poor trumpsters are all upset about the breach of the confidential and private deliberations of the federalist SCOTUS, after that same court creates an opinion to remove those same rights from every woman in america.
Ronald Reagan said he would balance the budget by 1983. He set a record for the highest deficit in history with his "trickle down BS".
Then daddy Bush broke Reagan's record for the highest deficit in history.
Clinton raised taxes and set a record for the highest surpluses in history.
Then five members of SCOTUS selected GW Bush (who also trickled down on us). DuhBya broke his dad's record for the highest deficit in history and gave us the Great Recession.
Bush won the 2000 election and the majority of the Florida vote
The recount was stopped by SCOTUS.
In a per curiam decision , the Court first ruled 7–2 (Justices Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting), strictly on equal protection grounds, that the recount be stopped. Specifically, the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution ; the case had also been argued on the basis of Article II jurisdictional grounds, which found favor with only Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas , and William Rehnquist . Second, the Court ruled 5–4 against the remedy, proposed by Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter , of sending the case back to Florida to complete the recount using a uniform statewide standard before the scheduled December 18 meeting of Florida's electors in Tallahassee,
Florida newspapers sued to get access to the ballots so they could perform an independent recount.
Bush wins, Gore wins -- depending on how ballots are added up
Ballot design was a key factor. Although the Florida fiasco initially focused on the "butterfly ballot" for punch cards in Palm Beach County, the voters' error rate was even higher in some counties that used more modern optical scanning systems but had equally confusing ballots. Most of the errors occurred in 18 counties where ballots spread the presidential candidates across two pages or two columns.
Hand recounts can be reliable, but only if the rules are clear. The researchers who examined the ballots agreed on the marks they saw more than 97 percent of the time. The disagreements came mostly when they were asked to judge whether a voter who failed to punch a clear hole in a ballot had left a "dimple," an indentation on the card.
Some Florida counties handled their ballots so carelessly after election night that county officials could not say with any certainty which ballots had been counted and which had not.
But in counties that use ballots counted by optical scanners, a manual recount often can determine which mark shows the voter's intent, because many voters explain their intentions on the ballot form. Some circle the name of the candidate they meant to vote for; others write the candidate's name on the ballot; others attempt to erase a mark they made in error.
The study found that Florida's uncounted optical scan ballots included as many as 3,527 such potentially valid votes. If those votes had been counted, Gore would have gained 2,206 votes and Bush 1,321 -- a swing of 885 votes for Gore.
In a per curiam decision , the Court first ruled 7–2 (Justices Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting), strictly on equal protection grounds, that the recount be stopped. Specifically, the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution ; the case had also been argued on the basis of Article II jurisdictional grounds, which found favor with only Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas , and William Rehnquist . Second, the Court ruled 5–4 against the remedy, proposed by Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter , of sending the case back to Florida to complete the recount using a uniform statewide standard before the scheduled December 18 meeting of Florida's electors in Tallahassee
Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn is alive we must NOT give it the benefit of doubt and we must assume it is NOT yet alive. And, thus, it should NOT be entitled to life, livery and the pursuit of happiness until live birth has been acheived. - al Jizzerror
Whether it's alive is irrelevant. I'm alive. Have been for years. I have no right to demand the use of another person's organs or tissues - not even those of dead people. We don't mandate organ donation even by those who have died, but forcing pregnancy mandates allowing the use of a living person's organs and tissues by another. Forcing pregnancy gives dead people more rights than living women.
If your supreme being is in charge of guiding the one sperm in a million to the one egg released monthly, then it is the biggest abortion provider in existence.
A common fundamentalist argument against abortion is that each human being is granted a soul at the moment of conception, and that destroying that "soul" is equivalent to murder. Taking this logic further, the argument is that most methods of birth control are equivalent to mass murder with the exception of condoms or other barrier types.
However, there's some serious problems with the logic of ensoulation at the point of conception. The CDC as well as the March of Dimes and several fertility experts have conducted studies to see exactly how hard it is to carry a pregnancy to term. In general, less than 70% of all fertilized eggs will even implant into the mother's womb causing pregnancy to continue [2] . From there, there is a 25-50% chance of aborting before you even know you are pregnant. If, however, you make it to your first month, your odds go up to 75% chance of carrying to term. So if you look at it from the fundamentalist point of view, all those little souls are being given a home, only to be miscarried before they even know they are alive.
Scientific research has compiled the following information about the rates of naturally aborted pregnancies in human beings (or, if you believe everything happens for a reason, pregnancies aborted by God himself).
This chart assumes that 200 eggs are in an environment with sperm nearby. [3]
I believe in the sanctity of human life and do not support the wanton killing of innocence human life. The unborn babies are are just that and they are being killed because they are inconvenient. Well too bad. The mother's should have thought of that before crawling in the sack.
It is sort of like bearing arms (which by the way is actually is a Good given right stated in the Constitution). If you don't like want a gun don't buy one.
BTW abortion is not an enumerated right stated in the Constitution.
BTW abortion is not an enumerated right stated in the Constitution.
Neither is your right to have me not go rifling through your medical records, looking for juicy gossip. But that right is recognized and codified, all the same.
Forced living organ donations - that should be a thing.
Every Justice, Senator, and House Rep, who supports an abortion ban, should immediately donate any and all of their residences as orphanages. And cover all costs therein.
Neither is your right to have me not go rifling through your medical records, looking for juicy gossip.
Apparently the republican party feels it is just fine and dandy to be rifling a person's private medical records. As long as that person is a female, at least.
The 'creator' should have had the wisdom to make the man the sack. You would be whistling a different tune.
You couldn't be more correct. If men were the ones to bear children, there would be an abortion clinic in every JiffyLube, every QuikTrip, down the street from every strip joint in the nation. Isn't this the party of "it's my body so you cannot force me to wear a mask"?
Holy shit. I forget. There are some people for whom logic is not necessarily a part of their lives. Why don't you do what most people do. If one has a contradictory point to make, they counter with facts. The old "I'm not going to do your work" is nothing less than lazy and practically proof you don't know what you're talking about.
The old "I'm not going to do your work" is nothing less than lazy and practically proof you don't know what you're talking about.
I get that answer from the left all the time. When I have given proof or links to proof it is usually ignored and not looked at by liberals so why even bother.
no moderation in heated discussions and you've already pulled off the biggest article there before. as a group mod here and in the reality show I must respond to flags that come in. plus, I really like deleting christo-fascist trolls. their reactions are usually quite amusing.
that bad howdy doody imitation also cut a deal with our enemy iran while he was a POTUS candidate to foul the hostage negotiations and the '80 election. I hope he's sharing a spit in hell with nixon while watching satan go balls deep in his wife nancy, the 40's hollywood abortion poster girl.
"that bad howdy doody imitation also cut a deal with our enemy iran while he was a POTUS candidate to foul the hostage negotiations and the '80 election. I hope he's sharing a spit in hell with nixon while watching satan go balls deep in his wife nancy, the 40's hollywood abortion poster girl."
Bill Clinton was a child molester and a rapist and a sexual predator.
You mean like Trump who wants to fuck Ivanka and has publicly stated so on a few occasions, who grabs pussies and boasts about it, and fucked a porn star with a pregnant wife (who also had girl-on-girl pix, easily found on the internet) at home? Oh. I see. Yeahhhh.
Gee why does Trump bother you so much yey Clinton got a pass and his transgressions are ignored?
Because you cannot prove your claims while Trump's transgressions are public record. Not to mention that you made a claim and I posed a like example that has been proven.
You mean Nancy? Reagan began the decline into dementia into his second term. When Nancy held her seances, I'm sure it was because she thought it helped run the country. I liked him well enough for someone who was in decline. And I felt for Nancy. He failed in many areas.
first term and is already in dementia but that doesn't bother you?
Oh please. That's a witty statement, arkie. Half-witty. Dim-witty. Nit-witty. It smells of desperation in here.
Trump confused 9/11 with the convenience store '7/11'. During his 2016 campaign, Trump confused the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the convenience store chain 7/11. Instead of describing al-Qaeda's attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as 9/11, then-candidate Trump referred to them as "7/11."
At a rally in Buffalo, New York on April 18, 2016, Trump told the crowd, "I wrote this out, and it's very close to my heart. Because I was down there, and I watched our police and our firemen down at 7/11 — down at the World Trade Center right after it came down. And I saw the greatest people I've ever seen in action. I saw the bravest people I've ever seen."
Trump claimed there would be ' one million eight hundred and seventy thousand million tests' for coronavirus. At a press conference in April, Trump seriously inflated the amount of testing for coronavirus that was taking place in the United States — where, he told reporters, Americans were getting "one million eight hundred and seventy thousand million tests."
Trump confused Dayton and Toledo after a mass shooting in Ohio. On August 4, 2019, 24-year-old Connor Stephens Betts carried out a deadly mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. And when Trump discussed the tragedy during a speech at the White House that week, he confused Dayton with another city in Ohio: Toledo.
Trump said, "May God bless the memory of those who perished in Toledo; may God protect them. May God protect all of those, from Texas to Ohio. May God bless the victims and their families. May God bless America." Trump's error was baffling at a traumatic time for the country.
And then there's always forgetting whom you're stumping for:
[At] a rally in Nebraska on Sunday, the most powerful voice in the party managed to forget the name of his chosen runner Vance before muddling the two bitter rivals and delivering a shout-out to 'J.D. Mandel' much to his audience's confusion.
Yeah. Donnie has trumped Biden in the dementia department. Do you think Trump is just stupid or is he cognitively deficient?
Trump didn't try to shake hands with air then stand there like he didn't know where he was. He never called on a paralyzed man to stand up to take a bow. He never had to have the Easter Bunny stop him from speaking. Trump never stated that troops were going to a foreign war zone after saying they wouldn't. Trump never followed other countries like Biden has done for the entire Ukraine war. Biden has done his screw ups all within a time frame just over a year. How long did it take Trump to do what you claim he did.
Note. Even as Putin's vaunted army is proving to be not so vaunted and may well get its arse kicked back to 'ole Mother Russia', there are some that continue to further Putin 'talking points'. Amazing, ain't it.
Name calling on a president that is leading the effort to diminish and possibly destroy an autocratic dictator that creates/causes so many problems and fear in the world may lead one to question---or at least ponder---your allegiance to this great nation, The United States of America.
The biggest problem with Biden in that fight is that ge is not now nor has he ever led the fight. His "actions" have always come after other countries have acted first and half assed responses at that.
Your statement is false. The US has provided massive amounts of equipment and secured the logistics for other nations to also send their weapons and aid.
Whether Biden has led the fight or not, Ukraine without our support would not exist. That is a fact. In manpower and material Russia has massive capability. And thus far Russia is losing.
Besides, from day one Biden said this is Ukraine's fight. But he also said the US will stand with Ukraine. And that we have done.
My only problem with Biden thus far in this war is THIS. Why is it that the only foreign aircraft permitted to operate in Ukranian airspace is Russian?
That is complete different topic. And Iraq did not have WMD. But they did have OIL. Bush lied. Powell lied. They all lied. And wars waged on lies and fraud never have favorable outcomes. Took us 20 years to get out of that crap. What do we have to show for it?
Seems to me that now might be a good time to look into cross border abortion clinics and maybe companies that still produce those old style wire hangers
a few months ago I consulted on a large out patient CO medical clinic placed to service OK and TX that was put into mothballs several years ago. it has fired up again and they're pouring concrete by the end of the month.
... and imagine the ticket I would have received if I had made that hanger comment.
Seems to me that now might be a good time to look into cross border abortion clinics and maybe companies that still produce those old style wire hangers
There are many modern drugs that will terminate a pregnancy. Most are widely prescribed for other conditions. While it is preferable to have personal counseling by a medical profession, women will learn and adapt to protecting their mental and physical health like they have always done for thousands of years.
Allowing states to ban abortion will mostly adversely impact the impoverished who cannot afford to travel to get access to a medical professional who will legally prescribe the necessary medication.
Yes, and those women and all those who assisted them including driving them to and from or nursed them in recovery will be criminals subject to prosecution.
So the poor killing babies is important for you. How about the cost of housing rising or the price of fuels or the cost of food or inflation in general. All of those impact the poor much more than wether or not they can murder babies.
This scam is the critical context for understanding why the Biden Administration casually announced last week the creation of what it is calling a "Disinformation Board” inside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). There is no conceivable circumstance in which a domestic law enforcement agency like DHS should be claiming the power to decree truth and falsity. Operatives in the U.S. Security State are not devoted to combatting disinformation. The opposite is true: they are trained, career liars tasked with concocting and spreading disinformation. As Politico's Jack Schafer wrote :
Who among us thinks the government should add to its work list the job of determining what is true and what is disinformation? And who thinks the government is capable of telling the truth? Our government produces lies and disinformation at industrial scale and always has. It overclassifies vital information to block its own citizens from becoming any the wiser. It pays thousands of press aides to play hide the salami with facts….Making the federal government the official custodian of truth would be like Brink’s giving a safe-cracker a job driving an armored car.
I am really concerned that free speech in the US is in as much danger as abortion rights.
If the abortion rights are terminated, then rights to various forms of birth control, that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, will be next.
It is difficult to believe that our species allows a man, who chose to be single and celibate for life, to have any authority on anyone's marriage and reproduction choices.
The world is getting stranger and more dangerous by the day as the US seems Hellbent to devolve instead of evolve.
However, my mother died from a self-induced abortion in 1957 when I was an infant.
This issue is supremely personal to me while my mother's death had ZERO impact on the lives of the strangers who denied her access to a safe, legal abortion.
The people, who are more concerned about a clump of cells than the well-being of women, are psychopaths as far as I am concerned and should never ever be allowed to have access to women and children for any reason.
Your definition sounds more like those a are in favor of abortion. What is being killed in a callous and unemotional way by morally depraved people are human babies. They are not just a blob of cells.
However, my mother died from a self-induced abortion in 1957 when I was an infant.
That SUX!
In 1957 the leading cause of death for women of child bearing age was botched abortions. Roe v Wade changed that. Now the right-wingers on SCOTUS are going to change it back to the way it used to be (in red states).
I support women's fundamental right to control their own bodies.
Alito and all those antiabortion idiots hate women.
Yes they are a blob of cells at that point. At some point along the way, they become a baby.
I'm a mother of identical twins, a science teacher and a sex-ed teacher who taught abstinence, and a woman. I never had an abortion but I believe in protecting the rights of women who have to endure the process, alone. When you can carry a baby, maybe then you will have the right to tell us, women, what is going on with our bodies.
I have shown and have seen photos of 13 week developing babies and they definitely are not just a blob of cells. If you call prove otherwise please slow them to me.
It really does. I am 65 years old and occasionally still feel the pain of the infant whose mother suddenly disappeared from her life. I never want anyone to ever experience that kind of pain.
However, I know many people who have similar struggles and were raised by their birth parents. Life is puzzling, tragic and euphoric, but rarely boring.
In 1957 the leading cause of death for women of child bearing age was botched abortions.
I am not surprised. There was so much widespread poverty in the 50s.
In 1986, I worked for a man who was born in the 1930s in the Oklahoma. When he was 12, his parents made him leave home because he was the eldest and they did not have enough food to feed themselves and the rest of their children. He did not talk about his struggle to survive, but he did say he never went back and did not know what happened to any of his "family".
Anytime, I indulge in self-pity, I remind myself that it is best to learn from the past and enjoy the present and do what I can do what little I can to make life better for myself and others whenever possible.
I remind myself that it is best to learn from the past and enjoy the present and do what I can do what little I can to make life better for myself and others whenever possible.
Too bad those aborted babies will never have the chance to do that. Their lives were cut short for no other reason than it was inconvenient for their selfish mothers to have them.
Look, it is your personal belief that it is a baby. It is not mine. And for the record, I never had an abortion, and I don't judge those who do or do not. Who are you to judge?
Your definition sounds more like those a are in favor of abortion.
Nobody is in favor of abortion. All of us want there to be fewer abortions. We're in favor of choice. We're in favor of a child not being forced to risk her life carrying to term a fetus that is the product of rape or incest. Because not risking the lives of children by forcing them to be broodmares is the pro-life position.
in the 1930s in the Oklahoma. When he was 12, his parents made him leave home because he was the eldest and they did not have enough food to feed themselves and the rest of their children.
Happened to my father in the 40s. Eldest of 11 and age 10 they "sold" him to a farmer down the road. Then they MOVED.
My mother is still alive, but I grew up, the last of 6 kids, hearing every day how much she hated children. She taught me to read at age 4 so she wouldn't have to read to me. I still thank her for that, but I resent the HELL out of being a child that knew every day I was not wanted and actually hated. My father worked and drank, so no support from him either. I was molested by a brother & cousin - and told I imagined it and/or a liar.
If anyone had asked me at 6 weeks gestation if I wanted to be born to that family at that time I would have begged to be terminated.
It did and it didn't. Some people just flat out refuse to use birth control. I really don't have any sympathy for them. But I have known women whose BCP's failed and they ended up with an unwanted pregnancy. I think there are fewer unwanted pregnancies now but birth control is not 100% effective.
I remember when I was little my mom or dad having a discussion with our neighbors - talking about their kids - they had two boys and a girl - and I remember their dad saying something like - we planned for the first one or two but the other one was an accident.
Sounds you're a survivor and on the other side of a great life! A lot of young women try to escape that kind of life by getting pregnant at a young age and married and get trapped.
Most abortions are not performed because of the mother being a child, or being because of incest or rape. Mother vast majority are because being pregnant and having a baby is just an inconvenience for the mother. She should have thought about that before she crawled I'd the sack and had sex
Most aren't. But those that are will be forbidden in some states, putting children's lives, health, and ability to recover from assault at risk.
Also, the inconvenience angle - a properly performed abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering. Is your safety just a "convenience" to you?
To clarify, what birth control did was cause "unwanted abortions" to cease being the top cause of death for women....if in fact it ever really was the top cause... we didn't get a citation.
Let's also be clear, birth control stops massively more unwanted pregnancies than abortions, so the idea that RvW "changed that" is disingenuous at best, and hysterical batshit melodrama at worst.
Some people just flat out refuse to use birth control. I really don't have any sympathy for them.
We are defintely in agreement on this.
But I have known women whose BCP's failed and they ended up with an unwanted pregnancy. I think there are fewer unwanted pregnancies now but birth control is not 100% effective.
It is actually 99% effective. Oral birth control is one of the most influential advances in human history. It is 100 million times more important than Roe v Wade.
I don't disagree with any of your statements. But 99% is not 100%.
Fair enough. And for the record, I don't have a set opinion on Roe v Wade or abortion in general. I'm merely pointing out that oral contraceptives are infinitely more significant.
We all know what 100% effective birth control is. I suggest women start using it.
Really. You're gonna shut down Mr. Giggles over a rumor of a SCOTUS decision? Seems a bit harsh.
I'm merely pointing out that oral contraceptives are infinitely more significant.
And you are correct. I took them for years and never had an unwanted pregnancy. Between you and me, I think when BCP fails it's because they weren't taken properly, but that's just my opinion.
You're gonna shut down Mr. Giggles over a rumor of a SCOTUS decision? Seems a bit harsh.
He's got no worries. I'm 60 years old. What are the chances of me getting pregnant at this age? None to zilch
My daughter with an autoimmune disorder cannot use any type of BC that contains hormones. She was not allowed to have a tubal ligation prior to her 30th b-day because she "might change her mind" even though a pregnancy could kill her. But naw, this crap won't affect women because their is BC.
Both you and Perrie have given all of us something to think about. I've been lucky that I could take hormonal bc. It never occurred to me that some women cannot because of medical conditions. I hang my head in shame
I still don't think we want to equate abortion with birth control. I can't imagine you or your daughters look at them equally.
Of course not. You might not know that as a biology teacher it was my job to teach sex ed, and I taught abstinence. That being said, I taught my daughters well about birth control, and about the fallout from an unwanted pregnancy.
I have a lupus like disorder and both my daughters have Hashimoto's thyroiditis. Autoimmune diseases and neurology are the great frontiers in medicine.
"Let's also be clear, birth control stops massively more unwanted pregnancies than abortions, so the idea that RvW "changed that" is disingenuous at best, and hysterical batshit melodrama at worst."
Birth control pills sent my blood pressure sky high the last time I tried to take them. My BP the day I went to the doctor was 118/68. Three weeks into taking the Pill, I had terrible leg cramps and felt like I had the flu. I got my BP checked the next day, and it was 150/110. The Pill was the only change in my habits, and I had been warned to keep an eye on my BP.
So, hormonal BP was not on the list of possibilities for me after that, even though I'd taken the Pill in the past.
So the poor killing babies is important for you. How about the cost of housing rising or the price of fuels or the cost of food or inflation in general. All of those impact the poor much more than wether or not they can murder babies.
The more people there are, the more costs will rise, as more and more resources are needed.
The are definitely babies
Only when they're born.
They baby is not your body. It has a body all its own.
It's attached to and feeding off of someone's body, like a parasite. And no one is required to give their body to support another against their will.
'The golden image of the fetus was placed on an altar of polished alabaster as those in attendance cowered with bowed heads to that which was not yet among them.'
In the biology department of the college where I attended undergrad, there are shelves full of animal specimens preserved in formalin. I did my work study as a lab assistant, so I was in that specimen room a lot. There was a jar similar to the pic you posted, but of an IUD fetus. The woman who produced that fetus had done everything she could to avoid pregnancy outside of abstinence. IUDs are generally extremely reliable. But hers failed. She conceived, and the IUD was embedded in the fetus's brain. The fetus survived to near term, but not quite.
What the fuck did anyone think would happen when GWBush signed an executive order that done away with the financial component of the separation of church and state?
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18, 2010— -- When President George W. Bush authorized federally-funded partnerships between the government and faith-based groups nearly a decade ago, he opened a new chapter in the debate over separation of church and state .
Bush's so-called faith-based initiative green-lighted taxpayer dollars to local churches and other religious organizations to help them expand their social services in local communities. It's an arrangement President Obama supports as well.
Faith-based organizations received more than $2.1 billion in federal social service grants in 2005, according to the most recent data published by the Government Accountability Office.
I have googled for information over the last decade for more information on just how much taxpayer money is being funneled to the Roman Catholic Church for administering social programs since Bush's executive order. The RCC also seems to be in charge of providing various services (at taxpayer expense) to the millions of immigrants that cross our border every year.
Why were our government services privatized to the Roman Catholic Church and other religious organizations? I don't know, but the fact that it happened almost 2 decades ago has only allowed the RCC to
"In the United States, 50 percent of social services are provided by the Catholic church," said Keating, who now serves as president and CEO of the American Bankers Association.
Keating did not return an inquiry for this story, nor did Catholic Charities USA, the largest charitable organization run by the Catholic church. We asked a variety of experts on philanthropy whether they had heard this statistic or knew where it came from, but none did.
We should start by noting that Catholic charity work is extensive and widely considered a crucial part of the nation’s social safety net. By itself, Catholic Charities USA, has more than 2,500 local agencies that serve 10 million people annually, said Mary L. Gautier, a senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, an institute at Georgetown University that studies the church.
And Catholic Charities is supplemented by a panoply of other Catholic-affiliated groups, Gautier said, including "St. Vincent De Paul societies, social justice committees, soup kitchens, food pantries, and other similar programs organized independently by thousands of Catholic parishes each year."
For a variety of reasons, it’s difficult to quantify exactly how big Catholic-backed charity is, but we tried our best to sift the data with the help of the National Center for Charitable Statistics, a project of the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.
In 2012, the Economist reported that 62 percent of Catholic Charities’ support came from local, state and federal government agencies.
Our ruling
Keating said, "In the United States, 50 percent of social services are provided by the Catholic church." He’s right that Catholic groups are among the biggest providers of social-service charity in the nation, but it doesn’t appear that they account for half of all such charity.
We’re admittedly using a bit of guesswork, but Catholic charity seems to account for 17 percent to 34 percent of all nonprofit social-service charity, depending on how generous an estimate you make. And that share drops to single digits once you factor in the money the federal government spends on means-tested programs. We rate the statement False.
Funneling taxpayer money to Catholic Hospitals where women are denied lifesaving procedures to keep a fetus alive is barbaric. The US government seems to be competing against the Iranian government for which one holds women in the most contempt.
The Democrats have used the threat of revoking abortion rights for women over our heads for far too long. If the Democrats had actually ever cared about women's rights, they have had many opportunities to make this a non-issue for decades. Instead, the Democrats used scare tactics to gain political power. Disgusting and completely unacceptable that women's rights to bodily autonomy has been an ongoing issue for decades when it should have been permanently settled long ago.
If men ever faced these issues we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Totally agree.
This is why the men, who view women as possessions, should not be in any positions of authority in our government.
This is one of the reasons why the financial separation of church and state must be re-instated.
Some facts on why some men cannot tolerate women having rights, independence and being paid for all of the work that we do for free to keep society functioning.
The gender wealth gap isn’t entirely surprising — sexism predates industrial capitalism, after all. But the systematic economic subjugation of women reflects how patriarchy and poverty are mutually reinforcing. Due to social as well as cultural pressure, women perform vast amounts of unpaid labor — about 12.5 billion hours every day.
Women’s unwaged labor — which occupies up to 14 hours a day in rural and low-income regions — involves domestic duties, primarily the “care work” of looking after children or elders, cooking, cleaning and mending. It could also involve procuring water or gathering firewood, or tending subsistence crops on a family farm — tasks that will become increasingly challenging as climate change and other environmental stresses intensify.
If women like her were paid the real value of their economic contributions to their families, they would be owed at least $10.8 trillion (more than half of the U.S. annual gross domestic product) — the estimated collective value of women’s unpaid care work worldwide.
“The care economy is very neglected,” said Gawain Kripke, director of policy and research at Oxfam America. “Most of it is unpaid. And what we pay [for] is treated very poorly. And this provides a subsidy to the more formal economy. All this work that gets done, society and the economy wouldn’t function without this work…. Businesses rely on it, families rely on it, society as a whole relies on it. And yet we don’t recognize it, and don’t compensate it, and don’t support it.”
This is not an accidental oversight, but institutionalized oppression. “This is what patriarchy is,” he added. “It ignores and makes invisible women, and exalts and elevates rich men.”
In the United States, the care gap for children and the elderly falls disproportionately on women, whether they are caring for their own, or paid as hired care workers. In 2018, according to the Alzheimer’s Association , about 16.2 million people, the majority of them women, provided unpaid informal care for individuals with dementia, contributing about 18.5 billion hours of feeding, bathing, providing medication and other tasks. If the unpaid care work in the U.S. was provided through government services instead, taxpayers would have paid an estimated $234 billion. Meanwhile, professional home health care aides who care for seniors — aides who are also mostly women — typically earn poverty wages , and about half receive public benefits.
Child care faces a similar crisis: it’s both extremely expensive for families — well over $1,000 per month in many areas — and chronically underpaid for child care providers.
This is why the men, who view women as possessions, should not be in any positions of authority in our government.
The way you've punctuated this seems to indicate you believe all men view women as possessions. I presume that's not what you intended.
This is one of the reasons why the financial separation of church and state must be re-instated.
Interesting. So the food my church distributes to needy families through govt grant....we should use that money to hire 12 govt employees to replace the dozen volunteers we have and just give those people less food. Sounds like a great plan.
Nobody seemed to mind when churches offered free drive-through Covid testing or the mosque near my house gave Covid vaccinations....all through govt grants.
Nobody seems to object to using their Pell grants at Notre Dame or SMU or Vanderbilt.
Are we sure this is a good idea?
Some facts on why some men cannot tolerate women having rights, independence and being paid for all of the work that we do for free to keep society functioning.
If you imagine this issue is driven by men, you are missing the boat. This is about women controlling other women. Again.
Are conservatives going to pass legislation to assist poor single mothers? Are they going to provide increased funding for SNAP and child care? Or are they going to try to kill The Affordable Care Act again?
Are conservatives going to pass legislation to assist poor single mothers? Are they going to provide increased funding for SNAP and child care? Or are they going to try to kill The Affordable Care Act again?
It does show their hypocrisy about caring for women and children when they refuse to support them and instead chooses to spend trillions of dollars to wage endless wars that kills millions of women and children either directly or indirectly.
Hacking collective Anonymous has warned the U.S. Supreme Court against striking down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, adding that it may “get burned” if it does so.
In a Twitter post published Tuesday, Anonymous said the Supreme Court and Republicans should “expect” some type of retaliation should they repeal Roe v. Wade decision. The landmark decision was made in 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled that governments lacked the power to prohibit abortions and that it was a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in the first three months of pregnancy.
“Repealing Roe v Wade isn't going to go the way SCOTUS or the GOP thinks it's going to go. Play with fire, get burned. Don't say we didn't warn you,” the hacking collective wrote. “Expect us.”
Would they outlaw abortions for ectopic pregnancies? When you think about it an ectopic pregnancy is really not a pregnancy. It's a life threatening condition where no baby will be born and if no medical treatment is sought, then there goes that baby maker.
You gotta love these medical genius anti-science fucking twats
Then the law would be guilty of homicide. This is one I would like to see Jack McCoy take on.
Seriously, tho. If RvW is reversed, the family of the first woman who dies because it's against the law to receive treatment ie abortion for an ectopic pregnancy will have the Supreme Court reeling again (awkward sentence structure)
All laughing aside I do wonder how many of these anti-choice men have paid for or insisted on an abortion because they didn't want to be "inconvenienced"
Well, in the past, a lot of men managed to dodge child support requirements. Skip town, work for cash under the table, etc. The courts were terrible about enforcing child support.
Give that baby blue eyes and it almost looks like both of my kids when they were born. They both had some wild assed hair until they were about a year old
there is a difference between that which is already born and that which is not. once they are here somebody is stuck with and responsible for them and thier costs and abused children usually are a drag on society' and cause problems and costs for others.
Anything that is not wanted usually does not get the best care and is often abused.
Child abuse does affect others, Abortion does not. `
I did not say that, i said " once they are here somebody is stuck with and responsible for them and thier costs " I favor preventing that problem.
The cost of an unwanted child are high, resources can be spread too thin, other family members suffer, Parents many not have time or even care.
Not all people who have kids should or really want to be parents
Forcing unwanted kids on people and expecting them to be successful and happy, because you are against abortion, is like trying to grow good crops in a parking lot
So you would be Ok with killing children that are unwanted and inconvenient even if they are already born.
Unwanted children are killed every frigging day, arkie. Except they're usually tortured first.
An estimated 1,840 children died due to abuse or neglect in FFY 2019.
That's five a day. Five actual babies, not zygotes arkie, BABIES die a day. A fucking day. By beatings, starvings, rapings. What a bunch of fuckin' nuts that are "pro life." Pro life, my ass. They're pro birth, and that's it. They don't give a shit about life. They're the pro wire hanger party. If you think abortions are going to stop, you're dumber than a box of rocks.
How many foster children do you have, arkie? I expect it's several. Right?
HOW MANY CHILDREN DIE EACH YEAR FROM CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT? According to data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), 51 States2 reported a total of 1,809 fatalities.3 Based on these data, a nationally estimated 1,840 children died from abuse or neglect in FFY 2019, a slight increase from the FFY 2018 number of 1,780. However, it is a 10.8-percent increase over the FFY 2015 number of 1,660. The FFY 2019 data translate to a rate of 2.5 children per 100,000 children in the general population and an average of more than 5 children dying every day from abuse or neglect. NCANDS defines “child fatality” as the death of a child caused by an injury resulting from abuse or neglect or where abuse or neglect was a contributing factor. The number and rate of fatalities reported by States have fluctuated during the past 5 years. The national estimate is influenced by which States report data as well as by the U.S. Census Bureau’s child population estimates. Some States that reported an increase in child fatalities from 2012 to 2013 attributed it to improvements in reporting after the passage of the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112–34), which passed in 2010.
You are making women have children who are not planned for nor necessarily wanted. Those unwanted children are beaten, starved, burned, tortured, sold for sex, emotionally and psychologically abused. Our jails have a vast majority of prisoners that were merely tolerated, allowed to grow up without a moral compass, ignored and felt a nuisance.
I also think that any woman who is an addict or alcoholic should abort because Lord knows how much that child is going to suffer. My daughter is a NICU nurse and sees this every day. She once said, "Mom, I don't know why they let these children be born. It's heartbreaking."
Let's make it fair. If women are forced to have children they are not prepared for or do not want, a government mandated DNA test is immediate. Locate the father, and he should immediately be taken to court and ordered to be financially responsible for one-half of the child's health, welfare (including daycare costs) and education to the child's majority. If the gentleman does not do what should be enforceable, then it goes to the IRS. The IRS will then attach liens on any property and garnish each gentleman's wages. It should also be ordered that an education fund be opened with a financial institution if salary permits. All insurances should also be mandated to be paid at a fifty-fifty split. Men should not walk away scot free.
So it is ok for a woman to murder her baby if she does not want it and is unprepared but if a man does not want to be a father and is not prepared.for the responsibility, he gets the entire weight of the government on his head. You call that fair?
Okay. Let's go over this. The entire weight of the government is making her have a child she does not want. If men do not want children, then they should use condoms. Simple. But some they don't like them, or say the woman 'said she was on the pill.' Just don't believe it. Never take for granted that her birth control is 100% reliable. She very well may be on birth control, but only abstinence is 100% reliable. So wear a condom.
So let's get back on track. She not only has to have a baby, but be financially responsible for it. Men duck out. If a gentleman does the right thing and voluntarily splits the responsibility, then the government needn't get involved. But every single thing necessary for a child's health, welfare and education must be guaranteed. Are you saying only women should be responsible?
So yeah. Let's put the entire weight of the government on both parties. That's fair. And if you say it's not, I'm thrilled you're saying something that uninformed on a public forum for everyone to see. That would make me happy.
The entire weight of the government is making her have a child she does not want.
That's not currently the case. However the "entire weight of the government" does come after a father, whether he was willing or no.
If men do not want children, then they should use condoms. Simple.
You can make the same argument for women. I doubt you will, though.
But some they don't like them, or say the woman 'said she was on the pill.' Just don't believe it. Never take for granted that her birth control is 100% reliable. She very well may be on birth control, but only abstinence is 100% reliable. So wear a condom.
I'm imagining the female reaction to "if a woman doesn't want children, abstinence is 100% reliable".
The planet is seriously challenged by overpopulation and pollution.
Yes, it is.
However, the fact is that there are people promoting the idea that the human species is on the brink of extinction because women are not having enough babies. While this is not true, what is a fact is that women in industrialized nations who have access to education and birth control are limiting their reproduction to what they can handle emotionally/physically/financially. This is resulting in slowly declining populations in those countries. This has been labeled "Demographic Winter". There are articles and even videos on youtube trying to frighten people into having children so our species does not go extinct. This propaganda has not proven to be successful so now we are back to the forced birth program.
The United States is addressing declining population with opening the borders, but this has many drawbacks. The immigrants have family ties in their birth countries. They send billions of dollars to their families and out of the US economy. Also, the immigrants may choose to retire in their native country because they have the income to live better there than in the US. The US government has tried to make them permanent residents by amnesties and then allowing the new citizens to bring in their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc.
The open borders and expanding green card programs is just a temporary relief to the declining population in the US. Most immigrants are preferring to limit reproduction in order to experience life as something other than an economic slave and breeding stock.
Again, we are now back to the forced birth program.
The financial leaders (predominantly male), who depend on an ever expanding population to supply the necessary consumers, wage slaves and armies, do not care about our lives. Many, if not most, were born as psychopaths. Pretending otherwise is literally killing women and children who are viewed as nothing more than collateral damage when they have the misfortune to live in a country with assets coveted by a leader (elected or not) that has the capacity to bomb the inhabitants into submission.
The forced birth program has to be framed as moral issue because if it was framed as a financial issue most people would object to be treated as breeding stock. I say this because Italy, Russia, and other countries have had programs for over a decade to pay women to have more children and have met will little to no success.
So we are now back to the forced birth program.
What is moral about forced birth? Not a damned thing. So it is framed as women are evil beings who are depraved enough to have sex for other than reproductive reasons. Really? What's next? Salem Witch trials? Devolve or evolve?
I'm imagining the female reaction to "if a woman doesn't want children, abstinence is 100% reliable".
If a man doesn't want children, abstinence is 100% reliable. Doesn't stop them whatsoever either. But if they truly do not want children, wear a condom. Even if a woman is on birth control (via IUD, pill, or any other medical method), it's never 100% effective. Men can ensure there are no "accidents" if they double up by wearing a condom. Don't you agree, Jack? Shouldn't men be responsible for their own form of birth control to prevent unwanted children?
Ha! There are a couple of people here (who shall go unnamed but we all know who they are ... including those unnamed) for whom farenheit would be generous.
Why should they be any more or less responsible than women?
Who cares for them full time, Jack? FULL TIME. By your considerations, men should take them 50% of the time, make bottles full time two weeks out of each month, wake in the middle of the night full time two weeks out of each month, arrange for daycare full time two weeks out of each month, change diapers full time two weeks out of each month, take them for doctor visits full time two weeks out of each month, etc. And do all that while working full time because no one is giving you financial assistance. No going home after work to relax. It's home to do feeding, changing, caring for all over again. Without benefit of a full night's sleep.
…and that happens only in those rare households with two committed partners understanding the shared responsibilities.
Reality paints a very different picture, where the onus disproportionately falls on the woman…too often blamed, too often maligned, too often left to fend for oneself, and sadly…soon to be left without recourse.
Did all of that and more minus breastfeeding over 4 years. I worked from home and mom went back work and to university for a 2nd degree. It was exhausting. But hey, I did get to watch every episode of Sesame Street and learn how to count.
My wife (an RN) worked "weekend option" at a local hospital. The hospital provided employees with breast pumps. She would refrigerate her breast milk and bring it home. While she worked, I could warm the milk and use it to bottle feed the baby. So, i was able to "breast feed" by proxy. The baby thrived.
Women can ensure there are no "accidents" if they require condom use. It works both ways. Somehow I'm not optimistic you're going to agree on that.
If WE require condom use??!? Are you saying men cannot be trusted to use a condom in order to prevent pregnancy? You're making it the responsibility of women again. What about cases of rape? You're embarrassing yourself, Jack.
I guess Trump thought if lusting daughters was okay with Lot, it's okay with him. Although, despite what he says*, I doubt he's ever opened a bible. The only difference between Donnie and Lot is that Lot fucked his daughters. And Donnie hasn't. That we know of. But he's noted publicly of his lust for Invanka.
_________
* Trump was asked to name "one or two of your most favorite Bible verses" during an interview on Bloomberg's television show "With All Due Respect" Wednesday. He wouldn't answer the question.
"I wouldn't want to get into it because to me that's very personal. You know, when I talk about the Bible, it's very personal, so I don't want to get into verses," Trump said, adding, "The Bible means a lot to me, but I don't want to get into specifics."
Later in the interview, host John Heilemann asked Trump if he was "an Old Testament guy or a New Testament guy."
But hey, I did get to watch every episode of Sesame Street and learn how to count.
Then it was so worth it. And I applaud your contribution to raising a happy baby. It's not for the faint-hearted and it's one of the most difficult jobs in the world. Good job!
Her godparents are a gay Jewish couple and go figure she grew up to be an agnostic heterosexual no matter how many times she watched 'But I'm a Cheerleader'. We still get together to watch anything with the great Natasha Lyonne in it.
So it is ok for a woman to murder her baby if she does not want it and is unprepared
No, that's not ok. Murdering babies is illegal the last time I checked.
but if a man does not want to be a father and is not prepared.for the responsibility, he gets the entire weight of the government on his head. You call that fair?
Both parties share equal responsibility in child rearing. So yes, it is fair.
You really seem to be stuck on the whole "it's not fair" thing. And you know what? It's not. But not in the way that you think.
Women are the ones vastly more affected by pregnancy, wanted or unwanted. Women are the ones who gain the weight. Women are the ones whose backs are hurting from the postural changes imposed by pregnancy. Women are the ones whose hips are killing them (my least favorite pregnancy symptom) because their ligaments are stretching in preparation for childbirth. Women are the ones whose hearts and kidneys are working overtime, pumping a blood volume that is about 1.5 times that in their nonpregnant state. Women are the ones who have to buy a new wardrobe (an expense few consider when adding up prenatal expenses). Women are the ones risking gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia. Women are the ones with pregnancy-related anemia. Women are the ones in a hypercoagulable state, meaning they are much more likely to develop a life-threatening blood clot. Women are the ones who can develop placenta previa, necessitating a c-section, or a placental abruption, which can cause them to bleed out into their uteri. Women are the ones whose fertilized eggs might not make it where they're intended to go, resulting in ruptured ectopic pregnancies (my sister-in-law almost died not once but twice from this).
Oh, those privileged women, with their bodily autonomy that men don't have. Oh, wait. Men do have bodily autonomy.
Wanna trade places, and enjoy any or all of the above symptoms and potentially fatal conditions (not an exhaustive list at all, BTW)?
I agree, since we have many men trying to make decisions for women regarding the birth of a child they should in their all-knowing world experience giving birth. Since we know that it's impossible for men to become pregnant I will fall back on the late great philosopher, Robin Williams who once gave this sage advice to that group of men.
''If you want to experience childbirth you should shit a 16 lb bowling ball.''
Once they have completed that experience they just might have something to say that makes sense or not.
just might have something to say that makes sense or not.
Ha! They'd run for the hills. Now if we could only make a bowling ball that cried through the night, got colic with regularity, required 15 diaper changes a day, lached onto the dad's nipples for so long that they wept from the pain (which paled in comparison to the pain of realizing they must return to the workplace and receive no government assistance ... the same government that made him shit that bowling ball), and a thousand other things that no one gives a shit about because that bowling ball has already been shat.
I mentioned Demographic Winter. I hadn't seen it in the headlines of the media I usually read, but unsurprisingly, I was not looking in the right places.
Perrie/moderator, I cited the entire opinion piece. If this is not allowed, please let me know/delete the comment. Thanks.
This is a topic that deserves knowledge and logical discussion about the hysteria surrounding women and men in industrialized nations choosing to use birth control, delay and even avoid marriage and reproduction altogether.
Billionaire iconoclast Elon Musk had it right when he told a Wall Street Journal forum last week: “One of the biggest risks to civilization is the low birth rate and rapidly declining birthrate.”
Between now and the end of the century, declining fertility (or Demographic Winter) will have an impact few can imagine.
What does Russia want with Ukraine ? Most would say to keep NATO off its southern border or for the nation’s rich natural resources. That’s true, in part. But there’s a very big something else.
Russia has 144 million people and below-replacement fertility. If it absorbs Ukraine ’s 41 million people — who are ethnically identical to Russia ’s own — its population would grow by 30%.
Declining fertility will lead to population decline, which in turn will result in international instability. Nations will be tempted to grab neighboring populations similar to their own. And that’s only part of the problem.
The birth dearth is the plague of the 21st century.
Every industrialized nation now has below-replacement fertility — in many cases, well below replacement. All else being equal, sometime in this century, their populations will begin to decline.
America is standing on the sand, and the tide is rushing in. We have a lower fertility rate than Russia (1.78 versus 1.82) and a rapidly aging population.
Washington adds trillions to the national debt each year. (The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Build Back Better alone could add $3 trillion over the next decade.) With a shrinking tax base, this mountain of debt won’t be serviced — let alone repaid.
Our major cities are virtually ungovernable. Liberal crime policies are largely to blame. But you don’t recruit police from a pool of men and women in their 40s and 50s. Each generation produces fewer youth than the last.
Demographic Winter is a simple matter of math. The average woman must have 2.1 children in her lifetime just to maintain population stability. Between 1950 and 2017, worldwide, fertility fell from 4.7 births per woman to 2.4. In the U.S., over the past 70 years, our fertility rate fell by more than half.
Things like this don’t happen in a vacuum. In the U.S., delayed marriage, failure of family formation, and a decision not to have children have all played a part in the catastrophe in the making. Among 130 million U.S. households, only 17.8% are married parents with children — the fewest on record. According to the Pew Research Center, 44% of non-parents say they definitely or probably won’t have children.
In 2018, there were 47.8 million Americans over 65. By 2050, that number is projected to rise to 83.7 million. McDonald’s will be recruiting workers in nursing homes.
Forget vaccine mandates. Imagine what our economy will look like with a labor pool that’s both shrinking and aging. Fields won’t be planted. Factory floors will be silent. Even if there’s a will to guard the borders and police the streets, where will we get the people? Why the waning desire to have children? The answers include urbanization, the rising cost of having children, an exaggerated concern over climate change and a decision to make the self the center of the universe.
But, above all else, it’s a loss of faith. The decline of religion parallels declining fertility. Europe has all but abandoned Christianity. Its birth rates are among the lowest on earth. Africa embraces the religion the West has largely abandoned. In consequence, it’s the only continent with a growing population. In America, the states with the highest fertility also have the highest church attendance.
In July, Meghan Markle and her royal husband announced that they would have no more than two children due to concern for “overpopulation.” We’re still trying to defuse the nonexistent population bomb. We live in 2021 with a 1968 mindset.
Mr. Musk , who’s reputed to be the richest man on earth, urges us to “please look at the numbers — if people don’t have more children, civilization is going to crumble.”
The fate of civilization won’t hinge on what happens on the Russia - Ukraine border. On Demographic Winter, it might.
People won't have more children until they are guaranteed a livable wage, affordable housing, and a worthy future
But, even then, there are emotional considerations. Some, of us, aren't suited to dealing with children and feel no shame in acknowledging it.
I dearly love my two children, but I am totally content to have stopped with two. They are 15 months apart. I don't know what I would have done had birth control failed, but I did feel safer knowing that abortion was an option if I knew I could not physically/emotionally/financially support another child. I can only imagine my mother's desperation when she attempted to self-abort. I am thankful that that is one traumatic experience that I did not have to live for myself.
I was fortunate enough to be living in a state that allowed me to have a tubal ligation at the age of 23 so I did not have to rely on abstinence to 100% avoid pregnancy.
There are zero reasons to restrict access to permanent sterilization to anyone over the age of 18.
xtian nationalist concerns about the declining birthrate of aryan children is a big part of their movement.
Lol. The lies you tell yourself. It's actually the other way around.
Legalized abortion is the best thing going for actual white nationalists. As it was created to do, legalized abortion has meant the country is much "whiter" than it would be otherwise.
Funny thing, no one ever considers that a woman may change her mind AFTER having children.
That reminds of a great joke: A friend of mine got a vasectomy because he knew he didn't want kids. He was horribly disappointed because when he got home, the kids were still there.
Doubtful since most abortions are performed on people of color. Eliminating abortion would just increase the percentage of minorities and the percentage of whites to decline.
For anyone who buys into the Demographic Winter propaganda, the world has already gained over 100,000 people today and climbing.
Even if the numbers were declining, who among us would (if we could) suddenly devote our lives to becoming breeding livestock to save the human species?
Stats on births by income. Note that the lowest incomes have the most children. People who can financially "afford" children are most likely to have the least or none. Forced breeding will not change this. Wealthy people will continue to have access to all birth control methods including abortion.
The law of primogeniture in Europe has its origins in Medieval Europe ; which due to the feudal system necessitated that the estates of land-owning feudal lords be kept as large and united as possible to maintain social stability as well as the wealth, power and social standing of their families. [23]
[W]hen land was considered as the means, not of subsistence merely, but of power and protection, it was thought better that it should descend undivided to one. In those disorderly times, every great landlord was a sort of petty prince. His tenants were his subjects. He was their judge, and in some respects their legislator in peace and their leader in war. He made war according to his own discretion, frequently against his neighbours, and sometimes against his sovereign. The security of a landed estate, therefore, the protection which its owner could afford to those who dwelt on it, depended upon its greatness. To divide it was to ruin it, and to expose every part of it to be oppressed and swallowed up by the incursions of its neighbours. The law of primogeniture, therefore, came to take place, not immediately indeed, but in process of time, in the succession of landed estates, for the same reason that it has generally taken place in that of monarchies, though not always at their first institution. [29]
In British North America , the colonies followed English primogeniture laws. Carole Shammas argues that issues of primogeniture, dower, curtesy, strict family settlements in equity, collateral kin, and unilateral division of real and personal property were fully developed in the colonial courts. The Americans differed little from English policies regarding the status of widow, widower, and lineal descendants. [30] The primogeniture laws were repealed at the time of the American Revolution . Thomas Jefferson took the lead in repealing the law in Virginia, where nearly three-fourths of Tidewater land and perhaps a majority of western lands were entailed. [31] Canada had the same law but repealed it in 1851. [32]
When Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt met at Placentia Bay in August 1941, Roosevelt said he could not understand the British aristocracy's concept of primogeniture, and he intended to divide his estate equally between his five children; Churchill explained that an equal distribution was nicknamed the Spanish Curse by the British upper classes: "We give everything to the eldest and the others strive to duplicate it and found empires. While the oldest, having it all, marries for beauty. Which accounts, Mr President, for my good looks". But as Churchill's father was a younger son, there may have been more modesty than mock-vanity than Roosevelt realised. [33]
Way back when I was in High School there was a guy in next school who was married, divorced and married again before his Senior year and he did not fail a grade.
That didn't happen to my girlfriend. The moment she began to show, the school threw her out (it was the 70's). At least the guy married her, but she lost out on her education.
I'm often asked whether erections take blood from the brain, thus inhibiting decision making. Though erections are indeed caused by blood flow into the penis, the body has more than enough blood to support the operation of every other organ during physical arousal. There is no scientific evidence that a hard-on impairs cognitive function. In other words, guys can't justify assault or infidelity based on biology. A penis may have no conscience (flaccid or hard), but the moral center of the brain (the frontal lobe) does — and that moral center keeps right on working, no matter how turgid the erection. By the way: women get clitoral erections. But I've never heard anyone claim that a swollen clit has no conscience.
Myth: your penis isn't part of you.
Too many men describe their penises as tools they use: rods, shafts, hammers, swords, fuck sticks … you get the idea. The language is violent — think of the old euphemism for male masturbation, "beating the meat"! But our penises don't just belong to us, they are part of us. They reveal a truth about us, too: vulnerable and squishy more often than rigid, surprisingly soft to the touch, capable of feeling — and giving — both great pleasure and great pain. They do not perform on command. Drugs can alter how they behave. We don't think with our penises, but they are — inextricably — part of us: flawed, powerful, vulnerable, beautiful.
Behavior results from the way a person thinks. A person’s thinking processes largely define his character. In considering how to prevent further victimization of employees in the workplace, it is essential to understand the mental makeup of the victimizer.
Sexual harassment, sexual assault , and rape obviously are sex offenses. But they have little to do with sex itself. The people who are making headlines for their exploitation of women employed by their company likely have had no shortage of opportunities for consensual sex. Sexual predators have plenty of sexual experience but it is shallow. Sex is a control operation for them. They ordain the time and place of the encounter. Seeking a conquest is the overriding aspect. The perpetrator cares little what his “partner” experiences. The idea is to conquer a body, not have a relationship. Achieving his objective provides him with a buildup. He has sex on his mind a great deal of the time, looking at females as potential targets.
In his approach to potential sexual targets, the individual regards himself as irresistible and seeks to have this affirmed. He is certain that any person whom he finds desirable will be attracted to him. A friendly smile may confirm that he is desired, and that he can proceed with his conquest. This thinking occurs even with complete strangers whom he quickly regards as his property.
The person who exposes himself hopes to entice someone into a sexual act. He seeks an admiring gaze and directs that gaze. He may do this by walking around naked. He experiences excitement in fantasizing and in the exhibitionism itself.
The assertion of power is most obvious in sexual assault and rape in which the perpetrator forcefully takes “possession” of his target. Again, this has nothing to do with sexual need. Men who have an active and varied sexual life at home still attack women. It is characteristic that, both in fantasy and action, they find it most exciting to use force in making their conquest.
The workplace provides an arena for these behaviors. The perpetrator has leverage over his victim who is a subordinate. He knows that she is unlikely to inform because she thinks she will not be believed, that she will lose her job, or perhaps lose opportunity to advance at all in her chosen line of work. The victim also thinks that the people in charge will support the perpetrator, especially if he is well-known and important to the reputation and success of the organization.
The sexual predators in the US are rarely identified and of the few that are identified very, very few are ever prosecuted. If abortion is successfully banned, then women will be forced to be incubators for rapists.
The Thomson Reuters Foundation survey asked about 550 experts in women’s issues which of the 193 United Nations member states they considered most dangerous on a range of issues, with India topping the list followed by Afghanistan and Syria.
The United States came 10th overall, but ranked joint third with Syria when respondents were asked where women most risked sexual violence, harassment and coercion into sex, and sixth regarding non-sexual violence such as domestic and mental abuse.
Experts, advocates and survivors said a rising awareness of assault against women pegged to the #Metoo movement, the country’s outsized role on the world stage and a tolerance of violence added to the perception of danger in the United States.
“I can understand why people would perceive us as being a country that is dangerous for women because we kind of are,” Abby Honold, a sexual assault survivor and activist in Minneapolis, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Honold has been promoting legislation before the U.S. Congress that would train police in improved ways to question sexual assault victims.
“We try to sell that we are a country of freedom and also of safety, but there are a lot of people in our country that are not safe, and victims of sex assault and domestic violence are certainly in that group,” she said.
Other countries are much more dangerous for women who face conflict and practices such as female genital mutilation or child marriage, according to the United Nations.
Rates of femicide are more extreme in Latin America, and 49 countries have no laws to protect women from domestic violence, according to UN Women.
But U.S. statistics can paint a grim picture.
Almost one in five women have been raped, and more than one in three experienced rape, violence or stalking by an intimate partner, according to 2010 statistics by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Thomson Reuters Foundation’s poll involving 548 respondents was a repeat of a similar survey in 2011 that found Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan, India, and Somalia were seen as the most dangerous countries for women.
Maybe, but real science would be more of a threat to the frame that sex is some sacred experience reserved for breeding purposes to please a supreme being who will reward them with a fetus whether they want it or not.
I see this entire issue revolving around our economic model that requires an ever-expanding population to sustain it. DEMOGRAPHIC WINTER is really a catastophe for the world's economic elite. They won't be able to buy their 800 million dollar toys without a constantly expanding population. We are constantly being manipulated to our own economic, emotional, and physical detriment.
This is so simple like so many things in life. It is all about the money and power.
The men, at the top of the food chain, know how to control people via emotional manipulation.
Examples: When the war profiteers want people to support their killing people, somehow, they have managed to successfully frame it as "saving" them. The millions, of women and children that are killed, maimed, starved, are written off as collateral damage.
When the slaves are not reproducing enough, then the men, at the top of the food chain, frame the issue as evil women murdering babies.
In both examples, emotional zealots (who would put Joan of Arc to shame) do their damnest to silence any logical discussion.
The result is that women and children are nothing more than chattel to be used as necessary to maintain profits and power.
If we really want to address this issue in a meaningful way, then we need to stick to economic facts and take the emotion out of it completely.
Without access to birth control, women would have to forego sex to have any hope of economic independence in life. Without economic independence, women are nothing but slaves. Without bodily autonomy, women are nothing but slaves. Slavery is illegal.
An ordinance didn’t allow them to do so before, but the people of Sandy Springs can now purchase and sell sexual toys and devices.
The City of Sandy Springs' Mayor and Council lifted the ban on Tuesday, March 21 when they agreed to repeal that section of chapter 38 of the city code which categorized "devices designed or marketed for the stimulation of human genital organs" as obscene material.
“With the repeal, our code now matches up with state law regarding adult devices by not prohibiting the sale of such devices,” said Sharon Kraun, the communications director for the City of Sandy Springs. “With the repeal, that portion of our code is no longer an issue, but the City will have no further comment since there is pending litigation related to the case.”
Sandy Springs first enacted the ordinance in 2005 by banning the public display of sex toys by retailers. Such devices could only be purchased with a doctor’s prescription. Kraun added that this was a provision that mirrored state code, at the time.
The federal appeals court upheld the Sandy Springs ordinance in August 2016 , but indicated that their decision was wrong and encouraged the plaintiffs to ask the 11th Circuit Court to reconsider the issue. The circuit court threw out the previous ruling on March 14 and agreed to re-hear the case.
What is going to happen when our food supply is negatively impacted by the ongoing droughts that is limiting the water that is necessary to irrigate crops produced in California?
Men, with an eye to the future, know that wars will be fought for control of the world's food and water supply. It has probably already been a major factor in past wars, but the attention was diverted to control of fossil fuels. Fracking will have to cease in areas where fresh water supplies aren't available. Fracking wastes millions of gallons of water that can never be recycled for human use. Fracking should have never been legal .
There has been an international land grab for farmland for decades on the African continent. The war in Libya could be connected to who will control the water that lies under their country. Control of fertile farmland could be a factor in the current war in Ukraine.
We haven't focused on making the world habitable for the people already in existence. Until we can manage that, no one, with even room temperature IQ, should be demanding to bring more "innocent" babies into the environmental mess we have created to date.
The plight of California is the future of the US. Which is why it was insane to even consider routing oil pipelines over our water aquifers.
People only have power in numbers when they are able to overcome their biases and look at issues objectively. We must not allow anyone to narrow our focus to unproductive emotional drivel. If people are actually focused on quality of life, then the discussion should be about how to improve the quality of life for everyone in existence and find common ground as much as possible.
The defeat of the XL pipeline was a small victory, but a victory, nonetheless.
The Keystone XL Pipeline: Everything You Need To Know | NRDC The takedown of the notorious Keystone XL (KXL) tar sands pipeline will go down as one of this generation’s most monumental environmental victories. After more than 10 years of tenacious protests, drawn-out legal battles, and flip-flopping executive orders spanning three presidential administrations, the Keystone XL pipeline is now gone for good.
Unprecedented restrictions have been ordered for millions of residents in Southern California as the megadrought in the region persists and continues to intensify.
About 6 million customers in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Ventura counties under the Metropolitan Water District will be required to dramatically cut down outdoor water use. However, they are still encouraged to hand water their trees, Metropolitan Executive Officer Deven Upadhyay said during a news conference Wednesday.
The water district is requiring its member agencies in the State Water Project-dependent areas to restrict outdoor watering to just one day a week, or the equivalent.
The goal is to reduce overall water consumption by 35% in the face of the water shortage, Upadhyay said. If the restrictions do not get consumption down by 35%, even stricter rules could follow next year, he added.
The water district will be monitoring the daily water use and how much is being used, as well as how residents and businesses are responding to these emergency restrictions, Upadhyay said.
I like mine with the same sauce that I make for crab cakes or grilled fish. I make an easy remoulade sauce, with mayonnaise, Dijon mustard, some fresh dill, minced cornichons, garlic, capers, lemon juice, and a bit of cayenne.
If the rightwing Catholics on the Supreme Court kick back women's right to abortion to the states, then it might be a good time to invest in moving companies as women and their partners move to states that respect their rights to bodily autonomy.
We are seeing how cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy can lead some people in the United States to support bombing the evil Muslims in the Middle East for oppressing women's rights and then support states oppressing women's rights in the United States.
To be consistent, shouldn't we be bombing both or neither?
Or does that mean, that women's rights were never the reason that the US government was overthrowing (or attempting to overthrow) governments in the Middle East?
If not, then why is the US government overthrowing (or attempting to overthrow) governments in other countries? Could it be all about the money and zero to do with women's rights in any country, including our own?
Anyone raising young girls would want to relocate for their safety and well being.
I agree.
It would apply to all children.
History proves that living, in any society controlled by religious zealots, has not been healthy for people of any age.
Some people are actually supporting the return of the type of government that led to the Holy Wars, Spanish Inquisitions, and burning heretics at the stake. Why? It probably has something to do with the type of religious programming they were subjected to in childhood coupled with their ability to use logic instead of emotion to guide their actions.
We should just get bombed the old fashioned way -with whiskey, wine and weed.
For whatever reason, my body chemistry is not compatible with whiskey (or most alcohol) or weed so I don't find either enjoyable. Decades ago, I did enjoy a few rounds with Jose Cuervo, but not the hangovers.
Eight years ago, I gave up smoking cigarettes when the choice became quit or die.
To relax, I listen to music, watch a lot of music videos, play easy computer games or read simple mystery books with a happy ending.
With maturity comes self-awareness in knowing what brings one a sense of contentment. Also knowing that that never excludes one from being part of a greater whole.
You seem to have reached that difficult balancing point, friend.
Thanks for being candid in sharing your story…peace to you and to all you hold dear.
Thanks for being candid in sharing your story…peace to you and to all you hold dear.
I share what I can about how I have lived and what I have learned because it is the only way I have to help the women who have to suffer in silence or are not believed.
You have helped countless women over many years, mo. I mean that with all my heart.
I hope so. Thank you. I'm doing my best to pass on the help that others have given me.
I seem to remember you and I having an email exchange about how my perspective in life was forever changed by Loretta Kemsley when she challenged my comments on an article about rape victims not being believed. I was arguing from a biased, emotional, Bible Belt perspective. Loretta left my ego in the dirt. in zero seconds flat. Thankfully, I am blessed with a stronger truth seeker trait than the personality trait to protect defective programming.
I don't even remember if that was before or after I gave up religion after 5 decades of being a Christian. I had my worldview worked over in a few short months when I found out what I didn't know. Instead of being devastated, I was overjoyed to be free of trying to reconcile that love = abuse + control. I had Stockholm Syndrome. And even knowing that, I was still not as free as I thought I was.
I do not have the ability to spend much time with anyone who is self-centered, immature, selfish and has few, if any, redeeming character traits. Saying all that, I actually feel ashamed that I have spent the last 25 years of my life with such an individual. Of course, he was never Mr. Wonderful, but my default position is not expecting there is such a thing. What I did not realize is that being orphaned, adopted outside of the family and being raised by a man, who was sadistic, and a woman, who had been married to my father's brother, had shaped my personality to accept and endure abuse on a level that would break most people. Instead of retaliating or getting even, my fucking personality flaw is I want to help/to fix the abusers who have been savvy enough to convince me that they were the victims.
I have Dean Moriarty to thank for telling me that I was probably married to a narcissist. I have spent the last 3 years researching narcissism. I had to learn why my emphatic and sympathetic characteristics are attractive to a narcissist. It was my conditioning to accept and endure abuse that made me stay in those dysfunctional relationships. Of course, it also depended on how skilled the narcissist was in saying and doing the "right" things to convince me that I was his "savior". I don't know that I ever had the ego to believe that I was anyone's "savior", but because of the death of my mother, I now know, I have abandonment issues. It is my flaws I am responsible for working on so I can actually quit wasting my life trying to help the abusers and focus on helping their victims.
There are many things I haven't shared. If I am ever in a situation where I think it might be helpful, I might. Some of it is actually humorous to the people who have been there and done that, but there are some discussions that are best to be conducted among friends instead of open forums.
I just received an interesting email from Forbes today about how companies are implementing changes to their health insurance to retain women employees.
If the states enact laws against companies providing abortion coverage via their health insurance, then headquarters will have to be moved at the very least if the company wants to recruit and retain women employees, but also to recruit and retain men employees who won't tolerate government control of the consensual sex lives of adults.
We may actually be on the brink of allowing religious zealots to split this country. Of course, if there is not the will to defeat them, I guess it is preferable to allowing them complete control of the people, our assets and our military. We damned sure don't need to be putting control of our nuclear arsenal in the hands of religious zealots and their masters.
Hopefully, the link will be valid to people without a subscription.
Public-opinion surveys show that workers would welcome their employers’ help. Americans favor legislation that would legalize abortion nationwide by a nearly 20-point margin ; a recent Morning Consult poll found that by a two-to-one margin, employed adults would prefer to live in a state where abortion is legal; and according to data released last fall, some two-thirds of college-educated workers have said they would not move to a state with extreme abortion restrictions .
That’s why more companies, amid sweeping restrictions in states like Texas, Oklahoma and Mississippi and ahead of the expected repeal of Roe , are announcing they’ll help employees who need abortion services and reproductive healthcare no matter where they live. For shareholder activists like Shelley Alpern, who runs corporate engagement initiatives at Rhia Ventures, a nonprofit that invests in reproductive health companies, the corporations that have thus far stayed quiet will need to speak up. “I think they’re being advised by their PR firms to stay silent on this,” she says. The silence is “not only disgraceful, it’s just so tone deaf in the moment. These questions are not going to go away. Half of all the people who work in corporations are wondering right now what their benefits are.”
In a fast-moving environment where lawmakers are already threatening to penalize companies that provide such benefits, some employers may be waiting for the Supreme Court’s actual decision on Roe . Others are reportedly considering special benefits. For now, here are the companies, updated as announcements are disclosed, that have said they’ll provide assistance to employees facing the barriers of restrictive laws:
It would be interesting to see citizen "bounty hunters" try to sue Amazon or Yelp.
This could turn out to be a war between men, who all want to increase population for business reasons, but are not on the same side on how to get there.
This could turn out to be a war between men, who all want to increase population for business reasons, but are not on the same side on how to get there.
They have different business models.
The companies, that require educated adults to conduct day to day business, don't want to piss off their target employee base.
The companies, like the Catholic Church, require an endless supply of children to program so they can remain the largest and wealthiest denomination of the Christian religion.
The Roman Catholic Church has been flooding the US with their adherents from south of our border for decades instead of working to improve the lives of their adherents in their native country. Decades ago, we had laws to balance immigration to keep this from happening.
I will note that even the Catholic adherents who have immigrated to the US are using birth control effectively in defiance of their Pope's demand to not use birth control. The result of that defiance from the bottom is trying to use the US government to enforce the doctrine of the head of the Roman Catholic Church. The Popes, of the RCC, ruled the rulers of Europe for over a thousand years. The Vatican even had their own army at one time, but found it cheaper to control the rulers and make them pay to wage war to gain more wealth for the Vatican. When Elizabeth I became queen of England, the Pope tried to have her assassinated for decades.
Hopefully, the US will continue to the land of the free instead of the land that is controlled by the Pope and his ilk.
(This became quite the rant. These are current political views - set in concrete until someone comes along with an argument that appeals to my logical thinking instead of trying to beat me up with their emotional thinking.)
Why aren't our political leaders stressing the need to conserve our natural resources instead of selling them to the highest bidder?
Could it be that their only concern is living at the top of the food chain in their lifetime with zero concern about what happens to anyone else in the present and future?
The politicians try to avoid campaigning on economic issues because they are not divided when it comes to who to tax and who to spend money on. This is why politicians have to campaign on the emotional issues and pretend they are concerned about the well-being of anyone besides themselves. People think they are making a difference by voting, but it is not the right to vote that is under duress. It is the right to free speech that is being threatened as more people reject the mantra that they have to make an allegiance to one of the two approved political parties and defend it all costs. The independents are attacking both of the approved political parties. That is why the political establishment was horrified that there wasn't the expected Clinton/Bush matchup in 2016. The diehard political asskissers are still pissed and probably always will be. For them, politics is a team sport, and every election is a Super Bowl moment in their lives.
I realize that addressing how to best ensure the survival of our species is not a popular topic of conversation for most people, but I do believe that it should be the major topic of our politicians' speeches, legislation and platform. We need leaders who don't make money by bombing civilizations back to the Stone Age and then tokenly rebuilding them with shoddy contractors and even shoddier material. And then expecting the citizenry of those countries to thank us for saving them.
I am looking for leaders who are boring people to death with how to feed and water women and children instead of constantly fearmongering about why we must spend a trillion+ dollars a year to bomb women and children to death. That is, when they can take time off from campaigning about the evil women for killing babies.
People are up in arms about their fellow citizens' lies and conspiracy theories. When will they ever be just as concerned with their politicians' lies and conspiracy theories? Probably never if the politicians can suppress free speech enough to keep their lies from being exposed. The old guard is having a difficult time dealing with the power that internet access has given to the people who read the world news today more than the US government sanctioned news. Also, people have made friends with people around the world via chat rooms, forums, etc. Those people are no longer the "other" to be feared because we are told to fear them.
Meantime, in the real world, people are experiencing loss of habitat that is crucial to their survival. In the coming decades, it will be global - brought to us by our dedication to electing corrupt and/or inept leaders.
Today, more than 2.3 billion people face water stress, with almost 160 million children exposed to severe and prolonged droughts, it added.
'The facts and figures of this publication all point in the same direction: an upward trajectory in the duration of droughts and the severity of impacts, not only affecting human societies but also the ecological systems upon which the survival of all life depends, including that of our own species,' Mr Thiaw.
If urgent action isn't taken, the UN has some daunting predictions.
By 2030, it estimates that 700 million people will be at risk of being displaced by droughts, while by 2040, around a quarter of children will live in areas with extreme water shortages.
Looking ahead to 2050, without urgent action, droughts could affect three-quarters of the world's population, with up to 5.7 billion people living in water-scarce areas.
I haven't adopted any. There are however many people that would love to adopt a baby but are unable to because too many women would rather kill their babies instead of letting them be adopted.
There are however many people that would love to adopt a baby but are unable to because too many women would rather kill their babies instead of letting them be adopted.
Aside from the killing their babies nonsense...
There are always in excess of 400,000 children in the foster care system.
On average only 130,000 of these children will be adopted any given year.
20% will remain in foster care until they are 18, die mysteriously or disappear.
Totally outlawing abortion could very well overwhelm an inefficient foster
system which reminds me of East Berlin orphanages, not in a good way.
Like immigration, abortions won't go away because of laws or religious beliefs.
You are fighting human nature itself. Self preservation.
but there is still a surplus of babies and children wanting these people that we hear wanting to adopt them. Same as there are more dogs at the animal shelter than people to take them.
Overpopulation is what will be the downfall of the human race
Totally outlawing abortion could very well overwhelm an inefficient foster system
Most in foster c are entered as an older child, not an infant. About 4 million babies are born in the US annually with about 18,000 or less than 0.5% put up for adoption. There are waiting lists for couples to adopt a baby.
In the 60's and earlier, there were large numbers of unmarried woman placing their infants up for adoption. Today it is less than 1%.
Couples who will not wait for an infant may have to settle for toddlers and preschoolers.
Instead of complaining about the shortage of newborn infants on the market maybe you should concern yourself with unwanted pregnancies which drive the demand for abortions. Making abortions illegal does not stop abortions or reduce demand for termination services. And, we know only early comprehensive sex education plus easy access to birth control accomplished that...
There are always in excess of 400,000 children in the foster care system.
407,000 is 0.5% of the US population under 18 years of age. Of the 407,000, 114,556 cannot be returned to their families and are waiting to be adopted. 114,566 represents 0.15% of our population under 18 years of age.
Thanks. Of course the actual numbers of increased, unwanted births will remain much less. Many states will still allow abortions and many woman in states that don't will still obtain them.
why not? Pregnancy requires Doctor visits, prescriptions, medical leave from work or school, could lead to complications and a change from a person's routine. And if forced into continuing an unwanted or inconvenient medicial condition it could require counseling and cause mental health issues.
Parental rejection will cause problems for inconvenient children.
The states with the highest incest incidence rates are; Kentucky, Maine, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, Georgia, Oregon, Indiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, and South Dakota.
The most inbred state in the United States is a simple question with an incredibly complicated answer. The most inbred state in the country in Kentucky.
What Is The Legality Of Incest In The United States?
With all the time spent on marriage and inbreeding, it’s essential to find out what the law says. Incest is illegal and is a criminal offense in most states except a few in the United States.
The Mendelian-based laws are a part of the criminal code, and the state law cannot modify them.
In New Jersey and Rhode Island, incestuous relations are not a criminal offense so long as it occurs between two consenting adults; that is 16+ in Rhode Island and 18+ in New Jersey. However, marriage is a different scenario in both cases and is not allowed by law.
Ohio is another state that allows incestuous relations between consenting adults as long as one is not a parental figure to the other person.
First Cousin Marriage In The US
The topic is a little sensitive and might need some extra explanation. First cousin marriage is when two people who are both cousins get married.
This trend has been growing in the US; it’s become routine for people who live in the South to marry their first cousins.
The United States has a long history of inbreeding, with about 250,000 of the population marrying a first cousin at some time in their family history.
With all the time spent on marriage and inbreeding, it’s essential to find out what the law says. It turns out that the laws about cousin marriage vary by state, and there are plenty of exceptions;
24 states prohibit first-cousin marriages
19 allow first-cousin marriages
7 allow only some first-cousin marriages
7 prohibit first-cousin-once-removed marriages
Conclusion
In our 20- state list, we have found that the most incest occurs in the “Bible Belt,” where more than one way of life exists. This includes many different religions, which have been known to breed hate, intolerance, and incest because they are so close-minded.
With that said, it’s clear that incest occurs a lot more often than people think. We hope that this list has been helpful and not too shocking.
The ayatollahs, on the US Supreme Court, proved they did not care for the live of women in the United States, when they ruled to allow the men in the Taliban states to have absolute control of women.
The conservate rallying cry to defend the Iraq invasion was "We gotta fight them over there or we'll be fighting them over here".
Remember, the US government wages war because we have to fight against oppression and mistreatment of women in other countries, but not in the United States.
The ayatollahs, on the US Supreme Court, proved they did not care for the live of women in the United States, when they ruled to allow the men in the Taliban states to have absolute control of women.
What is the relationship between the proceeding paragraphs and this statement?
The most inbred state in the United States is a simple question with an incredibly complicated answer. The most inbred state in the country in Kentucky.
To those who refer to the bible when it comes to abortion, look what it says about non-virgin brides. I'm sure if the 'non-virgin' bride was pregnant at the time it was discovered she wasn't a virgin at the time of marriage, they'd still put her to death.
Marriage Violations
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,”15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gateproof that she was a virgin.16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her.17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town,18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him.19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found,21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Many good points in favor of abortion rights have been posted here.
At least you can recognize good points from one side, that’s better than not able to recognize any but not as wise as being able to recognize them from either side.
You might have noticed on abortion rights I am on the other side of where I am on many other issues. If there is a good reason against abortion, I haven't seen it. I can see the other side on many things, but not here.
The best point that I believe for Pro Choice is that regardless of what the law says, women will continue to get abortions.
The best Pro Life point is that the fetus is the most vulnerable of human beings among us, and requires legal protection.
My own personal view is in between these two extremes. I would allow first trimester abortions with few restrictions and have increasing restrictions there after.
Donald Trump is on the precipice of achieving the most lasting and impactful part of his presidential legacy, as the justices he put on the Supreme Court prepare to help overturn Roe v. Wade and cement the former president’s status as a hero to social conservatives. But for a man who rarely opens his mouth without talking about his own (real or alleged) achievements, Trump has been near-silent on abortion since it became clear Roe was going under.
Instead, Trump has been privately fretting about what the impending collapse of abortion rights will do for his own political prospects, telling those close to him that the issue could hurt him with “suburban women” should he try to retake the White House in 2024. “Suburban women have been a recurring concern for [former] President Trump, including during the 2020 campaign, when his smarter advisers were sounding the alarm to him about how he was losing suburbs. He is … worried women in the suburbs could punish him for this one day, [too],” said a person familiar with the matter.
In the weeks since a draft opinion to overturn Roe was revealed, Trump has barely talked about the issue during interviews, at political rallies, and in his social media posts. According to two sources familiar with the matter, this is indeed an intentional and calculated silence. In recent days, Trump has told some of his allies and counselors that “suburban women” and other key voting groups don’t like hearing about the issue, as they are simply more pro-choice than the mainstream of the Republican Party and conservative movement. He has also told several associates that if he went too hard now on the topic of overturning Roe, it would give his enemies the chance to “use it against” him — the strong implication being, according to the two sources, that if Trump ultimately runs for the White House again in 2024, it could be more a political liability than an asset.
So far, the ex-prez has cited health concerns might not allow him to run in 2024 and now there are concerns that his appointment of three conservative justices to overturn Roe is coming back to bite him. I'm of the belief that he doesn't want to run but wants to continue to grift his base.
I believe he did get killed in just about every episode though I stopped watching years and years and years ago - I think the show is now in it's 25th season.
I believe he did get killed in just about every episode though I stopped watching years and years and years ago - I think the show is now in it's 25th season.
I
George Carlin.
poor trumpsters are all upset about the breach of the confidential and private deliberations of the federalist SCOTUS, after that same court creates an opinion to remove those same rights from every woman in america.
Privacy for all - unless you have a vagina - then the government and your conservative, church-going neighbors want all up in there.....
Carlin hit the nail on the head.
I've had it with the self righteous hypocrites and I truly feel sorry for the next fucking thumper stupid enough to knock on my door.
Ronald Reagan
I've noticed that everyone who is against abortion has already been born. - al Jizzerror
Sure. And he also said trees cause pollution and gave us Supply Side Economics.
And said ketchup was a vegetable and wasn't he the start of embracing those fucking whackjob evangelicals? The immoral majority?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
And also wanted to know why making hamburgers was not classified as 'industrial production'.
I also remember Sen. Barry Goldwater saying that he wanted to kick the evangelical grifters in the nuts.
he foresaw what damage the evangelical cult would do to the GOP.
The evangelicals might be the GOPERS destiny but they sure as hell should not be ours.
I think that's when this country started its decline.
[deleted]
Supply side economics are correct economics.
[deleted]
Ronald Reagan said he would balance the budget by 1983. He set a record for the highest deficit in history with his "trickle down BS".
Then daddy Bush broke Reagan's record for the highest deficit in history.
Clinton raised taxes and set a record for the highest surpluses in history.
Then five members of SCOTUS selected GW Bush (who also trickled down on us). DuhBya broke his dad's record for the highest deficit in history and gave us the Great Recession.
Supply side economics has always failed.
Bush won the 2000 election and the majority of the Florida vote and the electoral college vote. He was not selected.
BTW Bush v. Gore was a 7-2 for Bush.
The recount was stopped by SCOTUS.
In a per curiam decision , the Court first ruled 7–2 (Justices Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting), strictly on equal protection grounds, that the recount be stopped. Specifically, the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution ; the case had also been argued on the basis of Article II jurisdictional grounds, which found favor with only Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas , and William Rehnquist . Second, the Court ruled 5–4 against the remedy, proposed by Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter , of sending the case back to Florida to complete the recount using a uniform statewide standard before the scheduled December 18 meeting of Florida's electors in Tallahassee,
Florida newspapers sued to get access to the ballots so they could perform an independent recount.
Bush wins, Gore wins -- depending on how ballots are added up
But in counties that use ballots counted by optical scanners, a manual recount often can determine which mark shows the voter's intent, because many voters explain their intentions on the ballot form. Some circle the name of the candidate they meant to vote for; others write the candidate's name on the ballot; others attempt to erase a mark they made in error.
The study found that Florida's uncounted optical scan ballots included as many as 3,527 such potentially valid votes. If those votes had been counted, Gore would have gained 2,206 votes and Bush 1,321 -- a swing of 885 votes for Gore.
Can you tell me what those points were ? They seem to have been deleted two days ago. I didn't get to read them, what did they say ?
nothing of any substance.
No. It was 7-2 to stop counting the vote. Bush was ahead by 537 votes at that point.
Yes. The pair of appeals you mentioned are accurate.
Ronald Reagan, a truly wise and intelligent man.
Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn is alive we must NOT give it the benefit of doubt and we must assume it is NOT yet alive. And, thus, it should NOT be entitled to life, livery and the pursuit of happiness until live birth has been acheived. - al Jizzerror
The Reagan quote from my comment is true and intelligent and accurate.
Your comment with the changes you made is not true, is not intelligent nor is it accurate. Quite the opposite really.
Whether it's alive is irrelevant. I'm alive. Have been for years. I have no right to demand the use of another person's organs or tissues - not even those of dead people. We don't mandate organ donation even by those who have died, but forcing pregnancy mandates allowing the use of a living person's organs and tissues by another. Forcing pregnancy gives dead people more rights than living women.
Looks like your wrong again.
Here's a hint, "livery".
Looks like YOU'RE wrong again, arkie.
I always wondered why "they"/"we" called it husbandry?
Because the men always made the decisions on which cows or horses got to breed and which were aborted or lost their balls?
[deleted]
If your supreme being is in charge of guiding the one sperm in a million to the one egg released monthly, then it is the biggest abortion provider in existence.
Oh Hell!
this group attracts trolls.
Maybe it's our magnetic personalities.
The trolls must love us.
I missed yours when NV folded. I'm glad to see you here and I now see that cobaltblue is back.
you hook'em and I'll clean'em...
*poof* - there went your evidence...
Ya think? lol
Thanx! Butt it's Cobalt who has the magnetic personality.
I've been stuck on her since we co-founded ButtHeads Nation on NV in 2013.
Deleted again?
That's Hell!
After Sally hijacked Buttheads Nation, Cobalt and I founded SiN Nation on NV.
We never censored anyone in those Nations.
oh yeah...
Those aren't actually his words. Written by a speech writer.
Actually more like an actor reading from a script
Not wise or intelligent
Certainly wiser and more intelligent than the jackass that we are stuck with as president now.
Reagan never needed an Easter Bunny to keep him from saying anything
Peggy Noonan,
Shit happens and biased people will see what fits their agenda.
The previous President stated that Frederick Douglas is an example of someone who is getting things done and getting more and more recognitionfor it.
Mr. Trumpcouldn't remember the name,or pronounce the name of the serviceman whose wife he called to "comfort".
The five year Trump list will probably outlive most 2 term Presidents.
.. at least the jackass can spell.
If you are opposed to abortion; don't get one.
I believe in the sanctity of human life and do not support the wanton killing of innocence human life. The unborn babies are are just that and they are being killed because they are inconvenient. Well too bad. The mother's should have thought of that before crawling in the sack.
It is sort of like bearing arms (which by the way is actually is a Good given right stated in the Constitution). If you don't like want a gun don't buy one.
BTW abortion is not an enumerated right stated in the Constitution.
WTF does that have to do with abortion?
Why are you deflecting?
The topic here is women's rights, not moron's rights.
4th and 14th amendment say different.
4th and 14th amendment say different.
Do you know what an enumerated right is?
[deleted]
the Court doesn't claim the right to abortion exists in the 4th amendment.
No they don't. If you think otherwise show me the exact passage where it is stated.
The 'creator' should have had the wisdom to make the man the sack. You would be whistling a different tune.
You feel the government should have complete control of your personal body? Force you to unwillingly undergo a dangerous procedure?
I think the government should stop people from killing human babies just like the stop people from killing any other human being.
Neither is your right to have me not go rifling through your medical records, looking for juicy gossip. But that right is recognized and codified, all the same.
They have, it's called murder. Unfortunately for you, abortion does not pertain to "babies".
Forced living organ donations - that should be a thing.
Every Justice, Senator, and House Rep, who supports an abortion ban, should immediately donate any and all of their residences as orphanages. And cover all costs therein.
Apparently the republican party feels it is just fine and dandy to be rifling a person's private medical records. As long as that person is a female, at least.
Cite the passages
google constitution.
I am not going to do your work. You made the comment now you prove it
Instead of demanding others to always prove their point, why not take a moment and prove yours?
he can't.
You couldn't be more correct. If men were the ones to bear children, there would be an abortion clinic in every JiffyLube, every QuikTrip, down the street from every strip joint in the nation. Isn't this the party of "it's my body so you cannot force me to wear a mask"?
Holy shit. I forget. There are some people for whom logic is not necessarily a part of their lives. Why don't you do what most people do. If one has a contradictory point to make, they counter with facts. The old "I'm not going to do your work" is nothing less than lazy and practically proof you don't know what you're talking about.
I get that answer from the left all the time. When I have given proof or links to proof it is usually ignored and not looked at by liberals so why even bother.
Neither is interstate travel, the right to drive vehicles or fly planes,
produce electricity or conduct nuclear experiments.
The sanctity of life is a religious attitude, period.
If you were worried about the sanctity of all life, you would never eat again.
Not HIS. Only women.
There are already laws against killing babies. So job done.
Neither is life or liberty.
Point?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Repealing roe vs wade is not an abortion ban
trouble finding a lawyer?
I am opposed to deleting too.
That's why I never flag or delete any content.
How's the weather there? I understand it's a dry heat down there.
no moderation in heated discussions and you've already pulled off the biggest article there before. as a group mod here and in the reality show I must respond to flags that come in. plus, I really like deleting christo-fascist trolls. their reactions are usually quite amusing.
I'm writing an article for"Heated Dicksuction" right now.
With your help, and the help of the liberal NewsTalkers, I'm going to set a new record for participation.
We will have lots of fun bashing the White-wing knuckle dragging stalker/trolls who attempt to "own" us there.
count me in. a lot more maga buttons available to push there. might be tough to beat the count on this seed though...
stop breaking NT.
I'll try to publish it tonight (actually, early AM tomorrow).
I'm just trying to beat the "count" of this article:
That screen was taken when the article only had 89 comments. The article eventually racked up 380 comments.
I'm told that's pretty good for Heated Discussions.
duh. largest comment count I've ever seen there. perrie would know for sure.
There are two limitations on participation on articles published in Heated Discussions.
1. Articles published there never get "promoted to the NT Front Page".
2. People are required to join the group in order to post comments there.
both true, but I'm confident those obstacles can be overcome with provocative subject matter.
I think I can provide something that will provoke the White-wing knuckle dragging stalker/trolls.
they're all so fucking stupid, you'll be racing against the clock.
meh, they can't own the libs there, and what's even worse for them, they can't flag the libs there.
Not everyone enjoys waiving the flag as much as you do.
rarely waive, but always act. care to see a few more examples?
he was a hollywood child molester that turned into a war criminal and drug trafficker.
He also gave arms, money and American honor to the Ayatollah in exchange for the hostages.
Prove it
Prove it? JFC.
You alright or not. Just what it was, dude.
that bad howdy doody imitation also cut a deal with our enemy iran while he was a POTUS candidate to foul the hostage negotiations and the '80 election. I hope he's sharing a spit in hell with nixon while watching satan go balls deep in his wife nancy, the 40's hollywood abortion poster girl.
What a bizarre thing to fantasize about.
Lots of issues there.
I'm a little rusty, what's that latin phrase that makes every mackerel snapper automatically drop to their knees?
mackerel snapper
And the bigoted comment of the day goes to...
Can you communicate without using slurs?
can you?
Bill Clinton was a child molester and a rapist and a sexual predator.
"that bad howdy doody imitation also cut a deal with our enemy iran while he was a POTUS candidate to foul the hostage negotiations and the '80 election. I hope he's sharing a spit in hell with nixon while watching satan go balls deep in his wife nancy, the 40's hollywood abortion poster girl."
The right's HERO!
What scum!
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you have the evidence report it. If you don't you are as guilty as the perpetrator.
Omigosh ... that made me laugh so fuckin' hard!
You mean like Trump who wants to fuck Ivanka and has publicly stated so on a few occasions, who grabs pussies and boasts about it, and fucked a porn star with a pregnant wife (who also had girl-on-girl pix, easily found on the internet) at home? Oh. I see. Yeahhhh.
Nope
Some here already said "prove it"
Oh wait...it was you,
Please carry on with the bias, I hope it eventually gets lighter for you.
Gee why does Trump bother you so much yey Clinton got a pass and his transgressions are ignored?
Yes I did and never got a response from any of them either but I did see you getting on them for it.
Because you cannot prove your claims while Trump's transgressions are public record. Not to mention that you made a claim and I posed a like example that has been proven.
Clinton's transgressions have been proven also.
You mean his friendship with Epstein?
Occasionally, there are some whose only horizon is a 'stain on a blue dress'.
[deleted]
TDS applies only to those that succumb to his brash evilness.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You mean Nancy? Reagan began the decline into dementia into his second term. When Nancy held her seances, I'm sure it was because she thought it helped run the country. I liked him well enough for someone who was in decline. And I felt for Nancy. He failed in many areas.
Biden is only in the first year of his first term and is already in dementia but that doesn't bother you?
Oh please. That's a witty statement, arkie. Half-witty. Dim-witty. Nit-witty. It smells of desperation in here.
Cite.
And then there's always forgetting whom you're stumping for:
Yeah. Donnie has trumped Biden in the dementia department. Do you think Trump is just stupid or is he cognitively deficient?
Trump didn't try to shake hands with air then stand there like he didn't know where he was. He never called on a paralyzed man to stand up to take a bow. He never had to have the Easter Bunny stop him from speaking. Trump never stated that troops were going to a foreign war zone after saying they wouldn't. Trump never followed other countries like Biden has done for the entire Ukraine war. Biden has done his screw ups all within a time frame just over a year. How long did it take Trump to do what you claim he did.
Oh and don't forget Obama said there were 57 states and he visited most of them. Was Obama stupid?
You have got a lot to talk about, considering Biden is halfway through his SECOND YEAR!
You fell for it!
Fox News edited that video of Biden to fool idiots who watch their bullshit.
Fox has been caught editing Biden content to make him look bad ever since Biden beat their favorite loser.
Like that makes a difference. Biden is still an incompetent demented fool.
Note. Even as Putin's vaunted army is proving to be not so vaunted and may well get its arse kicked back to 'ole Mother Russia', there are some that continue to further Putin 'talking points'. Amazing, ain't it.
Name calling on a president that is leading the effort to diminish and possibly destroy an autocratic dictator that creates/causes so many problems and fear in the world may lead one to question---or at least ponder---your allegiance to this great nation, The United States of America.
Who's calling Zelenskyy names?
I will get flagged----and proudly so----REMOVED
The biggest problem with Biden in that fight is that ge is not now nor has he ever led the fight. His "actions" have always come after other countries have acted first and half assed responses at that.
Funny I did see the left stop call bush names when he was deposing Saddam Hussein.
Your statement is false. The US has provided massive amounts of equipment and secured the logistics for other nations to also send their weapons and aid.
Whether Biden has led the fight or not, Ukraine without our support would not exist. That is a fact. In manpower and material Russia has massive capability. And thus far Russia is losing.
Besides, from day one Biden said this is Ukraine's fight. But he also said the US will stand with Ukraine. And that we have done.
My only problem with Biden thus far in this war is THIS. Why is it that the only foreign aircraft permitted to operate in Ukranian airspace is Russian?
That is complete different topic. And Iraq did not have WMD. But they did have OIL. Bush lied. Powell lied. They all lied. And wars waged on lies and fraud never have favorable outcomes. Took us 20 years to get out of that crap. What do we have to show for it?
Madison Cawthorn, a Retrumplican Congressman from North Cackalaky, called Zelensky a "thug".
Sometimes you just have to feed the troll.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
And he based that opinion on what? His degree in acting?
a ouija board session and seance with nancy.
[deleted]
Seems to me that now might be a good time to look into cross border abortion clinics and maybe companies that still produce those old style wire hangers
a few months ago I consulted on a large out patient CO medical clinic placed to service OK and TX that was put into mothballs several years ago. it has fired up again and they're pouring concrete by the end of the month.
... and imagine the ticket I would have received if I had made that hanger comment.
There are many modern drugs that will terminate a pregnancy. Most are widely prescribed for other conditions. While it is preferable to have personal counseling by a medical profession, women will learn and adapt to protecting their mental and physical health like they have always done for thousands of years.
Allowing states to ban abortion will mostly adversely impact the impoverished who cannot afford to travel to get access to a medical professional who will legally prescribe the necessary medication.
home remedies will come back, more effective than in the old days. And, with the internet knowledge will be shared.
Yes, and those women and all those who assisted them including driving them to and from or nursed them in recovery will be criminals subject to prosecution.
We are going to need a lot more prisons!
will be hard to prove
So the poor killing babies is important for you. How about the cost of housing rising or the price of fuels or the cost of food or inflation in general. All of those impact the poor much more than wether or not they can murder babies.
Or, you know, contraception.
The abortion rate is already lower than it was before Roe. It's shockingly easy to not become pregnant.
That may not be permitted by the new Homeland Security's "Disinformation Board".
I am really concerned that free speech in the US is in as much danger as abortion rights.
If the abortion rights are terminated, then rights to various forms of birth control, that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, will be next.
It is difficult to believe that our species allows a man, who chose to be single and celibate for life, to have any authority on anyone's marriage and reproduction choices.
The world is getting stranger and more dangerous by the day as the US seems Hellbent to devolve instead of evolve.
ZERO babies are killed.
However, my mother died from a self-induced abortion in 1957 when I was an infant.
This issue is supremely personal to me while my mother's death had ZERO impact on the lives of the strangers who denied her access to a safe, legal abortion.
The people, who are more concerned about a clump of cells than the well-being of women, are psychopaths as far as I am concerned and should never ever be allowed to have access to women and children for any reason.
They certainly art puppies or kittens. The are definitely babies
Your definition sounds more like those a are in favor of abortion. What is being killed in a callous and unemotional way by morally depraved people are human babies. They are not just a blob of cells.
Yes, they are.
And you are antiabortion, so don't get an abortion.
No. They are removing a group of cells that have the potential of becoming a baby.
That SUX!
In 1957 the leading cause of death for women of child bearing age was botched abortions. Roe v Wade changed that. Now the right-wingers on SCOTUS are going to change it back to the way it used to be (in red states).
I support women's fundamental right to control their own bodies.
Alito and all those antiabortion idiots hate women.
Yes they are a blob of cells at that point. At some point along the way, they become a baby.
I'm a mother of identical twins, a science teacher and a sex-ed teacher who taught abstinence, and a woman. I never had an abortion but I believe in protecting the rights of women who have to endure the process, alone. When you can carry a baby, maybe then you will have the right to tell us, women, what is going on with our bodies.
I have shown and have seen photos of 13 week developing babies and they definitely are not just a blob of cells. If you call prove otherwise please slow them to me.
They baby is not your body. It has a body all its own.
Looks like it is more than a blob of cells to me how old is that one?
It is not a baby. Not even pregnancy books refer to it as a baby. It is a fetus. And it needs my body to survive. It is not an independent entity.
It is 12-13 weeks old. It has no brain, no nervous system, and feels nothing.
A week old baby needs you for support also. Is it alright to kill it if it is an inconvenience?
It really does. I am 65 years old and occasionally still feel the pain of the infant whose mother suddenly disappeared from her life. I never want anyone to ever experience that kind of pain.
However, I know many people who have similar struggles and were raised by their birth parents. Life is puzzling, tragic and euphoric, but rarely boring.
I am not surprised. There was so much widespread poverty in the 50s.
In 1986, I worked for a man who was born in the 1930s in the Oklahoma. When he was 12, his parents made him leave home because he was the eldest and they did not have enough food to feed themselves and the rest of their children. He did not talk about his struggle to survive, but he did say he never went back and did not know what happened to any of his "family".
Anytime, I indulge in self-pity, I remind myself that it is best to learn from the past and enjoy the present and do what I can do what little I can to make life better for myself and others whenever possible.
Too bad those aborted babies will never have the chance to do that. Their lives were cut short for no other reason than it was inconvenient for their selfish mothers to have them.
Look, it is your personal belief that it is a baby. It is not mine. And for the record, I never had an abortion, and I don't judge those who do or do not. Who are you to judge?
A baby is a person and what you are proposing is murder. A 12-week-old fetus doesn't even meet the min requirement to be called a baby.
What in hell do you think making abortions illegal means? It make abortions criminal...
Do you personally know the 800,000+ women who chose to have an abortion or are you just making shit up?
Nobody is in favor of abortion. All of us want there to be fewer abortions. We're in favor of choice. We're in favor of a child not being forced to risk her life carrying to term a fetus that is the product of rape or incest. Because not risking the lives of children by forcing them to be broodmares is the pro-life position.
What do you want to do about overpopulation?
In what body is it staying?
Happened to my father in the 40s. Eldest of 11 and age 10 they "sold" him to a farmer down the road. Then they MOVED.
My mother is still alive, but I grew up, the last of 6 kids, hearing every day how much she hated children. She taught me to read at age 4 so she wouldn't have to read to me. I still thank her for that, but I resent the HELL out of being a child that knew every day I was not wanted and actually hated. My father worked and drank, so no support from him either. I was molested by a brother & cousin - and told I imagined it and/or a liar.
If anyone had asked me at 6 weeks gestation if I wanted to be born to that family at that time I would have begged to be terminated.
Or.... in the real world.... birth control changed that.
It did and it didn't. Some people just flat out refuse to use birth control. I really don't have any sympathy for them. But I have known women whose BCP's failed and they ended up with an unwanted pregnancy. I think there are fewer unwanted pregnancies now but birth control is not 100% effective.
My mother once told me that if BCP's had been available my brother and I wouldn't have been born. I'm pretty sure she was serious
Vasectomies for every man
I remember when I was little my mom or dad having a discussion with our neighbors - talking about their kids - they had two boys and a girl - and I remember their dad saying something like - we planned for the first one or two but the other one was an accident.
What a living hell that must have been for you! Damn!
My son wasn't planned but I never called him an accident. He was a very happy surprise
I hear ya TG. Even then, I was just a little kid, I couldn't believe he said that!
I know mine was very serious. Not a warm & fuzzy woman.
It was very rough. Not a good situation to be born into.
My brother was a pleasant surprise. He was planned, but not quite so soon.
Me too.
Sounds you're a survivor and on the other side of a great life! A lot of young women try to escape that kind of life by getting pregnant at a young age and married and get trapped.
Most abortions are not performed because of the mother being a child, or being because of incest or rape. Mother vast majority are because being pregnant and having a baby is just an inconvenience for the mother. She should have thought about that before she crawled I'd the sack and had sex
Some men are just conceived with a knack for blaming women ... the weeding out process should start there.
Provide the citation then for those stats.
Most aren't. But those that are will be forbidden in some states, putting children's lives, health, and ability to recover from assault at risk.
Also, the inconvenience angle - a properly performed abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering. Is your safety just a "convenience" to you?
To clarify, what birth control did was cause "unwanted abortions" to cease being the top cause of death for women....if in fact it ever really was the top cause... we didn't get a citation.
Let's also be clear, birth control stops massively more unwanted pregnancies than abortions, so the idea that RvW "changed that" is disingenuous at best, and hysterical batshit melodrama at worst.
We are defintely in agreement on this.
It is actually 99% effective. Oral birth control is one of the most influential advances in human history. It is 100 million times more important than Roe v Wade.
and what is wrong with convenience?
I don't disagree with any of your statements. But 99% is not 100%. We all know what 100% effective birth control is. I suggest women start using it.
Nothing as long as it doesn't involve the death of an innocent unborn.
Not really but if she doesn't want to have a baby, that is the time to decide and take appropriate precautions.
[deleted]
Prove that.
Fair enough. And for the record, I don't have a set opinion on Roe v Wade or abortion in general. I'm merely pointing out that oral contraceptives are infinitely more significant.
Really. You're gonna shut down Mr. Giggles over a rumor of a SCOTUS decision? Seems a bit harsh.
And you are correct. I took them for years and never had an unwanted pregnancy. Between you and me, I think when BCP fails it's because they weren't taken properly, but that's just my opinion.
He's got no worries. I'm 60 years old. What are the chances of me getting pregnant at this age? None to zilch
Not everyone can take oral birth control. I know I couldn't and neither can my daughters. So that has to be factored into the equation.
My daughter with an autoimmune disorder cannot use any type of BC that contains hormones. She was not allowed to have a tubal ligation prior to her 30th b-day because she "might change her mind" even though a pregnancy could kill her. But naw, this crap won't affect women because their is BC.
My wife was the same, after our daughter was born I got a vasectomy to obtain the same result with much less risk. It was a great decision.
Both you and Perrie have given all of us something to think about. I've been lucky that I could take hormonal bc. It never occurred to me that some women cannot because of medical conditions. I hang my head in shame
Very forward-thinking of you! That is a great decision.
Fair enough.
I still don't think we want to equate abortion with birth control. I can't imagine you or your daughters look at them equally.
My wife has suffered from Lupus and my sister from Hashimoto's thyroiditis. So much more research for these conditions are needed.
Snip-snip in the 90's was easy and no more latex barrier was a good deal for both of us.
Abortion is the back up when birth control fails. All systems protecting important things need redundant backups
Or----------------Arm the women.
Many men will look on that as a license to rape.
Of course not. You might not know that as a biology teacher it was my job to teach sex ed, and I taught abstinence. That being said, I taught my daughters well about birth control, and about the fallout from an unwanted pregnancy.
I have a lupus like disorder and both my daughters have Hashimoto's thyroiditis. Autoimmune diseases and neurology are the great frontiers in medicine.
Exacty!
I would have to agree with you 100%
The stats are either in the bible or second amendment somewhere.
And you know the sweet talkin' that got that woman into the sack. It's like she made a baby on her very own.
No need to do that. I could also (and did) take BC pills. My daughter just ended up with the short end of the stick in regards to her health issues.
How ignorant and insulting of you.
lol
Birth control pills sent my blood pressure sky high the last time I tried to take them. My BP the day I went to the doctor was 118/68. Three weeks into taking the Pill, I had terrible leg cramps and felt like I had the flu. I got my BP checked the next day, and it was 150/110. The Pill was the only change in my habits, and I had been warned to keep an eye on my BP.
So, hormonal BP was not on the list of possibilities for me after that, even though I'd taken the Pill in the past.
Thankful I've had the plumbing removed.
Nice oxymoron.
Do you know what an oxymoron is? How do you think my comment qualifies as an oxymoron?
Oh wait... you mean no guy was there with her when she got pregnant? Only women have the burden of self-control. Interesting.
Absolutely, do you?
Try English without your religious limitations.
Death can only occur after life is established. It's the law...
An unborn potential human is not alive according to the Catholic Church and the Courts of the USA
Multiple cases involving Catholic hospitals, where the mother was denied
an "abortion" or emergency C-section resulting in the death of the mother and
one or more unborn children were found in the Catholic Church/Hospital's favor.
HOSPITAL WINS WRONGFUL DEATH SUIT – Sun Sentinel (sun-sentinel.com)
Granted, using the Catholic Church victories is like admitting there is something
terribly wrong with humanity at large.
The bottom line is that "shingle's doesn't care" what you believe.
Neither does COVID.
Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about one's religious beliefs.
Nature always wins.
As far as here in the US. Stop paying people for babies. And also end all tax breaks and subsidies for children.
Change the American mindset that having children are a sacrifice people must be willing to make.
It reminds me of a song that, for some strange reason, I never hear on my golden oldie radio station here in the Bible Belt.
The more people there are, the more costs will rise, as more and more resources are needed.
Only when they're born.
It's attached to and feeding off of someone's body, like a parasite. And no one is required to give their body to support another against their will.
You're absolutely right.
Hey, Chica! Where ya been? How ya doing? Who do ya know?
Enjoying retirement! But I smelled al, and I couldn't get here fast enough.
How they hangin'?
How so very appropriate, Miss Tessylo. The word "perky" is no longer in my vocabulary. They be hangin' just dandy however.
Always so good to see you. Love you, girl.
Miss seeing your wit and intellect and beauty around these parts.
It has been more than a month of Sundays darlin'
LOL these ole' parts ain't so perky anymore either sweetie darling. I blame gravity
Mean ol' Mr. Gravity. Such a dick.
[deleted]
'The golden image of the fetus was placed on an altar of polished alabaster as those in attendance cowered with bowed heads to that which was not yet among them.'
The politics of the fetus.
In the biology department of the college where I attended undergrad, there are shelves full of animal specimens preserved in formalin. I did my work study as a lab assistant, so I was in that specimen room a lot. There was a jar similar to the pic you posted, but of an IUD fetus. The woman who produced that fetus had done everything she could to avoid pregnancy outside of abstinence. IUDs are generally extremely reliable. But hers failed. She conceived, and the IUD was embedded in the fetus's brain. The fetus survived to near term, but not quite.
And in the conservative world, you would be expected to carry this to term even tho it will probably die in the womb if not right at birth
shortbus and corny...
What the fuck did anyone think would happen when GWBush signed an executive order that done away with the financial component of the separation of church and state?
The BIGGEST winner = the Roman Catholic Church.
I have googled for information over the last decade for more information on just how much taxpayer money is being funneled to the Roman Catholic Church for administering social programs since Bush's executive order. The RCC also seems to be in charge of providing various services (at taxpayer expense) to the millions of immigrants that cross our border every year.
Why were our government services privatized to the Roman Catholic Church and other religious organizations? I don't know, but the fact that it happened almost 2 decades ago has only allowed the RCC to
Funneling taxpayer money to Catholic Hospitals where women are denied lifesaving procedures to keep a fetus alive is barbaric. The US government seems to be competing against the Iranian government for which one holds women in the most contempt.
The Democrats have used the threat of revoking abortion rights for women over our heads for far too long. If the Democrats had actually ever cared about women's rights, they have had many opportunities to make this a non-issue for decades. Instead, the Democrats used scare tactics to gain political power. Disgusting and completely unacceptable that women's rights to bodily autonomy has been an ongoing issue for decades when it should have been permanently settled long ago.
And that's absolutely insane !
If men ever faced these issues we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I wish I could have voted that up twice.
True!
Totally agree.
This is why the men, who view women as possessions, should not be in any positions of authority in our government.
This is one of the reasons why the financial separation of church and state must be re-instated.
Some facts on why some men cannot tolerate women having rights, independence and being paid for all of the work that we do for free to keep society functioning.
The way you've punctuated this seems to indicate you believe all men view women as possessions. I presume that's not what you intended.
Interesting. So the food my church distributes to needy families through govt grant....we should use that money to hire 12 govt employees to replace the dozen volunteers we have and just give those people less food. Sounds like a great plan.
Nobody seemed to mind when churches offered free drive-through Covid testing or the mosque near my house gave Covid vaccinations....all through govt grants.
Nobody seems to object to using their Pell grants at Notre Dame or SMU or Vanderbilt.
Are we sure this is a good idea?
If you imagine this issue is driven by men, you are missing the boat. This is about women controlling other women. Again.
Me too.
Thank you!! Righter than rain, girl.
Are conservatives going to pass legislation to assist poor single mothers? Are they going to provide increased funding for SNAP and child care? Or are they going to try to kill The Affordable Care Act again?
No, no and you bet your sweet ass they intend to!
It does show their hypocrisy about caring for women and children when they refuse to support them and instead chooses to spend trillions of dollars to wage endless wars that kills millions of women and children either directly or indirectly.
A steep increase in the number of children living in poverty is to be expected.
[deleted]
Just received this article in my Reddit email. I thought it might be appreciated by some of the people in this discussion.
I love that movie.
Instead of commenting, I bought the al-Jizz T-shirt ...
Would they outlaw abortions for ectopic pregnancies? When you think about it an ectopic pregnancy is really not a pregnancy. It's a life threatening condition where no baby will be born and if no medical treatment is sought, then there goes that baby maker.
You gotta love these medical genius anti-science fucking twats
There have been attempts.
Then the law would be guilty of homicide. This is one I would like to see Jack McCoy take on.
Seriously, tho. If RvW is reversed, the family of the first woman who dies because it's against the law to receive treatment ie abortion for an ectopic pregnancy will have the Supreme Court reeling again (awkward sentence structure)
Agreed. As well as those who enact and enforce it.
I do not understand why men do not see abortion is a great freedom for them.
Well.......
LOL!
All laughing aside I do wonder how many of these anti-choice men have paid for or insisted on an abortion because they didn't want to be "inconvenienced"
Many men do not want to pay child support for eighteen years.
Well, in the past, a lot of men managed to dodge child support requirements. Skip town, work for cash under the table, etc. The courts were terrible about enforcing child support.
deadbeat dads lose their driver's license in my state and that suspension follows them across the US.
A family near here had a deadbeat dad locked up. I believe he was a local police chief, but I'm not sure. He was in law enforcement.
Thanks, that’s very important to know.
go figure. I use to play poker with a group of metro cops that weren't too bothered by ethics.
My BIL used to work for the city of Denver in some office where they went after dead beat dads
colorado fucks them up.
Those with means surely do. They also despise those without means.
[deleted]
Hey, Al! where did you get the video of my birth?
You were such a beautiful baby.
Give that baby blue eyes and it almost looks like both of my kids when they were born. They both had some wild assed hair until they were about a year old
Oh dear god. Did you have some crazy heartburn while pregnant?
You bet I did! I shouldl have bought stock in the Maalox company. Now I have GERD and have to take meds every day for it. I blame THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Every time I see a newborn with a full head of hair like that, I feel for his/her sweet momma. You know she had a hellish pregnancy due to heartburn.
I wonder if Rosemary had heartburn.
LOL!
Why is abortion anybody else's business? It does not concern them in anyway
Why is child abuse by the parents anybody else's business. It doesn't effect anyone else.
there is a difference between that which is already born and that which is not. once they are here somebody is stuck with and responsible for them and thier costs and abused children usually are a drag on society' and cause problems and costs for others.
Anything that is not wanted usually does not get the best care and is often abused.
Child abuse does affect others, Abortion does not. `
So you would be Ok with killing children that are unwanted and inconvenient even if they are already born.
I did not say that, i said " once they are here somebody is stuck with and responsible for them and thier costs " I favor preventing that problem.
The cost of an unwanted child are high, resources can be spread too thin, other family members suffer, Parents many not have time or even care.
Not all people who have kids should or really want to be parents
Forcing unwanted kids on people and expecting them to be successful and happy, because you are against abortion, is like trying to grow good crops in a parking lot
Unwanted children are killed every frigging day, arkie. Except they're usually tortured first.
An estimated 1,840 children died due to abuse or neglect in FFY 2019.
That's five a day. Five actual babies, not zygotes arkie, BABIES die a day. A fucking day. By beatings, starvings, rapings. What a bunch of fuckin' nuts that are "pro life." Pro life, my ass. They're pro birth, and that's it. They don't give a shit about life. They're the pro wire hanger party. If you think abortions are going to stop, you're dumber than a box of rocks.
How many foster children do you have, arkie? I expect it's several. Right?
So you believe legalized abortion prevents child abuse?
I've got news for you....
how can you abuse something that no longer exists?
LMAO! Forget logic, charger. It's lost on a few. I really did laugh out loud.
[deleted]
Pencils have erasers for a reason
Good one!
not at the golf course...
Cite.
You are making women have children who are not planned for nor necessarily wanted. Those unwanted children are beaten, starved, burned, tortured, sold for sex, emotionally and psychologically abused. Our jails have a vast majority of prisoners that were merely tolerated, allowed to grow up without a moral compass, ignored and felt a nuisance.
George Carlin is a fucking genius.
I also think that any woman who is an addict or alcoholic should abort because Lord knows how much that child is going to suffer. My daughter is a NICU nurse and sees this every day. She once said, "Mom, I don't know why they let these children be born. It's heartbreaking."
Let's make it fair. If women are forced to have children they are not prepared for or do not want, a government mandated DNA test is immediate. Locate the father, and he should immediately be taken to court and ordered to be financially responsible for one-half of the child's health, welfare (including daycare costs) and education to the child's majority. If the gentleman does not do what should be enforceable, then it goes to the IRS. The IRS will then attach liens on any property and garnish each gentleman's wages. It should also be ordered that an education fund be opened with a financial institution if salary permits. All insurances should also be mandated to be paid at a fifty-fifty split. Men should not walk away scot free.
So it is ok for a woman to murder her baby if she does not want it and is unprepared but if a man does not want to be a father and is not prepared.for the responsibility, he gets the entire weight of the government on his head. You call that fair?
although murder is over dramatic , You have a good point; but, first keep abortion legal or this part of the equation does not exist
You're shittin' me.
Okay. Let's go over this. The entire weight of the government is making her have a child she does not want. If men do not want children, then they should use condoms. Simple. But some they don't like them, or say the woman 'said she was on the pill.' Just don't believe it. Never take for granted that her birth control is 100% reliable. She very well may be on birth control, but only abstinence is 100% reliable. So wear a condom.
So let's get back on track. She not only has to have a baby, but be financially responsible for it. Men duck out. If a gentleman does the right thing and voluntarily splits the responsibility, then the government needn't get involved. But every single thing necessary for a child's health, welfare and education must be guaranteed. Are you saying only women should be responsible?
So yeah. Let's put the entire weight of the government on both parties. That's fair. And if you say it's not, I'm thrilled you're saying something that uninformed on a public forum for everyone to see. That would make me happy.
People are responsible for their own mental and physical health, no?
Are you not ultimately responsible for the decision to have a heart bypass surgery
or a brain tumor removed? Testicular cancer?
A zygote is like a tumor, it can be temporary if a woman chooses or permanent.
Are women not equally responsible for their health as a man is?
We are way past the point of breeding for warriors & citizens to defend a tribe.
The planet is seriously challenged by overpopulation and pollution.
put your religious beliefs aside for the sake of the rest of us
and maybe, just maybe some sanity will prevail before the planet dies.
That's not currently the case. However the "entire weight of the government" does come after a father, whether he was willing or no.
You can make the same argument for women. I doubt you will, though.
I'm imagining the female reaction to "if a woman doesn't want children, abstinence is 100% reliable".
Some act like women get pregnant all on their own. The only virgin birth I ever heard of was the Virgin Mary...and I doubt even that
It's bad form to assume what another person thinks
You do a lot of imagining for WOMEN.
He has assumed much about you also. For most of the women here. He ignores me and that's just fine by me. His arrogance is not my cup of tea.
It's ok. We had a pretty decent discussion for a change
It was an immaculate ejaculation, and Joseph didn't feel a thing.
Yes, it is.
However, the fact is that there are people promoting the idea that the human species is on the brink of extinction because women are not having enough babies. While this is not true, what is a fact is that women in industrialized nations who have access to education and birth control are limiting their reproduction to what they can handle emotionally/physically/financially. This is resulting in slowly declining populations in those countries. This has been labeled "Demographic Winter". There are articles and even videos on youtube trying to frighten people into having children so our species does not go extinct. This propaganda has not proven to be successful so now we are back to the forced birth program.
The United States is addressing declining population with opening the borders, but this has many drawbacks. The immigrants have family ties in their birth countries. They send billions of dollars to their families and out of the US economy. Also, the immigrants may choose to retire in their native country because they have the income to live better there than in the US. The US government has tried to make them permanent residents by amnesties and then allowing the new citizens to bring in their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc.
The open borders and expanding green card programs is just a temporary relief to the declining population in the US. Most immigrants are preferring to limit reproduction in order to experience life as something other than an economic slave and breeding stock.
Again, we are now back to the forced birth program.
The financial leaders (predominantly male), who depend on an ever expanding population to supply the necessary consumers, wage slaves and armies, do not care about our lives. Many, if not most, were born as psychopaths. Pretending otherwise is literally killing women and children who are viewed as nothing more than collateral damage when they have the misfortune to live in a country with assets coveted by a leader (elected or not) that has the capacity to bomb the inhabitants into submission.
The forced birth program has to be framed as moral issue because if it was framed as a financial issue most people would object to be treated as breeding stock. I say this because Italy, Russia, and other countries have had programs for over a decade to pay women to have more children and have met will little to no success.
So we are now back to the forced birth program.
What is moral about forced birth? Not a damned thing. So it is framed as women are evil beings who are depraved enough to have sex for other than reproductive reasons. Really? What's next? Salem Witch trials? Devolve or evolve?
I know you can speak for yourself but it just rubs me the wrong way. You have way more tolerance and much broader shoulders than I!
I'm just in a good mood today
We'll see if she proves me wrong.
If a man doesn't want children, abstinence is 100% reliable. Doesn't stop them whatsoever either. But if they truly do not want children, wear a condom. Even if a woman is on birth control (via IUD, pill, or any other medical method), it's never 100% effective. Men can ensure there are no "accidents" if they double up by wearing a condom. Don't you agree, Jack? Shouldn't men be responsible for their own form of birth control to prevent unwanted children?
What's to prove, Jack?
Better yet, vasectomy, which are reversable should he change his mind and decide to become a parent.
Your solution makes perfect sense. Relatively easy to reverse. Makes perfect sense for those men who claim condoms ruin "the experience."
Ah, but can you perform a self-vasectomy with a coat hanger?
There must be some way to have safe sex without getting a knife in my scrotum.
BTW, a vasectomy does not prevent STDs.
Interesting point. The only thing we can do is ask someone with a room temperature IQ to try.
Condoms. Package your meat. It seems simple to me.
Celcius or farenheit?
Ha! There are a couple of people here (who shall go unnamed but we all know who they are ... including those unnamed) for whom farenheit would be generous.
If a woman doesn't want children, abstinence is 100% reliable. It works both ways.
If a woman doesn't want children, she can make her partner wear a condom. It works both ways.
Condoms aren't 100% effective, either. They break now and then.
Women can ensure there are no "accidents" if they require condom use. It works both ways. Somehow I'm not optimistic you're going to agree on that.
Why should they be any more or less responsible than women?
Women get pregnant when they are raped.
About two thousand years ago The Virgin Mary was over powered and raped by The Father.
OMG! Was it rape and incest?
Unfortunately, abortion was not an option.
Jesus Christ!
Who cares for them full time, Jack? FULL TIME. By your considerations, men should take them 50% of the time, make bottles full time two weeks out of each month, wake in the middle of the night full time two weeks out of each month, arrange for daycare full time two weeks out of each month, change diapers full time two weeks out of each month, take them for doctor visits full time two weeks out of each month, etc. And do all that while working full time because no one is giving you financial assistance. No going home after work to relax. It's home to do feeding, changing, caring for all over again. Without benefit of a full night's sleep.
“…men should take them 50% of the time…”
…and that happens only in those rare households with two committed partners understanding the shared responsibilities.
Reality paints a very different picture, where the onus disproportionately falls on the woman…too often blamed, too often maligned, too often left to fend for oneself, and sadly…soon to be left without recourse.
Shameful…all in the name of political expediency.
Did all of that and more minus breastfeeding over 4 years. I worked from home and mom went back work and to university for a 2nd degree. It was exhausting. But hey, I did get to watch every episode of Sesame Street and learn how to count.
My wife (an RN) worked "weekend option" at a local hospital. The hospital provided employees with breast pumps. She would refrigerate her breast milk and bring it home. While she worked, I could warm the milk and use it to bottle feed the baby. So, i was able to "breast feed" by proxy. The baby thrived.
When I posted the rape of The Virgin Mary comment, I expected to be accused of blasphemy.
I guess the fundamental Christians realize their beliefs have no credibility.
The Christian God is a mass murderer and a rapist.
he's okay with incest and pedophilia too...
family values...
If WE require condom use??!? Are you saying men cannot be trusted to use a condom in order to prevent pregnancy? You're making it the responsibility of women again. What about cases of rape? You're embarrassing yourself, Jack.
I guess Trump thought if lusting daughters was okay with Lot, it's okay with him. Although, despite what he says*, I doubt he's ever opened a bible. The only difference between Donnie and Lot is that Lot fucked his daughters. And Donnie hasn't. That we know of. But he's noted publicly of his lust for Invanka.
_________
Video here.
He's not even a good liar.
Perfect adjective. Disgraceful works as well.
It’s true for both men and women.
Here's a male reaction: A woman who abstains can be raped . Even a virgin can be raped.
Holy Ghost?
Holy Shit!
Abortion wasn't an option back then... Jesus Christ!
Then it was so worth it. And I applaud your contribution to raising a happy baby. It's not for the faint-hearted and it's one of the most difficult jobs in the world. Good job!
Her godparents are a gay Jewish couple and go figure she grew up to be an agnostic heterosexual no matter how many times she watched 'But I'm a Cheerleader'. We still get together to watch anything with the great Natasha Lyonne in it.
No, that's not ok. Murdering babies is illegal the last time I checked.
Both parties share equal responsibility in child rearing. So yes, it is fair.
But if she does not want to have and bring up the child she is allowed to abort it. The father has no such choice. Is that fair?
How dare she not acquiesce to being an incubator and future milk machine? In this here land of the free, such uppity women should not be tolerated!
If he was given a choice for abortion only, would that end your objections?
When the father gets pregnant, then he'll have the same choice. So it's fair.
You really seem to be stuck on the whole "it's not fair" thing. And you know what? It's not. But not in the way that you think.
Women are the ones vastly more affected by pregnancy, wanted or unwanted. Women are the ones who gain the weight. Women are the ones whose backs are hurting from the postural changes imposed by pregnancy. Women are the ones whose hips are killing them (my least favorite pregnancy symptom) because their ligaments are stretching in preparation for childbirth. Women are the ones whose hearts and kidneys are working overtime, pumping a blood volume that is about 1.5 times that in their nonpregnant state. Women are the ones who have to buy a new wardrobe (an expense few consider when adding up prenatal expenses). Women are the ones risking gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia. Women are the ones with pregnancy-related anemia. Women are the ones in a hypercoagulable state, meaning they are much more likely to develop a life-threatening blood clot. Women are the ones who can develop placenta previa, necessitating a c-section, or a placental abruption, which can cause them to bleed out into their uteri. Women are the ones whose fertilized eggs might not make it where they're intended to go, resulting in ruptured ectopic pregnancies (my sister-in-law almost died not once but twice from this).
Oh, those privileged women, with their bodily autonomy that men don't have. Oh, wait. Men do have bodily autonomy.
Wanna trade places, and enjoy any or all of the above symptoms and potentially fatal conditions (not an exhaustive list at all, BTW)?
Nope.
Wonderfully put.
Thank you.
I agree, since we have many men trying to make decisions for women regarding the birth of a child they should in their all-knowing world experience giving birth. Since we know that it's impossible for men to become pregnant I will fall back on the late great philosopher, Robin Williams who once gave this sage advice to that group of men.
''If you want to experience childbirth you should shit a 16 lb bowling ball.''
Once they have completed that experience they just might have something to say that makes sense or not.
Wise words!
Ha! They'd run for the hills. Now if we could only make a bowling ball that cried through the night, got colic with regularity, required 15 diaper changes a day, lached onto the dad's nipples for so long that they wept from the pain (which paled in comparison to the pain of realizing they must return to the workplace and receive no government assistance ... the same government that made him shit that bowling ball), and a thousand other things that no one gives a shit about because that bowling ball has already been shat.
I mentioned Demographic Winter. I hadn't seen it in the headlines of the media I usually read, but unsurprisingly, I was not looking in the right places.
Perrie/moderator, I cited the entire opinion piece. If this is not allowed, please let me know/delete the comment. Thanks.
This is a topic that deserves knowledge and logical discussion about the hysteria surrounding women and men in industrialized nations choosing to use birth control, delay and even avoid marriage and reproduction altogether.
People won't have more children until they are guaranteed a livable wage, affordable housing, and a worthy future
But, even then, there are emotional considerations. Some, of us, aren't suited to dealing with children and feel no shame in acknowledging it.
I dearly love my two children, but I am totally content to have stopped with two. They are 15 months apart. I don't know what I would have done had birth control failed, but I did feel safer knowing that abortion was an option if I knew I could not physically/emotionally/financially support another child. I can only imagine my mother's desperation when she attempted to self-abort. I am thankful that that is one traumatic experience that I did not have to live for myself.
I was fortunate enough to be living in a state that allowed me to have a tubal ligation at the age of 23 so I did not have to rely on abstinence to 100% avoid pregnancy.
There are zero reasons to restrict access to permanent sterilization to anyone over the age of 18.
xtian nationalist concerns about the declining birthrate of aryan children is a big part of their movement.
But but but she might change her mind when she gets older. Funny thing, no one ever considers that a woman may change her mind AFTER having children.
Lol. The lies you tell yourself. It's actually the other way around.
Legalized abortion is the best thing going for actual white nationalists. As it was created to do, legalized abortion has meant the country is much "whiter" than it would be otherwise.
That reminds of a great joke: A friend of mine got a vasectomy because he knew he didn't want kids. He was horribly disappointed because when he got home, the kids were still there.
That is a very funny one.
[deleted]
False.
Although for some that will be the case.
For too many those categories are never in their thoughts.
Yeah. A lot of RW talk about women regretting abortions.
Not enough talk about women regretting they didn't have an abortion.
Everything you so called (conservative-christians) espouse is rooted in fear and dread. Why?
Doubtful since most abortions are performed on people of color. Eliminating abortion would just increase the percentage of minorities and the percentage of whites to decline.
For anyone who buys into the Demographic Winter propaganda, the world has already gained over 100,000 people today and climbing.
Even if the numbers were declining, who among us would (if we could) suddenly devote our lives to becoming breeding livestock to save the human species?
World Population Clock: 7.9 Billion People (2022) - Worldometer (worldometers.info)
Stats on births in the US.
Stats on births by income. Note that the lowest incomes have the most children. People who can financially "afford" children are most likely to have the least or none. Forced breeding will not change this. Wealthy people will continue to have access to all birth control methods including abortion.
more children than can be afforded leads to generational poverty
Exactly. This is one of the reasons why the eldest son used to inherit the majority of their parents' estate.
Some of anti-abortion parents will be surprised going to JR High School weddings featuring their children
Exactly. Talk about lives being ruined.
Way back when I was in High School there was a guy in next school who was married, divorced and married again before his Senior year and he did not fail a grade.
This could become common
That didn't happen to my girlfriend. The moment she began to show, the school threw her out (it was the 70's). At least the guy married her, but she lost out on her education.
only 1 of the large varsity cheer leading squad graduated in my high school class...
Erections have consequences.
But erections have nothing do with impeding male conscience.
more info on brain function in the male sexual predator...
The sexual predators in the US are rarely identified and of the few that are identified very, very few are ever prosecuted. If abortion is successfully banned, then women will be forced to be incubators for rapists.
You made my joke flaccid.
And very possibly their own murderers.
May this serve as whatever atonement that I should offer.
She's hysterical.
She is one of my faves. Sometimes I spend hours watching British comedians. Aisling Bea and James Acaster are also lovely.
I seriously doubt that.
True story, there were also girls who were not at school for a while and suddenly had a younger sister
Mt point was that teenage pregnancies rarely result in honor students. There are always exceptions of course.
maybe they had the same dad...
Not if we keep toxic ideologies out of our kids classrooms like red states are starting to do!
You mean like real American history?
Maybe, but real science would be more of a threat to the frame that sex is some sacred experience reserved for breeding purposes to please a supreme being who will reward them with a fetus whether they want it or not.
This is fetus worship. Nothing more.
I see this entire issue revolving around our economic model that requires an ever-expanding population to sustain it. DEMOGRAPHIC WINTER is really a catastophe for the world's economic elite. They won't be able to buy their 800 million dollar toys without a constantly expanding population. We are constantly being manipulated to our own economic, emotional, and physical detriment.
This is so simple like so many things in life. It is all about the money and power.
The men, at the top of the food chain, know how to control people via emotional manipulation.
Examples: When the war profiteers want people to support their killing people, somehow, they have managed to successfully frame it as "saving" them. The millions, of women and children that are killed, maimed, starved, are written off as collateral damage.
When the slaves are not reproducing enough, then the men, at the top of the food chain, frame the issue as evil women murdering babies.
In both examples, emotional zealots (who would put Joan of Arc to shame) do their damnest to silence any logical discussion.
The result is that women and children are nothing more than chattel to be used as necessary to maintain profits and power.
If we really want to address this issue in a meaningful way, then we need to stick to economic facts and take the emotion out of it completely.
Without access to birth control, women would have to forego sex to have any hope of economic independence in life. Without economic independence, women are nothing but slaves. Without bodily autonomy, women are nothing but slaves. Slavery is illegal.
To all the religious bigots...
If abortions are banned, then how long before it is birth control and sex toys?
I wonder if the ban included the yodeling pickle?
Dildos can be obscene.
Butt plugs are often disgusting.
as a butt plug, he's a natural...
What is going to happen when our food supply is negatively impacted by the ongoing droughts that is limiting the water that is necessary to irrigate crops produced in California?
Men, with an eye to the future, know that wars will be fought for control of the world's food and water supply. It has probably already been a major factor in past wars, but the attention was diverted to control of fossil fuels. Fracking will have to cease in areas where fresh water supplies aren't available. Fracking wastes millions of gallons of water that can never be recycled for human use. Fracking should have never been legal .
There has been an international land grab for farmland for decades on the African continent. The war in Libya could be connected to who will control the water that lies under their country. Control of fertile farmland could be a factor in the current war in Ukraine.
We haven't focused on making the world habitable for the people already in existence. Until we can manage that, no one, with even room temperature IQ, should be demanding to bring more "innocent" babies into the environmental mess we have created to date.
The plight of California is the future of the US. Which is why it was insane to even consider routing oil pipelines over our water aquifers.
People only have power in numbers when they are able to overcome their biases and look at issues objectively. We must not allow anyone to narrow our focus to unproductive emotional drivel. If people are actually focused on quality of life, then the discussion should be about how to improve the quality of life for everyone in existence and find common ground as much as possible.
The defeat of the XL pipeline was a small victory, but a victory, nonetheless.
and an article on California water issues.
BURP!
Hopefully, they will taste like chicken.
One of my favorite movies has the dumbass law enforcement eating the evidence.
Secret's in the sauce, or so I'm told.
I like mine with the same sauce that I make for crab cakes or grilled fish. I make an easy remoulade sauce, with mayonnaise, Dijon mustard, some fresh dill, minced cornichons, garlic, capers, lemon juice, and a bit of cayenne.
My son just gave me that movie for Mother's Day.
Great kid! Good job, Veronica!
[✘]
(deleted)
[✘]
WOW!!!
There have been 420 comments posted on this article!
I'm calling a smoke break.
I'll be vaping some delicious Litreacola by Gele
batch LC-20210610.01 Connobinoid Content: 33.3% THC, 0% CBD
vaping the juice has cut my consumption down to $9 per month.
I vape the buds because it's safer and even cheaper.
smelling like weed isn't safe when I'm in texas.
When I vape bud using my Firefly 2+ I never reek.
my vape pen goes thru airport TSA looking like a writing pen in my office/laptop bag.
Cool!
I take mine apart, put the cartridge in my make-up bag and the battery in with my chargers and small electronics.
Edibles go in a bag of assorted candies.
smart, but I don't have a make up bag...
If the rightwing Catholics on the Supreme Court kick back women's right to abortion to the states, then it might be a good time to invest in moving companies as women and their partners move to states that respect their rights to bodily autonomy.
We are seeing how cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy can lead some people in the United States to support bombing the evil Muslims in the Middle East for oppressing women's rights and then support states oppressing women's rights in the United States.
To be consistent, shouldn't we be bombing both or neither?
Or does that mean, that women's rights were never the reason that the US government was overthrowing (or attempting to overthrow) governments in the Middle East?
If not, then why is the US government overthrowing (or attempting to overthrow) governments in other countries? Could it be all about the money and zero to do with women's rights in any country, including our own?
Anyone raising young girls would want to relocate for their safety and well being.
I agree.
It would apply to all children.
History proves that living, in any society controlled by religious zealots, has not been healthy for people of any age.
Some people are actually supporting the return of the type of government that led to the Holy Wars, Spanish Inquisitions, and burning heretics at the stake. Why? It probably has something to do with the type of religious programming they were subjected to in childhood coupled with their ability to use logic instead of emotion to guide their actions.
inability...inability to use logic instead of emotion to guide their actions.
Proofreading needs to become by second best friend.
We should just get bombed the old fashioned way -with whiskey, wine and weed.
For whatever reason, my body chemistry is not compatible with whiskey (or most alcohol) or weed so I don't find either enjoyable. Decades ago, I did enjoy a few rounds with Jose Cuervo, but not the hangovers.
Eight years ago, I gave up smoking cigarettes when the choice became quit or die.
To relax, I listen to music, watch a lot of music videos, play easy computer games or read simple mystery books with a happy ending.
“To relax,…”
With maturity comes self-awareness in knowing what brings one a sense of contentment. Also knowing that that never excludes one from being part of a greater whole.
You seem to have reached that difficult balancing point, friend.
Thanks for being candid in sharing your story…peace to you and to all you hold dear.
I share what I can about how I have lived and what I have learned because it is the only way I have to help the women who have to suffer in silence or are not believed.
Thank you for the kind words.
Peace to you and to all you hold dear, also.
I've never had a happy ending reading a mystery novel.
Wait. I misunderstood. Nevermind then.
You have helped countless women over many years, mo. I mean that with all my heart.
I also find it difficult to have sex while reading.
You do? I do some of my best sex while I'm reading...or is that I do my best reading during sex?
... except for tramp stamps with detailed instructions.
Tramp stamps. So passe. Don't know what it is, but tramp stamps on men are so 'ew' for me. Although I have seen some beautiful ones.
WTF are you reading?
War and Piece?
I hope so. Thank you. I'm doing my best to pass on the help that others have given me.
I seem to remember you and I having an email exchange about how my perspective in life was forever changed by Loretta Kemsley when she challenged my comments on an article about rape victims not being believed. I was arguing from a biased, emotional, Bible Belt perspective. Loretta left my ego in the dirt. in zero seconds flat. Thankfully, I am blessed with a stronger truth seeker trait than the personality trait to protect defective programming.
I don't even remember if that was before or after I gave up religion after 5 decades of being a Christian. I had my worldview worked over in a few short months when I found out what I didn't know. Instead of being devastated, I was overjoyed to be free of trying to reconcile that love = abuse + control. I had Stockholm Syndrome. And even knowing that, I was still not as free as I thought I was.
I do not have the ability to spend much time with anyone who is self-centered, immature, selfish and has few, if any, redeeming character traits. Saying all that, I actually feel ashamed that I have spent the last 25 years of my life with such an individual. Of course, he was never Mr. Wonderful, but my default position is not expecting there is such a thing. What I did not realize is that being orphaned, adopted outside of the family and being raised by a man, who was sadistic, and a woman, who had been married to my father's brother, had shaped my personality to accept and endure abuse on a level that would break most people. Instead of retaliating or getting even, my fucking personality flaw is I want to help/to fix the abusers who have been savvy enough to convince me that they were the victims.
I have Dean Moriarty to thank for telling me that I was probably married to a narcissist. I have spent the last 3 years researching narcissism. I had to learn why my emphatic and sympathetic characteristics are attractive to a narcissist. It was my conditioning to accept and endure abuse that made me stay in those dysfunctional relationships. Of course, it also depended on how skilled the narcissist was in saying and doing the "right" things to convince me that I was his "savior". I don't know that I ever had the ego to believe that I was anyone's "savior", but because of the death of my mother, I now know, I have abandonment issues. It is my flaws I am responsible for working on so I can actually quit wasting my life trying to help the abusers and focus on helping their victims.
There are many things I haven't shared. If I am ever in a situation where I think it might be helpful, I might. Some of it is actually humorous to the people who have been there and done that, but there are some discussions that are best to be conducted among friends instead of open forums.
Depends on which is better at the time, the book or the sex.
I enjoy a good book, butt, I prefer happy endings.
Me, too.
That is why sometimes it is preferable to focus on the book.
Beautiful mocowgirl - thanks for removing some of the layers - you're lookin'/doin' great - keep it up.
“I also find it difficult to have sex while reading.”
One word…Braille.
what letter is two bumps, side by side? nevermind, I looked it up...
Those are breasts, dev.
sheesh, it took 4 days for somebody to get that joke. I'm glad it was you.
I just received an interesting email from Forbes today about how companies are implementing changes to their health insurance to retain women employees.
If the states enact laws against companies providing abortion coverage via their health insurance, then headquarters will have to be moved at the very least if the company wants to recruit and retain women employees, but also to recruit and retain men employees who won't tolerate government control of the consensual sex lives of adults.
We may actually be on the brink of allowing religious zealots to split this country. Of course, if there is not the will to defeat them, I guess it is preferable to allowing them complete control of the people, our assets and our military. We damned sure don't need to be putting control of our nuclear arsenal in the hands of religious zealots and their masters.
Hopefully, the link will be valid to people without a subscription.
Here's another link to basically the same info.
It would be interesting to see citizen "bounty hunters" try to sue Amazon or Yelp.
This could turn out to be a war between men, who all want to increase population for business reasons, but are not on the same side on how to get there.
They have different business models.
The companies, that require educated adults to conduct day to day business, don't want to piss off their target employee base.
The companies, like the Catholic Church, require an endless supply of children to program so they can remain the largest and wealthiest denomination of the Christian religion.
The Roman Catholic Church has been flooding the US with their adherents from south of our border for decades instead of working to improve the lives of their adherents in their native country. Decades ago, we had laws to balance immigration to keep this from happening.
I will note that even the Catholic adherents who have immigrated to the US are using birth control effectively in defiance of their Pope's demand to not use birth control. The result of that defiance from the bottom is trying to use the US government to enforce the doctrine of the head of the Roman Catholic Church. The Popes, of the RCC, ruled the rulers of Europe for over a thousand years. The Vatican even had their own army at one time, but found it cheaper to control the rulers and make them pay to wage war to gain more wealth for the Vatican. When Elizabeth I became queen of England, the Pope tried to have her assassinated for decades.
Hopefully, the US will continue to the land of the free instead of the land that is controlled by the Pope and his ilk.
See SP's article mentioned at his comment 7.2.89. Another opportunity to use the adjectives 'disgraceful' and 'shameful.'
Yep, and since it was a Catholick hospital; it was also hypocritical.
Cat licks are hippo critters!
(This became quite the rant. These are current political views - set in concrete until someone comes along with an argument that appeals to my logical thinking instead of trying to beat me up with their emotional thinking.)
Why aren't our political leaders stressing the need to conserve our natural resources instead of selling them to the highest bidder?
Could it be that their only concern is living at the top of the food chain in their lifetime with zero concern about what happens to anyone else in the present and future?
The politicians try to avoid campaigning on economic issues because they are not divided when it comes to who to tax and who to spend money on. This is why politicians have to campaign on the emotional issues and pretend they are concerned about the well-being of anyone besides themselves. People think they are making a difference by voting, but it is not the right to vote that is under duress. It is the right to free speech that is being threatened as more people reject the mantra that they have to make an allegiance to one of the two approved political parties and defend it all costs. The independents are attacking both of the approved political parties. That is why the political establishment was horrified that there wasn't the expected Clinton/Bush matchup in 2016. The diehard political asskissers are still pissed and probably always will be. For them, politics is a team sport, and every election is a Super Bowl moment in their lives.
I realize that addressing how to best ensure the survival of our species is not a popular topic of conversation for most people, but I do believe that it should be the major topic of our politicians' speeches, legislation and platform. We need leaders who don't make money by bombing civilizations back to the Stone Age and then tokenly rebuilding them with shoddy contractors and even shoddier material. And then expecting the citizenry of those countries to thank us for saving them.
I am looking for leaders who are boring people to death with how to feed and water women and children instead of constantly fearmongering about why we must spend a trillion+ dollars a year to bomb women and children to death. That is, when they can take time off from campaigning about the evil women for killing babies.
People are up in arms about their fellow citizens' lies and conspiracy theories. When will they ever be just as concerned with their politicians' lies and conspiracy theories? Probably never if the politicians can suppress free speech enough to keep their lies from being exposed. The old guard is having a difficult time dealing with the power that internet access has given to the people who read the world news today more than the US government sanctioned news. Also, people have made friends with people around the world via chat rooms, forums, etc. Those people are no longer the "other" to be feared because we are told to fear them.
Meantime, in the real world, people are experiencing loss of habitat that is crucial to their survival. In the coming decades, it will be global - brought to us by our dedication to electing corrupt and/or inept leaders.
Bump
I felt that bump in the night.
Was it night?
or AM in the morning?
Incorrigible! You must know that's one of my pet peeves!
Like
"a baby doe"?
or was it a "baby fawn"?
(485)
oops. ha ha ha...
If men are so opposed to abortion; then' they should never particapate in things that might cause one
Is there a significant gender disparity among those opposed to abortion?
“Is there a significant gender disparity among those opposed to abortion?“
There certainly is on this site, the halls of Congress, the Supreme Court, and dare say the court of public opinion.
meh, as an old white guy, I'm looking forward to the future possibility of legally making some health choices for a few selected trumpsters.
Men and women have similar views on abortion
The gender gap on economics and national security is much larger.
Women are more likely than men to have thought ‘a lot’ about abortion, but there are only modest gender differences in views of legality
but it is not an issue about which women have substantially different attitudes than men. A Gallup analysis shows that differences in views on the legality of abortion between men and women have been relatively narrow for decades, going back to the 1970s. Additionally, there are only slight differences in men's and women's descriptions of themselves as pro-choice or pro-life.
What office are you going to run for?
[deleted]
If women don't want to have babies they should never participate in things that might cause one.
be sure and tell your savior's dad that when you have the opportunity.
nah, they just need to stop fucking any republicans...
That's deplorable.
Then who are they going to do it with? [Deleted]
yeah, that didn't sound right so I fixed it. when you lock this article I'll take out the trash.
That has got to be one of the dumbest things ever posted on this site.
I don't lock my articles.
consider the source...
I can adapt.
[Deleted]
Or they can abort it. Either way, problem solved.
Damn, this is going to get complicated if we have to fill out questionnaires before having sex.
So, arkpdx, as a "right to lifer", have you adopted lots of children?
I haven't adopted any. There are however many people that would love to adopt a baby but are unable to because too many women would rather kill their babies instead of letting them be adopted.
Aside from the killing their babies nonsense...
There are always in excess of 400,000 children in the foster care system.
On average only 130,000 of these children will be adopted any given year.
20% will remain in foster care until they are 18, die mysteriously or disappear.
Totally outlawing abortion could very well overwhelm an inefficient foster
system which reminds me of East Berlin orphanages, not in a good way.
Like immigration, abortions won't go away because of laws or religious beliefs.
You are fighting human nature itself. Self preservation.
but there is still a surplus of babies and children wanting these people that we hear wanting to adopt them. Same as there are more dogs at the animal shelter than people to take them.
Overpopulation is what will be the downfall of the human race
Where is that surplus?
Most in foster c are entered as an older child, not an infant. About 4 million babies are born in the US annually with about 18,000 or less than 0.5% put up for adoption. There are waiting lists for couples to adopt a baby.
In the 60's and earlier, there were large numbers of unmarried woman placing their infants up for adoption. Today it is less than 1%.
Only if you define "older" as "not a newborn".
Couples who will not wait for an infant may have to settle for toddlers and preschoolers.
Instead of complaining about the shortage of newborn infants on the market maybe you should concern yourself with unwanted pregnancies which drive the demand for abortions. Making abortions illegal does not stop abortions or reduce demand for termination services. And, we know only early comprehensive sex education plus easy access to birth control accomplished that...
he meant white babies.
I didn't complain, I provided a fact.
Don't go putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned race at all. You did. But you will try to incorrectly call me a racist
25% of US adoptions are of Black children , the US Black population is 13%
Can those waiting lists absorb another 900,000 babies a year?
(900,000 a year that we know of)
It only stands to reason as the black male is disproportionately represented
in both the 18,000 births and the foster care population.
407,000 is 0.5% of the US population under 18 years of age. Of the 407,000, 114,556 cannot be returned to their families and are waiting to be adopted. 114,566 represents 0.15% of our population under 18 years of age.
I don't know, where does the number 900,000 come from?
Why was that? What has changed since the 1960s?
Isn't that the best possible outcome that children are remaining with their birth mother where they belong?
Less stigma and greater economic resources.
Yes.
The number of annual abortions reported by the Guttmacher Institute.
Thanks. Of course the actual numbers of increased, unwanted births will remain much less. Many states will still allow abortions and many woman in states that don't will still obtain them.
Which underscores the reason why most people want infants
not tainted by drugs, crimes, the personalities of the birth families or extended families.
Exactly.
You know what is fixing to grow dramatically? The number of young women found dead in pools of blood from self induced abortions!
How many is acceptable? One million? Two?
That's bullshit.
Killing babies is murder.
Abortion is not murder.
That's what I thought. You haven't adopted any children.
Yet you want other women to be forced to have babies because there are "many people that would love to adopt a baby".
QAnon eats babies.
It's rather strange how so many do not seem able to grasp those simple concepts.
any state banning abortions is as unacceptable as letting that state ban dancing, guns, cars or bacon
Banning weed certainly stopped that shit /s!
Prohibition of alcohol did not work and most broke the national 55 mph speed limit, prohibiting abortion just will not work
I am assuming that under the Constitution we are all treated equally in every
state regardless of race, gender, age or religious beliefs.
Women should not be denied healthcare due to their zip code
Yes it most definitely is
It's great that weed is legal in many places now.
Abortion is not murder just because you think it is.
Abortion just because being pregnant is inconvenient is not a medical or healthcare issue.
No, it is most definitely not! The law does not equate or define abortion as murder.
What difference does it make?
Since you are so opposed to abortion, you probably shouldn't get one.
why not? Pregnancy requires Doctor visits, prescriptions, medical leave from work or school, could lead to complications and a change from a person's routine. And if forced into continuing an unwanted or inconvenient medicial condition it could require counseling and cause mental health issues.
Parental rejection will cause problems for inconvenient children.
why make more problems than people already have?
That is not the law, not common law, nor in the Bible or the Koran.
I believe the Abrahamics are all in the first breath to last breath club
and no zygote/fetus can join that club before week 28 without extraordinary
medical intervention and expense.
God forbid a horse should go lame, he'll be shot dead in 5 minutes.
We men try to manage every living and unliving thing on this planet,
our women should not be included in that management.
Sharia law is wrong, regardless of the name of the religion imposing it.
That was you wasn't it? 35.2.35?
Didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.
Where do your numbers come from?
Nailed to the wall of a Cider House...
It does if you are intuitive.
I don't believe anyone has ever accused you of being intuitive.
Then you must be a leftist because you excel at it.
You jumped into a conversation I was having with Drinker.
Didn't see an 'explanation' or a need for one.
Actually you would be wrong "tens and tens of times"/s
A thought provoking novel and movie, but I don't remember the numbers you cited.
The ayatollahs, on the US Supreme Court, proved they did not care for the live of women in the United States, when they ruled to allow the men in the Taliban states to have absolute control of women.
The conservate rallying cry to defend the Iraq invasion was "We gotta fight them over there or we'll be fighting them over here".
Remember, the US government wages war because we have to fight against oppression and mistreatment of women in other countries, but not in the United States.
What is the relationship between the proceeding paragraphs and this statement?
it's a new thread. how many months did you say you had left?
I don't understand your question.
That explains Moscow Mitch and Rand Paul.
No, butt they were elected by the most inbred voters in the country.
The stupid inbred shits in Kentucky even voted for Trump.
Kentucky's abbreviation is KY (sex lube).
Butt, the name of this group is "SiNNERS and ButtHeads".
It's a tribute to ButtHeads Nation and SiN Nation on Newsvine.
I've used "butt" since 2013 when Cobalt and I founded ButtHeads Nation on NV.
And since "butt" seems to irritate you; I love my "butts".
This group is called "SiNNERS and ButtHeads".
This tread is currently running in the aforementioned group.
I don't own a DeLoren so I can't go back to the future.
You asked:
What's with the BUTT?
Have you already forgotten?
Democrat Andrew Beshear won the race for Governor. He was born in Louisville. It's amazing that a Democrat won in Kentucky.
My comments about Moscow Mitch and Rand Paul were jokes butt, of course, people who are intellectually challenged did not get it.
ugh. there sure are a lot of fish in this barrel...
It seems he did. Yikes.
There is another overlooked benefit that is a byproduct of abortion.
Fetal stem cells can benefit living humans.
And, of course, fetal stem cells are delicious!
Yes, but who cares about living humans? To some, only the fetus matters and to hell with the fetal gestator or others who might benefit.
592
al breaks everything on the internet. dammit.
I didn't do it.
595?
596?
To those who refer to the bible when it comes to abortion, look what it says about non-virgin brides. I'm sure if the 'non-virgin' bride was pregnant at the time it was discovered she wasn't a virgin at the time of marriage, they'd still put her to death.
Deuteronomy 22
Please don't tell the Rethuglicans.
They will want to reinstate this practice.
Many good points in favor of abortion rights have been posted here. (comment 599)
At least you can recognize good points from one side, that’s better than not able to recognize any but not as wise as being able to recognize them from either side.
You might have noticed on abortion rights I am on the other side of where I am on many other issues. If there is a good reason against abortion, I haven't seen it. I can see the other side on many things, but not here.
The best point that I believe for Pro Choice is that regardless of what the law says, women will continue to get abortions.
The best Pro Life point is that the fetus is the most vulnerable of human beings among us, and requires legal protection.
My own personal view is in between these two extremes. I would allow first trimester abortions with few restrictions and have increasing restrictions there after.
They are much more vulnerable and need more after birth and that is where the pro life side seems to lose interest.
The other thing is that Overpopulation will force the issue before too much longer
You’re right, you can’t see the other side.
So far, the ex-prez has cited health concerns might not allow him to run in 2024 and now there are concerns that his appointment of three conservative justices to overturn Roe is coming back to bite him. I'm of the belief that he doesn't want to run but wants to continue to grift his base.
I think that is likely true. His Save America political fund, which he started after losing in 2020 continues to grow with over $110M on hand.
I do believe this is the 600th comment on this article.
al broke the internet.
No worries!
Kyle can fix it.
Where's Kenny?
It's too bad Kenny only had nine lives.
9? didn't he get killed in almost every episode?
I believe he did get killed in just about every episode though I stopped watching years and years and years ago - I think the show is now in it's 25th season.
They killed Kenny
You bastards
I believe he did get killed in just about every episode though I stopped watching years and years and years ago - I think the show is now in it's 25th season.
They killed Kenny
You bastards