Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

ajax18 wrote:
Mon May 16, 2022 8:21 pm
Actually, poor women are being forced to have children they can't afford. A number of states have concentrated on making access to abortion services difficult, if not impossible, in their states. Obstacles to accessibility affect the poor the most. Sure, some poor women undoubtedly choose to have a child or children they can't afford. But that doesn't mean that other poor women aren't forced to bear children against their will by obstacles placed in their way by state governments.
Birth control is plenty effective. The overwhelming majority of women get pregnant because they chose to not due to some pharmacological failure.
You ever going to provide that link or what?

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Schreech
CTR A
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:04 pm

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Schreech »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon May 16, 2022 8:50 pm
ajax18 wrote:
Mon May 16, 2022 8:21 pm


Birth control is plenty effective. The overwhelming majority of women get pregnant because they chose to not due to some pharmacological failure.
That doesn't respond at all to my point about women being forced to bear children against their will. A few years ago, a study found that 1/4 of women had an abortion before age 45. That's lots of women who chose not to give birth.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/f ... 017.304042
On top of that, birth control methods have between a 1% and 20% failure rate (I believe that equates to about a 5% failure rate across all methods in the US based on usage). I need to review the data but I believe this is an annual rate and not based on individual sexual encounters (that would be way too high). So about 5 in 100 women who are using birth control will get pregnant in any given year. Poorer women often don't have the same access to the more effective methods like IUDs so this is likely to overwhelmingly affect poorer people who can't afford the child. https://powertodecide.org/what-we-do/in ... t-virginia


My guess is that [personal attack removed] would also not support making more effective birth control available to poorer areas via public resources ( could be wrong...). He is not a solutions guy, he just seems to like consuming anger-inducing propaganda and bitching (endlessly) about how unfair the world is to unhappy, impotent white hetero-sexual "christian" men.
K Graham
God
Posts: 1676
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:25 am

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by K Graham »

In another stroke of outright hypocrisy, the GOP showed us just how much they really cared about babies when 192 of them voted against funding to help with the baby formula crisis. Apparently sacrificing more babies is an acceptable cost for sticking it to the libs.

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-hous ... ll-1708036
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal" - Ajax18
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Moksha »

K Graham wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 2:30 pm
Apparently sacrificing more babies is an acceptable cost for sticking it to the libs.
Some of the GOP like sticking it to women, however, most of them prefer a wider stance.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by canpakes »

K Graham wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 2:30 pm
In another stroke of outright hypocrisy, the GOP showed us just how much they really cared about babies when 192 of them voted against funding to help with the baby formula crisis. Apparently sacrificing more babies is an acceptable cost for sticking it to the libs.

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-hous ... ll-1708036

The reason given by many Republicans for voting against the bill is that it leads to handing the FDA more money for inspections and administrative needs rather than directly increases the supply of formula. Republican philosophy here is in line with expectations, but it would be better to see the party be more solution-oriented.

It was stranger to see a handful of Republicans voting against the companion Access to Baby Formula Act, given how much of a fuss they’ve raised about the situation:
WASHINGTON — Two Texas Republicans were among a small number of House members on Wednesday to vote against a bill that would help women and children on federal assistance have access to more formula brand options.

The legislation passed with bipartisan support and was one of two bills passed by the U.S. House that attempt to mitigate a disruptive baby formula shortage around the country.

U.S. Reps. Louie Gohmert of Tyler and Chip Roy of Austin were among only nine members to vote against the legislation that would have allowed changes to the WIC program, formally known as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. That measure would expand the formula brand choices available to program participants, which would lessen the impact of a single company’s recall.

WIC is a federal program that delivers nutritious foods to women who are pregnant, breastfeeding or postpartum and children under 5 years old. Amid the shortage, some parents have been struggling to get by and paying out of pocket for formula because the only brands left that they’re able to source in stores are not covered by the program.

Gohmert’s office did not respond to a request for comment, but Roy said in a a statement to The Texas Tribune that he voted against both pieces of legislation on Wednesday because he didn’t think they would solve the problem.

“The only way to get more formula to American families is to fix the crony policies that prevent more U.S. companies from producing it, remove barriers to innovation, and allow imports from trusted nations; the legislation Democrats put forward does none of that,” he said.

Calling the Biden administration “demonstrably incompetent,” he called the shortage “the direct result of unnecessary federal regulations and of a bloated bureaucracy that failed to recognize the problem before it spiraled out of control.”

The formula shortage came about after a suspected contamination set off a recall at a formula plant in Michigan, and the highly consolidated industry was unable to adapt. The Biden administration also pointed to continued supply chain disruptions amid the COVID-19 pandemic as another factor stressing the ability to access formula.

Texas is being hit particularly hard, with 52% of baby formula out of stock as of May 1 — the third-worst formula shortage in the nation, according to the retail software company Datasembly. Both Houston and San Antonio are among the U.S. metro areas hit hardest by the shortage, with Houston the second-worst in the U.S. at a 52.5% out-of-stock rate, the data firm said.

The other, more partisan bill passed Wednesday night allocated money toward inspecting foreign imports of baby formula and to avoid future supply chain shortages. That bill passed 231-192. All Democrats present for the vote supported the bill; only a handful of Republicans backed it. No Texas Republicans backed the legislation.

Two other Texans, U.S. Reps. Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, and Vicente Gonzalez, D-McAllen, did not vote on either bill.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one .


House Republican leadership encouraged its conference to vote against the bill. According to The Hill, U.S. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana advised members that Democrats pushed the bill “in hopes of covering up the administration’s ineptitude by throwing additional money at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] with no plan to actually fix the problem, all while failing to hold the FDA accountable.”
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/acc ... d=84878456
Gunnar
God
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Gunnar »

ajax18 wrote:
Mon May 16, 2022 8:21 pm
Actually, poor women are being forced to have children they can't afford. A number of states have concentrated on making access to abortion services difficult, if not impossible, in their states. Obstacles to accessibility affect the poor the most. Sure, some poor women undoubtedly choose to have a child or children they can't afford. But that doesn't mean that other poor women aren't forced to bear children against their will by obstacles placed in their way by state governments.
Birth control is plenty effective. The overwhelming majority of women get pregnant because they chose to not due to some pharmacological failure.
But the problem here is that many (if not most) ant-abortionists are also strongly anti-contraceptives. It is hard to imagine why any anti-abortionist with any sense would also object to contraceptives which are a proven way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Gunnar
God
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Gunnar »

'For two weeks I carried my dead fetus': Lawmaker tells her pregnancy loss story

Few things more strongly underscore the sheer stupidity and cruelty of anti-abortionists than their abominably ignorant attitude towards women who have miscarriages. It is (or should be) widely known that a rather high proportion of pregnancies end in miscarriages, through no fault of the woman or anyone else. Most of these miscarriages are not preventable and are, more often than not, a great source of grief to the women who experience them.
March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage.
Yet some of these extreme anti-abortion laws support investigating and even indicting women merely for having a miscarriage. The last thing a woman already grieving over having an unwanted miscarriage needs is to be further traumatized by real or potential criminal investigation and indictment merely for having one!

And as if this were not already bad enough, Patients Experiencing Miscarriages Denied Necessary Medication because the same medicines they absolutely need to recover from the effects of spontaneous miscarriages are the ones that can also be used as "morning after pills", and which anti-abortion legislators are trying to ban. Thus doctors can be prosecuted and jailed for using long established, standard practice procedures to treat victims of unwanted miscarriages. These extreme, medically unqualified right wingers are thus, in effect, practicing medicine without a license, which is illegal in every state (as far as I know).
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Gunnar
God
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Gunnar »

Why this former anti-abortion activist regrets the movement he helped build
Frank Schaeffer once produced propaganda films that helped launch the Christian right. Now he feels regret for what he calls an 'anti-family' movement.
I found this video very informative and persuasive. I wish all the conservatives here would give this video an honest viewing. As mentioned above, Frank who had so much to do with launching the anti-abortion movement now regards the movement an anti-family movement. It was instructive to find that when he started his campaign, his strongest opponents were Evangelicals. Most Evangelical leaders at the time, including Billy Graham, were strongly pro-choice. He now deeply regrets the tremendous harm that his movement has caused, particularly to the poor and powerless.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:12 pm

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by ajax18 »

But the problem here is that many (if not most) ant-abortionists are also strongly anti-contraceptives. It is hard to imagine why any anti-abortionist with any sense would also object to contraceptives which are a proven way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
That is odd. I was taught as a young missionary that birth control wasn't wrong and most other lds embraced that view. The idea of no contraception control is completely unreasonable in my view. I even remember a branch president where I grew up counseled a welfare family with a Dad who couldn't/wouldn't hold a steady job to stop having more kids.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Chap »

ajax18 wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 11:43 am
The idea of no contraception control is completely unreasonable in my view.
I think most people in advanced countries would agree with you, most Christians included. Indeed, a glance at the number of kids in the Catholic families you know will show how little notice those families take of the teaching repeatedly issued by the celibate men in the Vatican and the priesthood generally.

BUT - there is a vocal minority amongst white evangelical Christians who don't like contraception. In particular, they object to the use of any contraceptive, such as intrauterine devices, that might prevent the implantation of a fertilised egg (which they regard as already a human being), despite the fact that large numbers of fertilised eggs just never get implanted anyway in the normal course of nature, simply showing up as (at most) a rather heavy period that month.

Oddly, nobody has ever suggested that every tampon or pad resulting from such a period needs to have the benefit of a funeral service, in case it contains human remains ... but then who expected logic in such matters?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Post Reply