Yes, my own daughter has been on “birth control” medication to help her with hormone issues.
I too was put on birth control for a few months to increase my fertility when I was trying to get pregnant.
We did this a while ago, just because a drug, say, Methergine, has many uses doesn’t change the FACT that it’s an abortion drug (even it it isn’t actually an abortion drug).
Thank you Bricker.
Ban both the rhythm method and withdrawal! If you start, you damn well better end up pregnant!
The price of a climax is one white baby!
Who speaks for the yet-to-be-conceived children ??
I firmly believe that life begins at the chubby; therefore, masturbation should be charged as premeditated murder.
Who’s with me ?!?
Signed,
An Avowed Serial Killer
/s
Also … heard this quote for the first time last evening. And “BINGO” was his name-o:
“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”
― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
There is a faction of people who would be delighted to control everyone’s sexuality and set teh ground rules for what kind of sex is acceptable and what kind of sex will expose you to “consequences” that they deny you the tools to avoid.
Wasn’t that precisely the goal? So when recently traitorous Southern states pass laws that reestablish slavery in all but name the Federal government could shut that shit down?
Of course in practice the era of reconstruction was brief because the North had no stomach for actually enforcing their views on the South, but in principle, that seems to be a feature, not a bug
Why fight for something you think you’ve already won?
For most of those 49 years, they thought Roe v Wade was settled law. They should have known better as soon as Garland got blocked; but by that time they were already in a precarious position in the legislature – if they hadn’t been, Garland wouldn’t have been blocked.
An attempt to blame this mess on the Democrats is worse than useless.
Already answered, but yes. In the 1960’s I had periods so painful that I could do nothing but curl up in bed, and heavy enough so that waking up in a bloody bed was normal because pads/tampons didn’t last through a night’s sleep – and they arrived without warning anywhere from two to eight weeks apart. Thank you, thank you, lovely Demulen, which gave me decades of arrival times like clockwork, less bleeding, and almost no pain.
Those are the same kind. There are people for whom the only acceptable sex is that which carries the possibility of pregnancy.
To revisit my exchange re:
I wanted to clarify that when I said:
(My bold)
I was being ironic. (Where ARE those irony tags?) I had hoped that my italicized support of democratic socialism in the next paragraph made that clear.
I believe the very function of government is to “promote the general welfare” of the population. My statement that babies, their conception, birthing, and care are not the government’s problem was pure bitter irony and represented words spewing from the so-called “Pro-Life” side, which should be renamed “Pro-Fetus,” because as others have pointed out, once that baby is born it’s on its own and so is the mom.
Carry on.
My bold.
Otherwise known as The Roman Catholic Church.
Back when I was a Catholic (decades ago – maybe it’s different now) the rule was that every intentional ejaculation had to be in circumstances where pregnancy was possible. IOW no wasted seed. I knew a couple (the guy was a rigid – as it were – Catholic) who practiced oral sex, but hubby would not even come in his wife’s mouth, as he felt that was a sin and violated the Church’s directive. I’m not making this up.
Which is why, within 24 months, Obergefell v Hodges will be overturned.
Unfortunately, not only the Roman Catholic Church.
If that were true, they would have said it or written it down somewhere. [sarcasm tag]
I see a team celebrating after the first half, going home and being outraged they lost.
“Settled law”- is not a thing.
Which means there are no halfs.
Exactly.
I agree. 100%
Most of us do so. I work for government. And I very much get back to people that ask questions.
And I solve them, or direct others to do so. It’s job one.
It is sad though that when I get emailed and send a quick response back with either a solution or requesting information about their inquiry, many are stunned they got any response at all. That’s telling to me. And shows how some government agencies or business just ignore the people they are serving.
It’s a lack of… everything. From unqualified, understaffed organizations to poor management. But If a question comes to me (I get them first), I will find a way to solve it.
That’s the way I work. I check emails from the weekend or night before, then I start my own work.
I know who I work for, and those folks should not be kept waiting. The rest of the team knows this as well. Those paying us should get what they pay for.
There is something I say often on this forum in regard to these social issues, and that is THIS ISN’T THE KIND OF FIGHT YOU WIN, ITS THE KIND OF FIGHT YOU FIGHT.
It’s important to understand that we will never win on any of these issues. I see it as a perpetual tug-of-war with each side pulling as hard as they can on the rope, trying not only to gain ground but to make the other side lose ground.
Yes, it frequently looks like nothing is happening, nothing is getting done……because both sides are pulling hard on the ropes. But it’s a mistake to think that nothing’s happening because nothing’s moving, especially if that causes you to drop the rope out of frustration or boredom.
I understand that there’s a lot of injustice and that a lot of you are personally affected and want big change now. But the reality is that the opposition is formidable, will always be formidable and sometimes it takes everything you have just to keep from losing ground, and at those times it’s important for everyone just to grab the rope and pull as hard as they can.
Because if you don’t, things like what happened Friday will happen, and will continue to happen.
I think of defending any gains in social justice like being the warden or corrections officers in a prison: it’s never safe to assume they’re not plotting escape or violent rebellion. In fact, it’s probably much safer to assume that they’re always doing that.
R’s do a much better job with machinery, ‘seeing the whole board,’ and constantly reminding their supporters of what (Republicans have – amazingly and chimerically – convinced them that) they have to lose.
Also like the prison(er) metaphor, they incessantly look for loopholes and weaknesses – cracks that they can exploit for their own advantage.
My old boss’s wife went to an Ivy League school, both for undergrad and for law school. After a very few years as a practicing lawyer, she left the practice. She hoped to be a ‘counselor --’ a professional that helped clients plot a path forward that kept them out of trouble and allowed them to meet their objectives with minimal risk.
She was, instead, forced to be a consigliere – finding ways to allow her clients to do as they pleased and avoid any ill effects.
Dem’s are still too much the former compared to the Rs who are clearly the latter. I don’t want the Ds to compete in a race to the bottom, but it really seems that losing is the only other option.
And losing the SC was an epic blow.
Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly was Roe v. Wade overturned? I had always been under the impression that a prior decision couldn’t be overturned without a case that was currently before the court. For example, in Plessy v. Ferguson the US Supreme Court established the separate but equal doctrine was constitutional. This was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education where separate but equal was found to be unconstitutional.
Was there a case in front of the court where they overturned Roe v. Wade? Or did they just decide to overturn it?