Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-14-2019, 11:52 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Exactly, why is it so hard for people to see that this is really a matter of women revealing the standards they're setting?
Because most people are already sorting themselves into pro choice and pro life camps for marriage and dating, at least. And probably even for hooking up, since people tend to self-segregate in a lot of the social setting where you might meet someone.

I mean, I already had a "if my autonomy doesn't matter to you more than the life of a 2 month fetus, you aren't my type" rule before this came up. And even if abortion is legal, it would be pretty awkward to abort the fetus of some guy who was horrified that you were murdering his baby.

Honestly, my daughter-in-law had a medically necessary abortion recently. (It was ectopic, and if she hadn't killed it first, it would have killed her well before it was viable. Abortion was the only moral or reasonable option.) Even though I am pro-choice, and even though she really didn't have a choice in this situation, I was sad that she was killing my grandchild. I can't imagine how horrible it would be if I'd been the father, and prolife, and the pregnancy had been viable.

So I don't see this as revealing a lot, or as having much impact. (except to reduce PiV sex for women who aren't in a position to have a baby, as I mentioned above.)

It might be good political theater, though. I'm not good at judging that sort of thing.
  #102  
Old 05-14-2019, 12:04 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 539
nm
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 05-14-2019 at 12:05 PM. Reason: double posted
  #103  
Old 05-14-2019, 02:08 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I understand that. Itís just that all law restricts someoneís ability to do something and thatís a loss of autonomy. These forms of control or restrictions are not all motivated by hate. Even concerning abortion a lot of the feelings about the subject donít originate from hate. They originate because of a value system either imposed by religious belief or as a logical conclusion from a set of moral axioms that fetal life has intrinsic value. I think that different opinions can be had that are absent of hatred as an origin.
There was a time when I could have believed that the above underlined was the prime motivation for the vast majority of the pro-life movement. Unfortunately, given that the pro-life movement in the last forty years has failed to even attempt to reform the foster-childcare system or to ensure safe, affordable birth control, I'm left with the obvious conclusion that this is, or has become, the minority mind-set. The feelings of the vast majority of the pro-lifers demonstrably originate from the notion that women should not be allowed bodily autonomy
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #104  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:21 AM
sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I find it disturbing that she apparently assumed they'd all be willing to have sex with her...
Jeana Tomasino Keough, before she was a OG Real Housewife, was the Playboy Playmate of the Month for the November 1980 issue, appeared in a few movies, and was featured in a few ZZ Top videos. I'm sure the team members and Mr. Met were credible potential MAD threats.

Last edited by sps49sd; 05-15-2019 at 12:22 AM.
  #105  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:16 AM
clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I'm not sure why conservatives would be bothered by this anyway. After all, whenever women raise the topics of contraception and abortion as key elements in women's health and family planning, the conservative response has tended to be "WHY DON'T YOU JUST KEEP YOUR LEGS TOGETHER, YOU DISGUSTING SLUTS! MAYBE IF YOU WEREN'T SUCH WANTON HARLOTS THIS WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE!".
Except that they don't say that.


This board is really hot on demonizing the opposition by making them look like cartoon villain. Maybe the choir you're preaching to enjoy these ludicrous caricatures, but if you intend to convince anybody of anything, or even simply to understand the nature of the issues, such statements are stupid, counter-productive, and make you look like a brainwashed idiot.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #106  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:46 AM
clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post


Perceiving it, as so many seem to, as 'they're trying to make us do something' is to again fall into the trap that women somehow owe men sex and are therefore denying men something they should have.


Seriously, are we really having this discussion? Would it be a surprise if some women didn't want to fuck a neo-nazi? Or an avowed racist? No, that would absolutely be their perogative, wouldn't it?
.
It's not about women deciding who they want to fuck and who they don't want to fuck. It's about telling women to stop having sex with people they normally want to fuck as a protest for something they can do nothing about, and most probably are equally unhappy about (since a woman feeling strongly about abortion rights is unlikely to have a pro-life partner).

Replace sex with anything else : pick up after yourself strike, sharing activities strike, going out together strike, talking with you strike, listening to your stupid workplace issues strike, showing affection strike, etc... Would you still feel the same? Why would you feel differently about a "sex strike"?

My partner thinking that sabotaging our relationship is a good way to protest against an outside event would be either monumentally stupid or showing that she doesn't give a shit about me and our relationship. And that apparently she thinks that sex is a tool and a commodity.

Thinking that this makes any sense rely at the very least on the idea that only men enjoy having sex with their partners, since if you assume otherwise, she's punishing herself for what other citizens have done. Would it occur to you, say, destroy your own property in protest against some law or another? To stop eating your prefered dish in protest? If not why on earth would denying yourself and your partner sex make any sense? This idea rely on antediluvian assumptions about men, women and sex.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-15-2019 at 04:49 AM.
  #107  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:49 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Except that they don't say that.

This board is really hot on demonizing the opposition by making them look like cartoon villain. Maybe the choir you're preaching to enjoy these ludicrous caricatures, but if you intend to convince anybody of anything, or even simply to understand the nature of the issues, such statements are stupid, counter-productive, and make you look like a brainwashed idiot.
Except that they really, really do say that. I didn't just make up those phrases out of thin air. They're a more concise version of things that have been said, but not, by and large, a hyperbolic one.

Consider the prime example of this: Rush Limbaugh on Sandra Fluke. Fluke was a 30-year-old Georgetown law student who spoke before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee regarding new rules that would allow companies to exclude birth control pills from their company-provided health insurance. Fluke put forward the case that Georgetown (in her case) should not be allowed to exclude BCPs for religious reasons as 1) BCPs also served to treat a variety of diseases, and 2) the exclusion would prove a significant financial hardship to poorer students. She gave an example of a friend who did not require the pills for birth control but did require them to treat her polycystic ovary syndrome. Because the insurance company denied the claims, the friend was unable to afford the medicine she needed and eventually lost an ovary.

In response, Limbaugh spent three days calling Fluke a "slut", a "whore" and worse on his syndicated radio show. THREE DAYS. Here are some excerpts:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limbaugh
What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled". I take it back.
Quote:
Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.
Quote:
So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.
Here's some more gems from the Wikipedia article:
Quote:
During the same show, Limbaugh remarked that Fluke is "having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk", and continued on to suggest that Georgetown should establish a "Wilt Chamberlain scholarship ... exclusively for women". He also asked, "Who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade? Or your contraception. Who bought your contraceptive pills in high school?" He described Fluke as "a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman. She wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences. No responsibility for her behavior."

On March 2, 2012, Limbaugh defended his previous comments about Fluke, saying, "not one person says that, 'Well, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?'" Limbaugh said that requiring insurance companies to cover contraception is "no different than if somebody knocked on my door that I don't know and said, 'You know what? I'm out of money. I can't afford birth-control pills, and I'm supposed to have sex with three guys tonight.'" Limbaugh commented on Fluke receiving a call from President Obama, who stated that her parents should be proud of her, saying, "I'm gonna button my lip on that one." He went on to say that if his daughter had testified that "she's having so much sex she can't pay for it and wants a new welfare program to pay for it," he would be "embarrassed" and "disconnect the phone", "go into hiding", and "hope the media didn't find me". He continued later, "Oh! Does she have more boyfriends? They're lined up around the block. They would have been in my day." He continued that Fluke testified that her "sex life is active. She's having sex so frequently that she can't afford all the birth-control pills that she needs. That's what she's saying."
At the same time Bill O'Reilly was on television making the pithy claim that (I'm paraphrasing from memory here) "the only pills she needs is an aspirin...held between her knees". And they weren't the only ones making such comments by far.

Remember: all that Fluke did was discuss in front of Congress why birth control pills should be included in health insurance coverage like other commonly-prescribed medications. And this is how several prominent right-wingers reacted.

So when I made the statement I did above, it wasn't because I was "demonizing the opposition by making them look like cartoon villain[s]"; it was because I was remember things they actually said. I'm sorry if you feel the truth makes me look like a "brainless idiot".
  #108  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:12 AM
clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Except that they really, really do say that. I didn't just make up those phrases out of thin air. They're a more concise version of things that have been said, but not, by and large, a hyperbolic one.
I do not doubt that some would say exactly that, and some would think it secretely. But you didn't write : "Rush Limbaugh response was this once". You wrote the following :

After all, whenever women raise the topics of contraception and abortion as key elements in women's health and family planning, the conservative response has tended to be


Which means that every time women discuss contraception or abortion, the majority of conservatives call them sluts. Is it what conservative papers print? What you conservative neighbor says? I see the same idea expressed here : conservatives don't actually give a shit about unborn babies, that's just a pretext to put women down while, presumably, they laugh maniacally, for instance. People only voted for Trump because they hate women and black people, not because, say, he promised them jobs and to "make America great again". And so on...
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #109  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:34 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,111
My guess is there was significant overlap between the "abortion is bad" and "abstinence is good" camps even before this. Outside of marriage anyway. Married couples tend to match politically on major issues, so I'd imagine the only men being "punished" by this are not conservatives. Not sure what she's trying to accomplish here.
  #110  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:10 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
I... Would it occur to you, say, destroy your own property in protest against some law or another? To stop eating your prefered dish in protest? If not why on earth would denying yourself and your partner sex make any sense? This idea rely on antediluvian assumptions about men, women and sex.
Just a nit pick: It's not uncommon for people to stop eating a food they like in protest of a policy they dislike. I stopped eating veal and cut back on pork because I don't like the way those meat animals are raised, for instance. And I'm considering dropping Nutella from the shopping list due to how the workers who pick hazelnuts are treated. (I love Nutella) If there's enough political momentum to boycott Nutella that the company might notice, I expect I will join the boycott.

I agree that it makes no sense to cut off the partner who agrees with you. (And I'm happy to eat pork raised on pasture.) So this particular boycott seems badly aimed, for a number of reasons. But in general, there's nothing crazy about denying yourself something you like for political reasons.

Boycotts have worked in several cases, by the way. Despite the generally favorable press Chick-fil-A got when it was boycotted, the company has mostly moved it's charity to less political causes. Similarly, Barilla pasta apologized for their statements that were deemed anti-gay. And the US veal market has moved from individually caging the animals to letting them mingle in small pens. I am happy to buy from both Chick-fil-a and Barilla. Both remain conservative companies, but neither crosses the threshold (for me) into "doing stuff that actively troubles me." I'm reconsidering veal, too.
  #111  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:43 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,291
The real frustrating part of the abortion debate is it doesnt allow much for middle ground. I consider myself pro choice but I also feel their should be regulations on abortion clinics (ex. training, sanitation, safety) and I dont think girls under age 18 should be able to get one without parents being informed. I also want there to be more emphasis on preventing unplanned pregnancies such as better birth control free to those who want it.
  #112  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:15 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,088
"No abortions ever, doctor to be charged with a felony" is hardly a "middle ground" position, for sure.

I've polled various groups of people, and most actual people are somewhere in the middle. They favor abortion rights early in pregnancy, and fetal protection as the fetus nears term, for instance.

I think all people of good faith favor more emphasis on preventing unplanned pregnancy and easy access to birth control.
  #113  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:56 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
I do not doubt that some would say exactly that, and some would think it secretely. But you didn't write : "Rush Limbaugh response was this once". You wrote the following :

After all, whenever women raise the topics of contraception and abortion as key elements in women's health and family planning, the conservative response has tended to be

Which means that every time women discuss contraception or abortion, the majority of conservatives call them sluts. Is it what conservative papers print? What you conservative neighbor says?
How many examples would you like? Is your argument "As long as I can find one example of a conservative who didn't demean women in the contexts of abortion or contraception, the whole characterization must be wrong?" I mean, I could bring up the Kavanaugh hearing and the relentless abuse and slut-shaming of Dr. Ford. I could mention the long, long list of horrible things Republican state legislatures have forced women to do, and not only those seeking abortion or contraception - for example, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and a host of other Republican lawmakers who passed a law forcing single mothers putting up their children for adoption to literally publish their entire sexual history in the newspaper, even in the case of rape and incest.

So how many horror stories would you like me to list? Or will you just handwave them away again?

Quote:
I see the same idea expressed here : conservatives don't actually give a shit about unborn babies, that's just a pretext to put women down while, presumably, they laugh maniacally, for instance.
Pretty close, actually, although "pro-life" and "conservative" don't map to each other exactly and "laughing maniacally" is optional. However, if you look at what many pro-life voters actually do versus what they say, there is a dramatic disconnect:

- If they actually cared about reducing abortion, they would get down on their knees and thank the God they pay lip-service to for Planned Parenthood, an organization that prevents vastly more unwanted pregnancies than it terminates and also provides health services to women - including pregnant women - to help them have healthy pregnancies and babies. But they don't.

- If they cared about women and children they wouldn't support "pregnancy crisis centers", a booming industry devoted to tricking pregnant women considering abortion into thinking they're receiving objective advice and then lying to them and emotionally bullying them until they hit the six month mark, and then abandoning them (a strategy they openly admit to in their industry meetings). But they do.

- If they cared about women and children, they wouldn't repeatedly vote for politicians devoted to cutting not just benefits for poorer women and children but also funding for schooling and affordable healthcare, acts which result in active suffering, lifelong poverty and death. But they do.

In fact, if you look at everything they do and what they ask their chosen politicians to do, suggesting that their main priority is to make people they don't agree with suffer while they get to feel smug and self-righteous is not an unreasonable interpretation at all.

Of course there's no absolute uniformity of views amongst any group. There are plenty of pro-life people who are kind and reasonable and understand that the draconian approach is cruel and unproductive. But I am not nutpicking here; there is more than enough evidence to support my assertions. If you don't like the conclusions, don't blame me for pointing out what people are actually doing.
  #114  
Old 05-15-2019, 09:36 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
The real frustrating part of the abortion debate is it doesnt allow much for middle ground. I consider myself pro choice but I also feel their should be regulations on abortion clinics (ex. training, sanitation, safety) and I dont think girls under age 18 should be able to get one without parents being informed. I also want there to be more emphasis on preventing unplanned pregnancies such as better birth control free to those who want it.
You get to go to third base.

Regards,
Shodan
  #115  
Old 05-15-2019, 09:55 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
I think all people of good faith favor more emphasis on preventing unplanned pregnancy and easy access to birth control.
Except, of course, the people that want to restrict abortion any way that they can.

But I guess those people aren't of good faith.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #116  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:24 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,088
Well, there is an important difference between "restricting" abortion and "reducing" abortion. I think that people of good faith generally recognize that the latter is the more important goal.
  #117  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:26 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Which means that every time women discuss contraception or abortion, the majority of conservatives call them sluts.
They call them sluts, or offer no objection to the ones calling them sluts and vote the people who support the ones calling them sluts into office. It's not a 'caricature' to accurately point out what conservatism stands for today by referencing laws passed and statements made and cheered on by conservatives.

Quote:
Is it what conservative papers print? What you conservative neighbor says? I see the same idea expressed here : conservatives don't actually give a shit about unborn babies, that's just a pretext to put women down while, presumably, they laugh maniacally, for instance.
Conservatives clearly don't actually give a shit about these babies, as demonstrated by their policies. Conservatives actively oppose education, healthcare, food, and all other assistance for such babies once they're out of the womb. They also clearly don't even want to reduce the number of abortions, as they actively oppose policies that demonstratably reduce the incidence of abortion like sex education and readily available birth control. They're more likely to shout 'whore' at a scared 15-year old rape victim than to laugh maniacally, but both are pretty gross.

Quote:
People only voted for Trump because they hate women and black people, not because, say, he promised them jobs and to "make America great again". And so on...
What exactly does 'Make America great Again' mean? It seems to look to, say, the 1950s as a golden era we should aspire to. But it actively opposes the tax policy of the 1950s (high taxes on the ultra-wealthy), the infrastructure spending of the 1950s, the education spending of the 1950s, and overall just about all of what one could call positive things from the 1950s. But it does actively work for discrimination against minorities (note the bills explicitly allowing healthcare providers to deny service to people they don't like), disenfranchisement of minorities, denying women autonomy, and the like. Conservatives like to whine about being 'caricatured', but I haven't heard a good explanation of what 'make america great' again is that isn't either explicitly contradicted by major policy decisions or just boils down to 'I want to go back to when the colored, queers, and women knew their place'.

Last edited by Pantastic; 05-15-2019 at 10:27 AM.
  #118  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:40 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post



- If they actually cared about reducing abortion, they would get down on their knees and thank the God they pay lip-service to for Planned Parenthood, an organization that prevents vastly more unwanted pregnancies than it terminates and also provides health services to women - including pregnant women - to help them have healthy pregnancies and babies. But they don't.
This makes as much since as if people really cared about gun control they would support the NRA, or if vegans really cared about chickens they would support KFC.
Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the country. It is no mystery why people who are anti-abortion don't like the largest abortion provider in the country.
Quote:
- If they cared about women and children they wouldn't support "pregnancy crisis centers", a booming industry devoted to tricking pregnant women considering abortion into thinking they're receiving objective advice and then lying to them and emotionally bullying them until they hit the six month mark, and then abandoning them (a strategy they openly admit to in their industry meetings). But they do.
It is also not surprising that people who are anti-abortion support organizations that try to convince pregnant women not to abort their babies.
Quote:
- If they cared about women and children, they wouldn't repeatedly vote for politicians devoted to cutting not just benefits for poorer women and children but also funding for schooling and affordable healthcare, acts which result in active suffering, lifelong poverty and death. But they do.
This is question begging. It is not obvious that cutting benefits for poor women results in active suffering, lifelong poverty, and death. After welfare reform in the 90s more women got jobs and less women were in poverty than before. Funding for schooling has gone up nearly constantly and it is not the case that schools are doing better with more money.
Quote:
In fact, if you look at everything they do and what they ask their chosen politicians to do, suggesting that their main priority is to make people they don't agree with suffer while they get to feel smug and self-righteous is not an unreasonable interpretation at all.
A more reasonable position is that anti-abortion people dislike abortion providers and support alternatives to abortion. If it makes you feel better to characterize people who feel differently than you as cartoon villains instead of people with a sincere belief in the value of a pre born babies life, maybe your arguments need to be stronger to deal with the actual beliefs and not the cartoon strawman.
  #119  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:46 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
There was a time when I could have believed that the above underlined was the prime motivation for the vast majority of the pro-life movement. Unfortunately, given that the pro-life movement in the last forty years has failed to even attempt to reform the foster-childcare system or to ensure safe, affordable birth control, I'm left with the obvious conclusion that this is, or has become, the minority mind-set. The feelings of the vast majority of the pro-lifers demonstrably originate from the notion that women should not be allowed bodily autonomy
Apparently unbeknownst to you, safe affordable birth control is now available at every drug store, Walmart, Target, and convenience store in the country.

Just last year the Republicans in congress passed a law reforming the nation's foster care system.
  #120  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:59 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Apparently unbeknownst to you, safe affordable birth control is now available at every drug store, Walmart, Target, and convenience store in the country.

Just last year the Republicans in congress passed a law reforming the nation's foster care system.
The good stuff (IUDs) requires a medical practitioner. You can't get it at retail shops.
  #121  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:01 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 539
nm
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 05-15-2019 at 11:02 AM.
  #122  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:29 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
The good stuff (IUDs) requires a medical practitioner. You can't get it at retail shops.
Are you saying that condoms aren't safe, or that they aren't affordable? If that's the case, why does Planned Parenthood give away so many of them?

Regards,
Shodan
  #123  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:33 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
You get to go to third base.

Regards,
Shodan
Is that your suggested method of birth control?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #124  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:37 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Is that your suggested method of birth control?
Only in Nebraska.

Regards,
Shodan
  #125  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:54 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Are you saying that condoms aren't safe, or that they aren't affordable? If that's the case, why does Planned Parenthood give away so many of them?

Regards,
Shodan
I'm saying that an IUD is much more affordable for people who are moderately sexually active, and also much more reliable than "always use condoms" for many people.

Condoms are great, especially if you also need protection from STIs, but IUDs are better birth control for most people in stable relationships.
  #126  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:02 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Apparently unbeknownst to you, safe affordable birth control is now available at every drug store, Walmart, Target, and convenience store in the country.
No, it's not. Condoms are ineffective.

Quote:
Just last year the Republicans in congress passed a law reforming the nation's foster care system.
Last year, huh? "Nice team spirit, Morty." Congress can pass all kinds of lip-service laws. Doesn't mean it gets the job done.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #127  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:07 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
No, it's not. Condoms are ineffective.
Tell it to Planned Parenthood.

Regards,
Shodan
  #128  
Old 05-15-2019, 03:16 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Tell it to Planned Parenthood.

Regards,
Shodan
Why would I do that? They already have information on the best methods of preventing pregnancies... and condoms are not among them.

Next time, a little more research.

Expectorations,
CaptMurdock
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #129  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:00 PM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Why would I do that? They already have information on the best methods of preventing pregnancies... and condoms are not among them.

Next time, a little more research.

Expectorations,
CaptMurdock

85% effective, coupled with the note "if you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, theyíre 98% effective at preventing pregnancy" does not equal ineffective.

You should have your ducks in a row if you're going to be snarky.
  #130  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:06 PM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 267
It should read 100% effective if used perfectly every time, because the perfect way to use them is to chuck them on the floor and whack off.
  #131  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:21 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,088
Outercourse is everything [even] more effective than condoms, and it's free, and you don't need to go anywhere to use it. But like condoms, you have to be mindfully consistent in using it, and some people don't like it as much as other options.

There are better methods. Better because you don't need to be actively mindful, better because they don't interfere with the act. But they require going to a medical practitioner.

Last edited by tomndebb; 05-15-2019 at 06:09 PM. Reason: User requested word change
  #132  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:33 PM
Taber is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,000
I think it is perfectly reasonable to not have sex as a woman when there's a law on the books that makes sex somewhat dangerous for women, and citing that law as to why you consider sex too dangerous.

Using sex as a way to pressure men is gross and relies on terrible gender norms.

Her message had hints of both, and I'm not particularly interested in reading the tea leaves to determine which Alyssa meant.

Last edited by Taber; 05-15-2019 at 04:35 PM.
  #133  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:01 PM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 320
Is she still playing "Whose the Boss?" (shitty show even for a kid)

"Well, I have very little talent, so I'll say something they'll talk about online"

Last edited by MortSahlFan; 05-15-2019 at 05:03 PM.
  #134  
Old 05-16-2019, 03:06 AM
clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
Just a nit pick: It's not uncommon for people to stop eating a food they like in protest of a policy they dislike. I stopped eating veal and cut back on pork because I don't like the way those meat animals are raised, for instance. And I'm considering dropping Nutella from the shopping list due to how the workers who pick hazelnuts are treated. (I love Nutella) If there's enough political momentum to boycott Nutella that the company might notice, I expect I will join the boycott.
But in this case, you're boycotting the thing you have an issue with. You didn't stop eating nutella because Trump wants to buid a wall. The equivalent would be to stop having sex with your partner because you don't like his behavior in bed.


Quote:
I agree that it makes no sense to cut off the partner who agrees with you. (And I'm happy to eat pork raised on pasture.) So this particular boycott seems badly aimed, for a number of reasons. But in general, there's nothing crazy about denying yourself something you like for political reasons.
Once again, in these cases, you're denying yourself because you don't want to support/to participate in these things. And by the way, I'd an issue also with cutting off the partner you disagree with. Sex isn't a bargaining chip.


[/quote]Boycotts have worked in several cases, by the way. Despite the generally favorable press Chick-fil-A got when it was boycotted, the company has mostly moved it's charity to less political causes. Similarly, Barilla pasta apologized for their statements that were deemed anti-gay. And the US veal market has moved from individually caging the animals to letting them mingle in small pens. I am happy to buy from both Chick-fil-a and Barilla. Both remain conservative companies, but neither crosses the threshold (for me) into "doing stuff that actively troubles me." I'm reconsidering veal, too.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure it might work, but I suspect that if, say, gays had stopped having sex to protest against Barilla, it wouldn't have been very effective.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #135  
Old 05-16-2019, 03:33 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
I do not doubt that some would say exactly that, and some would think it secretely. But you didn't write : "Rush Limbaugh response was this once". You wrote the following :

After all, whenever women raise the topics of contraception and abortion as key elements in women's health and family planning, the conservative response has tended to be
Well, I've certainly learned my lesson from this! In the future, when discussing republican attitudes towards issues, I won't bring up major talking points of the most popular republican pundits and kingmakers. Because using them as an indication of where the party as a whole is is just fucking crazy talk, apparently. I'm so sorry for this embarrassing misstep, and in the future will abstain from generalizing about a political party based on statements from its most influential pundits, its federal elected officials, its supreme court nominees, and its fucking president. I'll instead go off the platonic republican idea, who would never shame a woman for having sex and really thinks states rights isn't about racism.

Maybe I'm being unfairly harsh on Claire. After all, she's French, she may not have quite the best view of American politics. In that case, Claire, I realize that it may be hard to believe, coming from a country where politics is not fundamentally broken, but the modern republican party absolutely is cartoonishly fucking evil. They are that bad and worse, a fundamentally immoral force in American politics.
__________________
"I think if Mrs May actually went and said that there will be a no deal Brexit, there will be a hard border in Ireland, troops are already on the way, we will be dynamiting and flooding the Chunnel this evening and the Royal Navy is patrolling the channel that would be 110 times better than what is happening now." -AK84
  #136  
Old 05-16-2019, 03:54 AM
Hilarity N. Suze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 7,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Are you saying that condoms aren't safe, or that they aren't affordable? If that's the case, why does Planned Parenthood give away so many of them?

Regards,
Shodan
PP gives condoms away because they are cheap and reasonably effective. They don't give IUDs away because they are not at all cheap and are a medical device that requires a medical practitioner to install them and medical followups to make sure they're still where they're supposed to be and not causing problems.
  #137  
Old 05-16-2019, 03:56 AM
clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
Just a nit pick: It's not uncommon for people to stop eating a food they like in protest of a policy they dislike. I stopped eating veal and cut back on pork because I don't like the way those meat animals are raised, for instance. And I'm considering dropping Nutella from the shopping list due to how the workers who pick hazelnuts are treated. (I love Nutella) If there's enough political momentum to boycott Nutella that the company might notice, I expect I will join the boycott.
But in this case, you're boycotting the thing you have an issue with. You didn't stop eating nutella because Trump wants to buid a wall. The equivalent to your veal boycott would be to stop having sex with your partner because you don't like his behavior in bed.


Quote:
I agree that it makes no sense to cut off the partner who agrees with you. (And I'm happy to eat pork raised on pasture.) So this particular boycott seems badly aimed, for a number of reasons. But in general, there's nothing crazy about denying yourself something you like for political reasons.
Once again, in these cases, you're denying yourself because you don't want to support/to participate in these things. And by the way, I'd an issue also with cutting off the partner you disagree with. Sex isn't a bargaining chip.


Quote:
Boycotts have worked in several cases, by the way. Despite the generally favorable press Chick-fil-A got when it was boycotted, the company has mostly moved it's charity to less political causes. Similarly, Barilla pasta apologized for their statements that were deemed anti-gay. And the US veal market has moved from individually caging the animals to letting them mingle in small pens. I am happy to buy from both Chick-fil-a and Barilla. Both remain conservative companies, but neither crosses the threshold (for me) into "doing stuff that actively troubles me." I'm reconsidering veal, too.
I'm sure it might work, but I suspect that if, say, gays had stopped having sex to protest against Barilla, it wouldn't have been very effective.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-16-2019 at 03:56 AM.
  #138  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:10 AM
clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I dont think girls under age 18 should be able to get one without parents being informed.
Girls under age 18 would be afraid of telling their parents, especially if those parents are firmly opposed to abortion. They would ask for an abortion too late having avoided telling for too long, or they would be pressured by their parents to keep the baby (or, in fact, the contrary. I know a woman who made her daughter abort against her will), or they would end up giving birth secretely and throwing the baby in a garbage can.


Parents don't have a need to know, and I fail to see what problem telling the parents would solve. If they have a good relationship with their daughter, presumably, she will tell them (and in fact, the worst the parents, the more likely that the daughter won't want to tell them. Informing parents will generally benefit the worst of them).
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #139  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:22 AM
clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
How many examples would you like? Is your argument "As long as I can find one example of a conservative who didn't demean women in the contexts of abortion or contraception, the whole characterization must be wrong?"
If it's presented as a typical behavior, I want it to actually be a typical behavior. "Conservatives just hate women and think they're all sluts" isn't an objective statement. It's propaganda. Bad propaganda.


Quote:
- If they actually cared about reducing abortion, they would get down on their knees and thank the God they pay lip-service to for Planned Parenthood, an organization that prevents vastly more unwanted pregnancies than it terminates and also provides health services to women - including pregnant women - to help them have healthy pregnancies and babies. But they don't.
Many of them are opposed to contraception too. Why would they do that?


Quote:
- If they cared about women and children they wouldn't support "pregnancy crisis centers", a booming industry devoted to tricking pregnant women considering abortion into thinking they're receiving objective advice and then lying to them and emotionally bullying them until they hit the six month mark, and then abandoning them (a strategy they openly admit to in their industry meetings). But they do.
They're opposed to abortion, and see it as, morally, equivalent to murder. Why would they want to facilitate abortion?


Quote:
- If they cared about women and children, they wouldn't repeatedly vote for politicians devoted to cutting not just benefits for poorer women and children but also funding for schooling and affordable healthcare, acts which result in active suffering, lifelong poverty and death. But they do.
So, unless someone agrees with you about everything wrt what is best for society, they hate children and think women are sluts?


Quote:
In fact, if you look at everything they do and what they ask their chosen politicians to do, suggesting that their main priority is to make people they don't agree with suffer while they get to feel smug and self-righteous is not an unreasonable interpretation at all.
And this, according to you, ins't a caricature? You actually think that 50% or so of your fellow citizens just enjoy seeing people suffer? That when they go to vote, they wonder "which candidate will make people suffer more?"
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #140  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:31 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
This makes as much since as if people really cared about gun control they would support the NRA, or if vegans really cared about chickens they would support KFC.
I suppose one might think so if one didn't understand what Planned Parenthood actually do. I mean, if Planned Parenthood actively promoted everyone getting an abortion and blocked any attempt anywhere to even make abortions marginally safer and only paid minor lip service to the whole "family planning" thing, then a comparison to the NRA might be more appropriate.

Quote:
Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the country. It is no mystery why people who are anti-abortion don't like the largest abortion provider in the country.
But in opposing it, they are taking action that will result in vastly larger numbers of unwanted pregnancies and vastly larger numbers of abortions, many of which will be unsafe. But as I said, it's certainly the best course of action if what you want is for women to suffer while you get to feel smug and self-righteous.

Quote:
It is also not surprising that people who are anti-abortion support organizations that try to convince pregnant women not to abort their babies.
So I can assume you're fine with false advertising, disseminating lies about the medical effects of abortion and deliberately emotionally traumatizing poor pregnant women? I guess the end justifies the means.

Quote:
This is question begging. It is not obvious that cutting benefits for poor women results in active suffering, lifelong poverty, and death. After welfare reform in the 90s more women got jobs and less women were in poverty than before. Funding for schooling has gone up nearly constantly and it is not the case that schools are doing better with more money.
I'm not rehashing a debate we've had many times before; suffice it to say that your representation of the evidence is extremely skewed.

Quote:
A more reasonable position is that anti-abortion people dislike abortion providers and support alternatives to abortion. If it makes you feel better to characterize people who feel differently than you as cartoon villains instead of people with a sincere belief in the value of a pre born babies life, maybe your arguments need to be stronger to deal with the actual beliefs and not the cartoon strawman.
Again, I'm not treating them as cartoon strawmen. I am reporting on things they are actually saying and doing. If you feel that this makes them look like cartoon villains, perhaps you should consider why that is.
  #141  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:35 AM
clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post

What exactly does 'Make America great Again' mean? It seems to look to, say, the 1950s as a golden era we should aspire to.
Could it be that some people who used to work in some devastated industries and are now unemployed or working shitty poorly paid jobsn, had better working conditions and more job stability, wish to return to their former situation? Could they feel that the USA is in decline and be afraid of the future for their children?

Well, of course not. When they vote, their only motivation is "will I be able to opress Black people?" because that's what they think about all day long. And this is totally not a caricature. It's of course impossible that someone would vote for Trump because he promised to rapatriate jobs in the USA. It's solely because he hopes that he will put sluts back at their place (and of course, no woman voted for Trump, well maybe except self-hating women who think all other women are sluts).


I begin to realize that this kind of statements aren't even exaggeration for effect. Many of you really believe that the only motivation conservative types have is their hate for gays, women and black people.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #142  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:55 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Could it be that some people who used to work in some devastated industries and are now unemployed or working shitty poorly paid jobsn, had better working conditions and more job stability, wish to return to their former situation? Could they feel that the USA is in decline and be afraid of the future for their children?
Believe it or not, this explanation has been explored as a potential explanation for Trump voters. It's been explored quite extensively! People tried their best to make the data stretch to fit this explanation. And they just couldn't make it fit.

Quote:
I begin to realize that this kind of statements aren't even exaggeration for effect. Many of you really believe that the only motivation conservative types have is their hate for gays, women and black people.
Leaving aside the "black people" bit (which is less "outright hostility" and more "nasty subconscious and cultural biases")...

When looking at the pro-life movement, many of their actions make absolutely no fucking sense if what they want is to prevent abortions. Those actions make perfect sense if their goal is to oppress women and control women's health.

Looking at the anti-LGBT movement, there's not even a fig leaf. Their actions make no sense if they are not motivated by anti-gay animus, and most of the time, they don't even try to fucking hide it, unless they're worried their statement is going to end up quoted back to them in court. Maybe there are a handful of incredibly stupid people who are legitimately worried that their rights to hold their faith is under threat, but by and large, the people actually pushing anti-gay legislation know full well what this is about. And there's no shortage of people willing to say the quiet part out loud.

We've tried giving them the benefit of the doubt. It turns out that was a mistake. They really are as cartoonishly fucking evil as they look. Again, this may be hard to believe if you didn't grow up in the US, but this is the reality.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 05-16-2019 at 04:59 AM.
  #143  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:58 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
By the by, on the subject of Lysistrasa, from what I've seen on the left, basically everyone agrees this is a bad idea that was poorly-thought-out and even the twitter celeb who was pushing it has moved away from it. The discussion has been amplified for some reason (can't imagine why something that makes the left look stupid would be given ample airtime ) but the conversation around it is mostly "this is a stupid idea and an own goal, stop it".
  #144  
Old 05-16-2019, 05:01 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
If it's presented as a typical behavior, I want it to actually be a typical behavior. "Conservatives just hate women and think they're all sluts" isn't an objective statement. It's propaganda. Bad propaganda.
It's not quite the statement I made either. And, sadly, it is a typical behavior which is evidenced by the long, long list of bills Republicans have put forward - and occasionally passed - with the intent to obstruct access to abortion, contraception and women's health services, often involving instigating intentional emotional trauma. Remember that whole thing about intravaginal ultrasounds? Do you understand what the purpose of that was? I have many other examples - how many will it take?

Quote:
Many of them are opposed to contraception too. Why would they do that?
Perhaps you should be asking why they're opposed to contraception, which drastically reduces the amount of unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions. Unless, of course, what they really want is to punish women for having sex. Then it all makes sense.

Quote:
They're opposed to abortion, and see it as, morally, equivalent to murder. Why would they want to facilitate abortion?
It's not about "facilitating abortion". It's about a concerted campaign to deceive pregnant women, provide them with - what was the term you used? - bad propaganda about the medical elements of abortion, and to emotionally traumatize them as much as possible. This is another perfect example of malignant behaviors resulting in active harm, and here you are blithely handwaving it away. I mean, sure, if you ignore all the examples that support my position, my position appears unsupported. Funny about that.

Quote:
So, unless someone agrees with you about everything wrt what is best for society, they hate children and think women are sluts?
No, it's when people do things that actively harm the population of poor single mothers and their children who are also most significantly affected by restricted access to abortion and affordable contraception, I have to question whether they really care about those women and children. I only think they think those women are sluts when they say it out loud. Which, in various ways, they do more often than you seem to want to admit.

Quote:
And this, according to you, ins't a caricature? You actually think that 50% or so of your fellow citizens just enjoy seeing people suffer? That when they go to vote, they wonder "which candidate will make people suffer more?"
I note that you are ignoring my caveat and hyperbolically rephrasing what I said, so perhaps before you accuse me yet again of caricaturing other people's positions you'll stop doing the same to mine.

But whether they consciously vote with the intention of hurting other people - and some of them do - the end result is the same.
  #145  
Old 05-16-2019, 05:51 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I note that you are ignoring my caveat and hyperbolically rephrasing what I said, so perhaps before you accuse me yet again of caricaturing other people's positions you'll stop doing the same to mine.

But whether they consciously vote with the intention of hurting other people - and some of them do - the end result is the same.
It's worth noting that people's policy preferences have become more and more completely out of whack with what actually gets passed in recent years.

https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/sta...04574975860736

Quote:
Itís really amazing how different public opinion is vs. what politicians actually try to advance.

Abortion, gun safety, LGBTQ issues, health care, etc., even as public opinion remains extremely clear on all of these issues, the policy doesnít come close to matching.

92% of Americans support requiring background checks on *all* gun sales. 92!

But even that tiny bit of progress canít even get an up or down vote in Congress. https://t.co/k5A1uPtuOX

Majorities in *every state* support the Equality Act, which would ban discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.

Out of 240 co-sponsors, just 3 are Republicans. Itíll likely pass the House, but never get a Senate vote. Thatís nuts! https://t.co/fYpgQepncU

Weíre being governed by elected officials who are increasingly out of touch with what people actually want. An extremely vocal conservative minority of the country is dictating policy.

Apathy and voter suppression allow this to happen.

It shouldnít be too much to ask that the people we elect to represent us in government actually carry out the will of their constituents.

Part of why theyíre able to get away with this is that US political media is just god-awful.

If you turn on Meet the Press and theyíre discussing universal background checks, youíll come away feeling like there are 2 sides to the issue supported by a roughly equal percentage of the population. Thatís a false reality, itís an utter fiction.

Anyway, seeing whatís happening in Alabama and Georgia right now with abortion, and seeing the ongoing hard right shift of the judiciary... we are headed to a very bad place politically. The slice of the population calling the shots keeps getting smaller yet increasingly powerful
(Parker Molloy, for those wondering, is an editor at Media Matters. Click through and you'll see all manner of charts and graphs detailing exactly how clear this is.)

Like, even in Alabama and Georgia, two states that recently passed these extreme anti-abortion laws, not even 1 in 4 people want to see a complete ban on Abortion.

https://www.dataforprogress.org/prochoicestats
  #146  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:02 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
We've tried giving them the benefit of the doubt. It turns out that was a mistake. They really are as cartoonishly fucking evil as they look. Again, this may be hard to believe if you didn't grow up in the US, but this is the reality.
Slight caveat: it's entirely possible (likely, even) that the average republican voter is stupid, rather than evil. There's a reason the Koch brothers pay substantial amounts of money for pieces talking about how far-right figures are "silenced"; why Dave Rubin tries to guide every conversation towards the reaction to right-wing speakers on campus (as though it were the most important issue, or indeed as though it mattered at all). Talking about policy is a loser for republicans, so they talk about literally anything else. Or they lie, that works too - see also: the main republican policy message on Obamacare for about a decade.

So the average republican voter may not be malicious. They may instead by incredibly stupid. See also: this interview with Georgia State Senator Jen Jordan:
Do you think a majority of legislators who supported HB 481 realized that they were subjecting women who self-terminate to murder charges and all these grave consequences?

No. This has been a problem across the board up at the General Assembly. Everybody thinks that the majority of people up there are lawyers, and thatís not true. We donít even have enough lawyers to fill the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. Thatís problematic. To really understand HB 481, you needed to look at the entire statutory regime. It references back to different statutes. Itís almost like a puzzle you have to put together. If youíre not a lawyer, you donít know how to do that. If you donít know how to do it, you rely on the team mentality. ďThe Republican leadership and the governor say that this is what we have to do as Republicans and this is going to save lives.Ē Thereís no independent research. Republican legislators rely on folks telling them this is great, thereís no problem, we need to vote for it. But if you do a deep dive and see what the implications are, I canít see how any rational person would think that this is a good idea.


The weird consequences certainly go beyond punishing women.

Itís fantastical. What about women pregnant in prison? Now youíve got a baby that hasnít been given due process and is in prison? It sounds ridiculous because itís ridiculous. If you see a pregnant woman eating sushi, do you call the Division of Family and Children Services and make a complaint? Itís that kind of stuff. If youíre pregnant, youíre driving in the HOV lane, and an officer pulls you over, do you say, ďDonít worry, officeróme and my zygote, weíre good.Ē The Office of Legislative Counsel told us that if an undocumented immigrant in the state is pregnant, that fetus is considered a Georgia resident, a citizen, and a person entitled to all the aid and health care a Georgia resident is entitled to. But the mother herself couldnít get any benefits.

This law is so irrational. It just doesnít make sense because itís so absurd. When I first read it, it was like, Come on. No way. This isnít happening. There are so many problems with this. But now itís the law, so we need to tell people and educate women in terms of what could happen.

These people are badly misinformed. They're manipulated. Some of them are exactly as evil and malicious as their handlers. How many? Ultimately, I don't give two shits, because the end result remains the same - they vote for politicians who implement horribly unpopular policies that are bad for them personally and for the nation as a whole - hence the "leopards eating people's faces party" memes. They need to stop.
  #147  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:14 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
If Alyssa Milano was an elected official (like, say, the Governor of Georgia) and had any legal power to enforce her suggestions, then, yes, this would be a problem. But as long as she has no power to compel anyone else, then all she's doing is exercising free speech.

So now that we've absolved Alyssa Milano of doing anything wrong, do you plan on doing anything about the wrong being done Brian Kemp and the Georgia legislature?
I'm not a fan of the "free speech gambit": just because it is legal to say something doesn't mean that the opinion expressed is correct. In fact if it is odious enough one could even say one "should not" express this opinion without impinging on the other's free speech, excepting the marginal chilling effect when the person saying that a certain type of speech is wrong has governmental power to compel someone else to not say it.

(I myself wouldn't put it that strongly that her opinion ought not to be said, but I do think it's a silly statement for all the other reasons pointed out in the thread.)
  #148  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:41 AM
Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm coming back, now.
Posts: 7,527
If political effectiveness is the goal, a converse strategy might be more effective. If women decided to seek out congressmen those who vote against the bill, and have sex with them it is ethically and even philosophically equivalent (although perhaps not legally) but likely to change more votes.

Tris
__________________
Isn't it odd that the advice of people who say what they are paid to say is important to so many of us who claim to support "free" speech.
  #149  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:37 AM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Jeana Tomasino Keough, before she was a OG Real Housewife, was the Playboy Playmate of the Month for the November 1980 issue, appeared in a few movies, and was featured in a few ZZ Top videos. I'm sure the team members and Mr. Met were credible potential MAD threats.
That's not the point.

Do you really think that every man is willing to have sex with every woman who he thinks looks good? That (even aside from differences in who's sexually desirable to the individual) it doesn't matter to any man whether he's in a supposedly monogamous partnership, whether the woman is, whether she's trustworthy, even whether her only motive is blatantly revenge?

Yes, I'm sure there are men who don't care. But there are a lot of men who do.
  #150  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:59 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I suppose one might think so if one didn't understand what Planned Parenthood actually do. I mean, if Planned Parenthood actively promoted everyone getting an abortion and blocked any attempt anywhere to even make abortions marginally safer and only paid minor lip service to the whole "family planning" thing, then a comparison to the NRA might be more appropriate.

But in opposing it, they are taking action that will result in vastly larger numbers of unwanted pregnancies and vastly larger numbers of abortions, many of which will be unsafe. But as I said, it's certainly the best course of action if what you want is for women to suffer while you get to feel smug and self-righteous.
Planned Parenthood does at least half of all the abortions in the US. They provide a minuscule fraction of the birth control used in the US. If they closed down tomorrow there would still be plenty of places to buy condoms, the pill, or IUDs.

If abortion is outlawed people will switch to other forms of birth control and some more people will carry their babies to term. There will not be vastly larger numbers of abortions, there will be vastly fewer.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017