Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says a FETUS is the same as a BRAIN-DEAD Person.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Who are these condoms made for? Who is the one responsible for using them?

Not everyone can take hormonal birth control and the risks they present increase as people get older. For me, it was around 30 when I was told I really shouldn't be on them... I got my birth control pills from planned planethood... you know the organization the pro life group wants to put an end to..
Tubal litigation was an expense we really didn't have to spare. That didn't leave a great selection to choose from and most involved my husabands cooperation... ie.. those condoms... well, I tried... another child came... so I decided ok, abstinence... can you guess by my previous posts where that went?? Well, my oldest son wasn't even three when my third was born... 14 months after my second son..

Starvation worked... it turned out.. no kids after that.. I still manage to go days without eating much more than maybe slice of toast with some peanut butter.

A good portion of abortions are married women who already have children. I think maybe there should be less griping at women and a little more at the men...

a reply to: frogs453

So that''s the cost of a life now? $600 a year?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Imperator2

the real issue is when life begins not when its viable on it's own

Science has an answer for that one. Life on earth began about 3.5 billion years ago.

Oh, did you mean human life? that would be about two million years ago.

The egg cell is alive and human. The sperm cell is alive and human. When they combine, the result is alive and human. There is no point where any of these are not both alive and human for the last 2 million years.

Not sure how that helps with the issue, but there's the answer.

TheRedneck

I am referring to when life begins in the womb. Not when human life started on the planet. That would be a strange pivot for this discussion.

If people can pinpoint when life begins then they can create universal protections, rights and policies around that point. Texas is attempting to establish that point as the fetal heart beat. The pro abortion lobby is trying to establish it at the point of viability.

There is an inherent flaw with tailoring the above around the viability point as that point is ever changing due to scientific advances.

The MS law is attempting to show the pointlessness of the viability argument and open the door for additional changes.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree.


I was just reading a story of a 44 year old woman. She had cramps and bleeding and thought it was just hormones due to her age. Called the doc, they advised advil. Next day it was worse. She went in, found out both she was pregnant and miscarrying. She then had to go in to basically have a forced abortion to remove everything.

She asked if the new policy in Texas would have affected her if she lived there. The doc said yes it would. Her access to getting the help she needed would be severely limited which could lead to health issues or death for herself.

These situations happen more than some people believe.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

More than a third of female voters have struggled to afford prescription birth control at some point in their lives, and as a result, used birth control inconsistently.This isn’t surprising considering co-pays for birth control pills typically range between $15 and $50 per month.  That adds up to over $600 per year.  Other methods, such as IUDs, can cost several hundred dollars, even with health insurance.

planned parenthood

I know that both of my daughters have had their insurance(2 different companies) suddenly decide not to cover the cost of a brand they had been on. So it was either a choice of changing, going through 3 months of side effects to see if their body accepted that kind, if not try another, and go through the 3 month trial again or pay out of pocket.

Do you have much experience in dealing with birth control? It can be an awful process finding one that doesn't have too many side effects, and is covered by your insurance Co.

If we agree to provide any and all birth control are you good with no abortion?

a reply to: dawnstar

You

Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of this, oh we are turning into animals that can't control ourselves

Maybe, maybe not.

Americans are having less sex than ever, and experts say the pandemic will only fuel this downward spiral

www.insider.com...

Psychologist Jean Twenge, who has spent years studying Americans' sex lives, told Insider the steady decline in sexual activity has been driven by a mosaic of factors, including rising rates of anxiety and
depression
, and, relatedly, financial insecurity following the economic crash of 2008.

The rise in round-the-clock use of cell phones and online entertainment, offering a more accessible alternative to sex, are also, undoubtedly, factors.

And despite all the talk of a return to dating and socializing when the pandemic is over, Twenge says it's likely the economic and emotional ramifications of the pandemic will simply drive the sex rate down even further.

I see it in my kids generation.

They value of virtual reality and stuff over real life humanity.

Check out the people that play animal crossing new horizon and make YouTube videos as if the items they get in the game are real processions.

Just look at gold over crypto currency.


Remember when people were afraid of government turning into big brother. Then society it’s self became big brother through big tech.

Remember when people feared the”matrix”, but we now have individuals embracing virtual reality, virtual processions, virtual fantasy, virtual crypto currency over humanity.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Sigh, the point is some people cannot afford it and do you really think if they outlaw abortion they will make all types of contraceptives free? We already see that people have not used it faithfully due to financial issues.

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70
Well I do believe it's a woman's choice. If they do outlaw it, the very least they can do is that. We know they won't though. Still will not stop women from using the old ways of herbs, self trying or illegal docs.

ETA. I'm not some zealous pro abortion person. I do believe it should be a safe legal option. However as the mother of 3 daughters, I have consistently stressed at the age it was appropriate about how important contraceptives are, but there are many girls who don't have parents who understand reality. I went to Catholic schools and saw wayyyy too many 15 16 year olds suddenly drop out because they were pregnant.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

Doctors should face a death penalty.they 100% know what they did and are not in emotionally compromised positions. They are hired killers.

This is one of those extreme positions I mentioned earlier.

There are many ways a pregnancy can go awry, and not just a few of those are literally a death sentence to the mother if not attended to. In some cases, sadly, that means an abortion. Is it not better, especially if the child has little chance of surviving thee birth, to try and save the mother? Or is it somehow better to allow both to likely die?

I believe a child is a unique and special life just as much as you do... but if we do not face facts on this issue, we have accomplished nothing... except made things worse.

TheRedneck

If we agree it’s ok when the mother’s life is endangered will you agree to stop all other abortions?

a reply to: frogs453

You

will make all types of contraceptives free

Notre Dame Students Win Their Fight for Free Birth Control

www.thecut.com...

School district offer birth control in high schools
apnews.com...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

Doctors should face a death penalty.they 100% know what they did and are not in emotionally compromised positions. They are hired killers.

This is one of those extreme positions I mentioned earlier.

There are many ways a pregnancy can go awry, and not just a few of those are literally a death sentence to the mother if not attended to. In some cases, sadly, that means an abortion. Is it not better, especially if the child has little chance of surviving thee birth, to try and save the mother? Or is it somehow better to allow both to likely die?

I believe a child is a unique and special life just as much as you do... but if we do not face facts on this issue, we have accomplished nothing... except made things worse.

TheRedneck

My position is consistent and can be defended logically. It’s murder. We have penalties for murder. We have really harsh penalties for pre meditated murder. Stop the abortions or change the penalties one or the other but be honest about it.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

Who are these condoms made for? Who is the one responsible for using them?

Not everyone can take hormonal birth control and the risks they present increase as people get older. For me, it was around 30 when I was told I really shouldn't be on them... I got my birth control pills from planned planethood... you know the organization the pro life group wants to put an end to..
Tubal litigation was an expense we really didn't have to spare. That didn't leave a great selection to choose from and most involved my husabands cooperation... ie.. those condoms... well, I tried... another child came... so I decided ok, abstinence... can you guess by my previous posts where that went?? Well, my oldest son wasn't even three when my third was born... 14 months after my second son..

Starvation worked... it turned out.. no kids after that.. I still manage to go days without eating much more than maybe slice of toast with some peanut butter.

A good portion of abortions are married women who already have children. I think maybe there should be less griping at women and a little more at the men...

Are you forced to have sex with men without condemns? There is help for that. Those guys should be aborted. Really.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sigh, the point is some people cannot afford it and do you really think if they outlaw abortion they will make all types of contraceptives free? We already see that people have not used it faithfully due to financial issues.

They are already free for anyone in roughly the bottom 45% of income.

Do you think we should start PAYING them to use the ALREADY free birth control?

Would that make it better in your view?

a reply to: frogs453

We already see that people have not used it faithfully due to financial issues.

So? Not mature enough to make adult decisions.

I like how society went from absence in birth control doesn’t work to total absence from social interactions that make us human by lockdowns and mandates.

I guess absence dose work?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree.


I was just reading a story of a 44 year old woman. She had cramps and bleeding and thought it was just hormones due to her age. Called the doc, they advised advil. Next day it was worse. She went in, found out both she was pregnant and miscarrying. She then had to go in to basically have a forced abortion to remove everything.

She asked if the new policy in Texas would have affected her if she lived there. The doc said yes it would. Her access to getting the help she needed would be severely limited which could lead to health issues or death for herself.

These situations happen more than some people believe.

Lie. An emergency to save a life would not be infringed. Also some mothers would say and have said “save. The baby first”. Terrible thing to happen either way.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

More than a third of female voters have struggled to afford prescription birth control at some point in their lives, and as a result, used birth control inconsistently.This isn’t surprising considering co-pays for birth control pills typically range between $15 and $50 per month.  That adds up to over $600 per year.  Other methods, such as IUDs, can cost several hundred dollars, even with health insurance.

planned parenthood

I know that both of my daughters have had their insurance(2 different companies) suddenly decide not to cover the cost of a brand they had been on. So it was either a choice of changing, going through 3 months of side effects to see if their body accepted that kind, if not try another, and go through the 3 month trial again or pay out of pocket.

Do you have much experience in dealing with birth control? It can be an awful process finding one that doesn't have too many side effects, and is covered by your insurance Co.

I have the same problem with non birth control prescriptions.

That particular problem is owned by Obamacare, and I have ZERO pity for any democrat complaining about it.

Fix THAT problem.

And stop using your own disaster of a healthcare policy as arguments for abortion on demand.

We aren't THAT dumb.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70
Well I do believe it's a woman's choice. If they do outlaw it, the very least they can do is that. We know they won't though. Still will not stop women from using the old ways of herbs, self trying or illegal docs.

ETA. I'm not some zealous pro abortion person. I do believe it should be a safe legal option. However as the mother of 3 daughters, I have consistently stressed at the age it was appropriate about how important contraceptives are, but there are many girls who don't have parents who understand reality. I went to Catholic schools and saw wayyyy too many 15 16 year olds suddenly drop out because they were pregnant.

If there is a way around a law should we forget about it?

a reply to: dawnstar

Who are these condoms made for?

...

Might I recommend a course on reproduction? This isn't the time nor place to educate you.

Who is the one responsible for using them?

Both.

I don't now your medical situation, and it really doesn't matter... I'm not a doctor and not qualified to tell you or anyone else about specific medical issues. I do know that humans who engage in sexual intercourse tend to make something called a "baby" and the female has the task of carrying that baby in her belly for about 9 months. I understand you don't think it's fair somehow, and it may not be. But you do not get to change how that works.

All you get to do is make decisions for you.

You said you tried abstinence but it didn't work. I say that abstinence always works, 100% of the time, whenever it is used (unless you claim to be the mother of Jesus). If you had another baby, you failed to practice abstinence. I do not say that to judge you; that is not my place. I say that because it is true. A child cannot be born without transferal of male fluid to female eggs. Outside of a laboratory, that only happens during sexual intercourse.

Starvation worked... it turned out.. no kids after that.. I still manage to go days without eating much more than maybe slice of toast with some peanut butter.

Unless you were literally at death's door, no, starvation did not prevent you from getting pregnant. It doesn't work that way. Starvation as self-imposed punishment may have prevented you from having unprotected sex (albeit that sounds pretty masochistic to me) and that may have worked... but let's get real. How much one eats does not affect the reproduction process directly.

A good portion of abortions are married women who already have children. I think maybe there should be less griping at women and a little more at the men...

Are the men demanding the right to abort their children for any reason they want?

I have a feeling if that were even allowed, men would likely be greater advocates than women. In the present family court system we have, getting a woman pregnant equals a 18-year installment plan with mighty big payments, court enforced, and does not grant even the privilege of seeing the child if the mother does not wish it. And that doesn't include legal fees, insurance for the child, etc.

I realize the burden on the mother is great as well, but do not try to claim that men are immune from any hardships from an unwanted pregnancy.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Imperator2
Really though is viability such a bad point?
At the point of viability the states can step in and protect the interests of the fetus... and still uphold the mothers rights.. the common exceptions placed in most abortion bans is rape, incest, danger to the mothers health, saving the mothers life... my brain is telling me there is another but this is enough to get my point across. Any state could have decided to say hey wait a minute, we understand the rape and incest victim might not want to continue a pregnancy but this fetus has a chance of survival... so no, you can't have an abortion but we will allow you to be relieved of any further burden and allow early delivery of the fetus. Since you are now wanting to abort the baby and if you take this offer, you will be willing to place the baby in grave danger, we don't feel you are a suitable mother so, we will take guardianship of it now, pay the cost of delivery and foster care/adoption placement.
Similar arrangements could have been made for many with maternal health issues, as well as fetal defects.. the states had, still have that option once viability is present.. none choose to, but I am supposed to believe that the states will be able to accept all the unwanted children that these close to full bans will bring into the world.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sigh, the point is some people cannot afford it and do you really think if they outlaw abortion they will make all types of contraceptives free? We already see that people have not used it faithfully due to financial issues.

They can't afford free?

How much do you think we should pay them to use the already free things we buy for them?