
 
Gazoo
11.2.21  Gazoo  replied to  JBB @11.2.20    one month ago

If that person were a one issue voter then yes. Most aren’t that simple minded though. It is wrong and stupid to make all encompassing assumptions about people you don’t even know. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.2.22  bbl-1  replied to  Kathleen @11.2.18    one month ago

I know.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.2.23  Kathleen  replied to  bbl-1 @11.2.22    one month ago

About me I mean, but you were aiming for something else.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.2.24  Kathleen  replied to  Gazoo @11.2.21    one month ago

It’s nasty, but that is expected. It’s called frustration and they are narrow minded. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.2.25  Kathleen  replied to  JBB @11.2.20    one month ago

Wrong, its called being well rounded and looking at each issue instead of blindly staying on one side on all issues because you are stubborn.

 
 
 
Gazoo
11.2.26  Gazoo  replied to  Kathleen @11.2.24    one month ago

I agree, it’s a tactic of the simple minded. I don’t know what their motive is but if they are trying to persuade someone to their way of thinking it does the exact opposite.

 
 
 
JBB
11.2.27  author  JBB  replied to  Kathleen @11.2.25    one month ago

Then do not cry to me when your daughter and future granddaughters don't have the rights you enjoy which your formothers fought for.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.2.28  Kathleen  replied to  JBB @11.2.27    one month ago

They may never put themselves in that position. So I will not be crying to you.

 
 
 
JBB
11.2.29  author  JBB  replied to  Kathleen @11.2.28    one month ago

May? The point is they may have no choice.

Good girls do it too. I do not judge anyone...

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.2.30  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gazoo @11.2.16    one month ago

True. 

Pigeon-holing is often so strong that it overwhelms reality. It doesn't matter what someone actually says: opponents do not listen. They know what the person thinks; they know what the person must say.

Kinda makes debate difficult... 

 
 
 
Ender
11.3  Ender  replied to  charger 383 @11    one month ago

I have read studies that more affluent people tend to have less children.

Not sure how accurate it is but basically saying the more people lifted out of poverty would lower birth rate.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.3.1  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @11.3    one month ago
I have read studies that more affluent people tend to have less children.

That makes sense, as having and raising children is expensive. Less or no children means one retains the assets they would otherwise spend on child rearing. Therefore, they have a greater chance of achieving greater affluence.

Not sure how accurate it is but basically saying the more people lifted out of poverty would lower birth rate.

Women in poverty may not have the resources to obtain contraception or an abortion. So if they become pregnant, then they risk becoming even more impoverished, for both them and a child.

 
 
 
charger 383
11.3.2  charger 383  replied to  Ender @11.3    one month ago

I have noticed that, too.  People having more kids than they can afford leads to poverty in that generation and in the future

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.3.3  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @11.3.2    one month ago
People having more kids than they can afford leads to poverty in that generation and in the future

It also risks posing a drain on the rest of us too.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.3.4  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @11.3.3    one month ago

Agreed

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.4  bbl-1  replied to  charger 383 @11    one month ago

Amen.

 
 
 
Ender
12  Ender    one month ago

Wonder what will happen with all the hypocrites that were boycotting wearing masks, saying keep government off of my body...

 
 
 
charger 383
12.1  charger 383  replied to  Ender @12    one month ago

I have noticed that many people who are against choice on abortion want choice on masks and many people who want make people wear masks are for choice on abortion.  Seems a reversal of positions when something affects or inconvinces them.personally,   This is puzzling.  

 
 
 
lady in black
12.1.1  lady in black  replied to  charger 383 @12.1    one month ago

They are HYPOCRITES

 
 
 
Gordy327
12.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @12.1    one month ago
many people who want make people wear masks are for choice on abortion. 

The big difference here is, wearing a mask protects me from you, as someone with Covid can spread it and cause harm to others. Someone having an abortion has no effect on me or anyone else.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
12.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  charger 383 @12.1    one month ago

There is no contradiction. The two topics are not as you present them. . 

Not wearing a mask puts people in danger. It is irresponsible. 

Prohibiting abortion ruins damages lives. It is irresponsible.

Responsible people favor wearing a mask, and oppose prohibiting abortion. 

Irresponsible people refuse the mask and forbid abortion. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
13  Texan1211    one month ago

I am for choice for both.ave the damn brains to figure out how to prevent pregnancy so an abortion is n

I ALWAYS wear a mask when I go out, and wish everyone did.

But I look at it this way: I am safer wearing MY mask, and there is a good chance the gene pool improves when idiots too dumb to wear them are dead.

As for abortion--Hallelujah! No more paying Medicaid and food stamps and housing and earned income tax credits to people who neither want children, can afford them, or have the damn brains to figure out how to prevent pregnancy so an abortion is even necessary.

And before someone says it, YES, I KNOW there are exceptions and people using birth control CAN get pregnant. But those cases are not that high in number.

 
 
 
Gordy327
13.1  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @13    one month ago
YES, I KNOW there are exceptions and people using birth control CAN get pregnant. But those cases are not that high in number.

See post 5.1.59.

 
 
 
Texan1211
13.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @13.1    one month ago

See 5.1.60

 
 
 
Gordy327
14  Gordy327    one month ago

Son I'm still wondering, what exactly is America's abortion problem? Or perhaps, how is abortion a problem?

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.1  Gordy327  replied to  Gordy327 @14    one month ago
Son I'm still wondering, 

So, not son. Typo on my part.

 
 
 
JBB
14.2  author  JBB  replied to  Gordy327 @14    one month ago

That's better. Thank You, JBB...

Our problem is that the issue of legal abortion divides us like no other yet we could do some things to mostly eliminate the demand for abortions but instead the gop only wants to make terminations illegal, again. The Supreme Court and women's rights to choose are in the balance right now and that is a problem. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
14.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  JBB @14.2    one month ago
Our problem is that the issue of legal abortion divides us like no other

The problem is, one side does not accept the legal boundaries of abortion. That is a problem I mentioned in my first post on this thread.

yet we could do some things to mostly eliminate the demand for abortions

Agreed. That would be optimal to satisfy both sided of the issue.

but instead the gop only wants to make terminations illegal, again.

Indeed. They go right to the extreme.

The Supreme Court and women's rights to choose are in the balance right now and that is a problem. 

Indeed it is.

 
 
 
charger 383
15  charger 383    one month ago

The biggest problem with abortion is like many things some people can't tend to their own business