 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Roe v. Wade
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 22 - 11:41 AM 'Twas your friend who did it Maggie. Have a word... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 Sep 22 - 11:11 AM Shifting the argument about US news to a new thread? Time to drop it. There's an interesting interview in the New York Times yesterday with Elizabeth Banks, who made the film Call Jane before Roe was overturned. That event thrusts this film into the spotlight (it's due to be released in late October).
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 26 Sep 22 - 10:51 AM I can't understand English politics, and I *do* live [t]here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 22 - 06:23 AM "You can't understand American politics or other goings-on unless you live here." What tommy-rot. We get all the same news as you do. I even read the NYT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 26 Sep 22 - 04:28 AM Nine seems about right (but pushing the limit) for a committee to have a range of opinions but to be of approximately one mind; any more, and you start getting factions, even in the absence of political leanings. I can back that up with arguments based on Parkinson's research and Dunbar's Numbers if you like, but Herself's waxing sarcastic about helping with the house cleaning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 25 Sep 22 - 04:14 PM If one lived here they would know the outrage. If one claims that clear concise English makes no sense to them, there are 2 possible explanations, prejudice or dementia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: robomatic Date: 25 Sep 22 - 03:19 PM This is an opinion NOT backed up by the necessary reading and study: Seems to me the Constitutional underpinning in the Dobbs decision is not any more solid (possibly even more handwaving here) than the original 7-2 Roe v. Wade decision. In which case I am changing my life-long opinion that 9 justices is enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Sep 22 - 08:18 PM So it seems that some Republicans, not content with merely criminalising abortion, are also intent on criminalising IVF and even have their sights on contraception. From the Guardian: US anti-abortion extremists are already waging war on IVF (Arwa Mahdawi) Where's the outrage, yanks?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 22 Aug 22 - 11:22 PM Abortion barriers lead women to self-harm, study finds |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 22 Aug 22 - 07:23 AM http://fulltext.scholarena.co/History-of-Nazi-Dental-Gold-From-Dead-Bodies-till-Swiss-Bank.php The Muslims hate the Hindus and the Hindus hate the Muslims the protestants hate the Catholics and everybody hates the Jews...lets hear it for national brotherhood week... Dehumanizing goes farther than most people can imagine. It starts low and slow and escalates rapidly. Many people have heard that freshly killed Jews from the pesticide Zyklon B were then inspected for gold teeth removal. It was very lucrative doing business with Switzerland since the richemarke was not a global legal tender. What people do not know is that nazis discovered that other orifices were also searched for valuable items, including the anus of men and the vagina for women. Special forceps were made for these searches. This was not work the Germans found appealing so it was given to slave Jewish labor. This was a dark and shitty process. Reversing Roe Wade is not described as dehumanizing by the white nationalists. I say it obviously is. Dehumanizing women leads to dehumanizing all the fascist enemies. It is not an isolated event and will expand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Aug 22 - 10:40 AM Yes and potential abortion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 22 - 09:33 AM The potential result of a ripped condom would be pregnancy. Duh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Aug 22 - 07:11 AM I wonder how many abortions have happened as a result of a torn johnny?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 06 Aug 22 - 07:03 AM The slogans, "My body, my choice" and "A woman's right to choose" are not just about choosing whether to have an abortion. The choices are life choices, including when or whether to have children and how many. If you watch the UK TV show called Long Lost Family you will see real-life women who had to make possibly the most difficult choice in their lives on whether to have the baby or give him/her up for adoption and then they had to live with that choice for the rest of their lives. Usually there were extremely pressing circumstances which gave them very little real choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 22 - 06:37 AM I see that we're still conflating contraception (good) and abortion (bad) then... One fine day we'll get away from seeing abortion as a lifestyle choice and see it instead for what it is, a failure of education... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 22 - 06:24 AM Hmm. Pre-coffee question marks in that last post! They mean nowt, Dave. And aye, let's focus, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 06 Aug 22 - 06:24 AM I'm looking at the topic in the sense of why women would choose to have an abortion, or use contraception. I'm looking at the impact on women's lives and the choices we can make when we are not faced with the prospect of having lots and lots of children, year after year after year. Theoretically, a woman could have a baby every year, or even more. That's a lot of babies between the start and end of childbearing years. What are the social, emotional and economic impacts on the lives of women when they have choices regarding the number of children they bear in their lives? Nowadays, women and their partners can decide when to have children, how many children to have, and whether/how to fulfill the rest of their life ambitions rather than having to be wholly and solely a mother in their lifetime, whether that suits them or not. And yes, some women do want their prime life ambition to be raising children. The choice for a woman to have a career in pre-contraception times would usually mean not marrying, not having children. The classic image of the spinster. Looking at birth rates in pre- and post-birth control times is a way to look at the consequences on women's lives. The bigger picture. Think about this. If a woman has her first child when she is about 20, then a child every year, and her last child when she is about 40, she has looked after a baby every year for 20 years, and by then the older children may have produced grandchildren and she may be babysitting them too while looking after a baby, some toddlers, some school age kids and some teenagers. If that isn't fulfilling her life goals, then she can't break free of it and do whatever else she wants to do. Abortion isn't just about making the decision to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, it is also about how having a child or not having a child will affect the mother's whole life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Aug 22 - 05:08 AM I still stand by the need for women to be in control of their own bodies and their life choices Absolutely, Helen. So do I. Which is why I am wondering why you are watering down the argument so much by changing the topic to birthrates :-( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 22 - 04:57 AM That's right, Dave. ?? Please continue to be the small, quiet voice that sets aside all the sidestepping bullshit of recent days! I'd love to talk about contraception, fertility rate and population, but not in a Roe v. Wade thread. To swerve the thread in that direction, whilst throwing in a healthy smattering of misandry, is just crackpotism. Thank you Ebbie. I did wonder whether you were being tongue-in-cheek and I called it wrong. I have always respected your measured postings. If there's one person here who doesn't need you to fight my corner with the moderators, Donuel, it's me. Please stop being so patronisingly ridiculous. My word, there are times when your over-inflated view of your own intellect is truly staggering. Have a nice day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 06 Aug 22 - 04:49 AM I haven't looked this up but are there statistics on the number of abortions in the US? I'm wondering whether personal privacy would prevent the stats being made public. I can't imagine someone wanting to shout it from the rooftops. That's kind of why I am referring to the availability of both contraception and abortion, in relation to birth rates. I remember a work colleague back in the mid-'80's, who was in a healthy, long-term relationship, telling me that her preferred choice for ensuring that she wouldn't have babies would be abortion. I diplomatically and quietly stated my thoughts on the matter and I have to admit, I wasn't personally convinced that it seemed a good first choice when contraception was available, but I didn't push my point of view which centres around prevention is better than cure. I also never revealed the conversation to anyone else. It was a private conversation. It doesn't change my point of view on the need for the availability of abortion, especially for medical emergencies or cases such as rape or child sexual abuse, etc. I still stand by the need for women to be in control of their own bodies and their life choices. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Aug 22 - 04:01 AM A real fact is that the birth rate in the US was 1.7 per woman in the US in 2019 and that the abortion rate would have no appreciable effect on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 06 Aug 22 - 03:52 AM For example, this page shows: How China’s population has changed since 1950 with reference to the start and end of the one child policy. This page discusses: 1961: Introduction of the oral contraceptive pill in Australia Yes, you're right. Immigration muddies the statistical waters when looking at population growth. We have - did haved before COVID, that is - a fairly high immigration rate so this page shows a chart of birth rate in Australia since 1935: birth rate After the post-WWII baby boom there is a significant drop to below the 1935 rate from around the time that contraception became available. Note: in my post-grad management degree I studied a statistics module for one semester. I like stats but it's not my main area of interest, though I confess to being a spreadsheet nerd. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 06 Aug 22 - 03:25 AM Thanks Dave, I'm basing my comments on the assumption that the present data for those countries in the developed world where contraception and abortion are relatively commonly used would influence the current birth rate. There would be less births in those countries than in countries where contraception and/or abortion are forbidden or not accepted socially, i.e. where births would occur naturally without intervention prior to or after conception. I tried to find a graph to check whether China's one child policy had an obvious effect on the population increase rate but maybe I didn't look in the right places. I'll keep looking. I'm not fixed on finding the answers I want. I just want to find real facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Aug 22 - 02:50 AM Thanks Helen. The data that I needed was not there though because I used the wrong phrase so sorry for that. I said that the population was decreasing in the developed world, which is untrue because it doesn't allow for migration. I should have said that the birth rate was decreasing in the developed world, which is true. It has no relevance on the topic in question as far as I can see. If the birth rate is less than 2 per woman, which seems to be the case in the US (1.7 in 2019), then abortion will have no effect. I have always been pro choice and against the type of control that the fundamentalists in the US are now excercising. Limiting abortion as they are doing now is wrong, but it is also wrong to claim that it will have a major impact on world birth rates. It does the case against them no favours if your arguments are false. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Ebbie Date: 05 Aug 22 - 11:47 PM Man, this thread has gone down the toilet. Steve Shaw, I must apologize to you. My presenting the case for mandatory vasectomies was proposed tongue in cheek - there is no way I would support any such action, no more than I would back anyone proposing forced closure of a female body's vagina, say. Either would be extreme to the max. Incidentally, I don't consider you to be narcissistic or lacking empathy. I suspect that you are being attacked online in a way that they would never do in person. I may not always understand you or even always agree with your conclusions but I think that in person I would always respect the processes you apply. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 05 Aug 22 - 11:37 PM If you are not for freedom of speech for people you dislike, you are not for freedom at all. You wouldn't know this but in my communication with mods I consistantly insist upon your freedom of speech and denigrate the very concept of cancel culture. Nor is it illegal to lie. It won't change a believer's mind but I sometimes correct the record. If ever there was time to hate men who want to control women's health, today is it. US conservatives, and that includes Supreme Court Justices, are primed to remove the right to use contraceptives next. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 05 Aug 22 - 08:18 PM You could be president of your own nationalist fascist party. Spot on mate. My real last name used to be Shithouse but we changed it to La-trine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 08:10 PM Nothing you ever say is founded on anything other than your own parish-pump Aussie prejudices, Helen. Try looking outward once in a while. And do try to drop the man-hatred occasionally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 05 Aug 22 - 08:05 PM Well, there you go again, buddy. Making unfounded assumptions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 07:33 PM There is no connection, Dave, and the two shithouses here who are trying to divert the conversation are showing a complete lack of understanding. One is a serial man-hater and the other is a serial mushroom-addled eejit. Don't waste your time! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 05 Aug 22 - 07:17 PM The UN says that India is foremost in population growth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 05 Aug 22 - 06:32 PM And then, it depends on how many children are born to that increased population. If in every case two people have two children then the population would rise in a reasonably stable way, but when there are more children, then they grow up and produce more children. For example, if 2 people have 2 children who then have 2 children themselves, the total is 8 (i.e. the couple, their 2 children and 4 grandchildren). If the couple has 9 children then the total is 92 (i.e. the couple, their 9 children and their 81 grandchildren). Take the second example forward a few generations and there will be a population explosion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 05 Aug 22 - 06:06 PM Well Dave, Here is a population graph: Estimates of population evolutio n in different continents between 1950 and 2050, according to the United Nations. The vertical axis is logarithmic and is in millions of people. Any sort of limitation on the number of pregnancies brought to successful term would bring down the population. Limitations can include contraception or abortions or, for example, the one child policy implemented in China between 1980 and 2016, or sexual abstinence, but given the "sexual revolution" of the last century I personally think that that is unlikely in developed countries at least. As one article I read stated, with the overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision in the US it is possible that another item on the political agenda might be constraints on the use of contraceptives. Assuming that a similar number of people continue to have sex at the same or similar rate as at present, the population would be likely to grow in the absence of contraception and/or abortion. There would also be an increase in adoptions or children placed into orphanages. There would be an impact on the social environment, and on government services required. None of this takes into account the emotional, economic and social toll on the parent/s of these children if the pregnancy was unwanted. Personally, I would favour the contraception method where possible, but abortion should be available where needed. That's my opinion. I have strong views on the sanctity of life, but I also have strong views on a woman's right to choose in decisions about her own body and her own life. Personally, I think an effective method to make the Supreme Court judges rethink their decision is to abandon all those unplanned babies on their doorsteps and see how long it takes before they change their minds. (I'm only half serious about that. Think of the poor babies!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Aug 22 - 05:40 PM The population in Europe and the US is on the decline. That seems to have been agreed. So where is the population increasing? I would assume that Africa and Asia are the major contributors but please correct me if I am wrong. In either case, I cannot see a connection between abortions in the USA and the population of the world. Would anyone care to enlighten me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:49 PM The posts from both of you are so beneath contempt that a response would be inappropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:38 PM The ugly truth about abortion prior to it being legal over 50 years ago is the amateur abortion. Even in Roman times there were concoctions that could cause abortions. Sometimes they worked. In my case they didn't. I've mentioned it before to the cessation of discussion except for Jack Campin. Some of us have unusual beginings, some of us were never told. At any rate my prenatal experience reinforces the need for safe effective abortions. Helen, As much as you would like it to be true you can't get empathy from a narcicist or social psychopath. The saying is you can't get blood from a stone. Unnoticed by the narcicist is that they take personally things totally unrelated them because everything is always about them in their mind. People with empathy can be offended or forgive or ignore. Ignoring is fine since there is no cure for who people are. Its only important to warn others to the 20% who are the social psychopaths of the possible dangers. They aren't all dangerous outside their sphere of influence. But they are an annoyance at times. In my case I am a bit of a Loki when dealing with those types. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 05 Aug 22 - 03:48 PM You can see that I wrote the word "contraception" with quotation marks so I was playing with the word to get my point across, but also the term is taken to mean preventing pregnancy however the term for getting/becoming pregnant is "conception" or "conceiving" from the Latin root "con" i.e. "with" and "capio" i.e. I capture. According to Etymology Online the word "conception" in relation to pregnancy was not used until the 14th Century. Other related words are "concept", "inception", "accept", "precept", etc. "Contra", on the other hand means "against" so it has been used to imply actions taken to prevent pregnancy however technically the term perhaps should be "contraconception" which is unnecessarily unwieldy but would mean (action) against conceiving or becoming pregnant. Technically, an abortion is a procedure to prevent birth at full term. My use of the term "contraception" in relation to abortion was technically not correct which is why I used quotation marks and that shows that I was aware of that. Now, Steve, if you would like to stop doing your usual pedantic superiority act about terminology and get back to the topic at hand, that would be nice. I notice that when vasectomy was mentioned, it suddenly became personal to you. Abortion, unwanted pregnancy, and all of the related emotional and social and economic issues is personal to the women experiencing it and the people around them. It's not an impersonal topic for standing on a soapbox and declaiming and theorising. It requires empathy, understanding and social and emotional support for the people experiencing it. You can declaim your theories as much as you like but what I notice is missing from your posts is empathy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 06:53 AM Typos and errors creeping in - I really must try to not do this on my phone without my reading specs... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 05:06 AM No irony, then in the fact that you accuse Bonzo of misogyny (no comment from me on that as I've addressed his post with a serious response already) then lump all men together in misandry. I don't know any men "who think it's all a game," actually. And contraception means action to prevent conception. If you are having an abortion, you've already conceived. The two are not the same thing. I'm not going to argue for the moment "conception" actually takes place, or whether IUDs and morning-after pills are actually devices to procure very early abortions, though I note that some anti-abortionists keep silent about that potential inconsistency. For the second time of asking, let's try to avoid this anti-men sentiment. We don't all treat "it" as a game and we don't all deserve to have enforced vasectomies (actually, none of us do). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:54 AM That was to Bonzo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:53 AM Well you clearly moved in strange circles. Most of those abortions would have been illegal. But they still happened, and that is part of what were discussing here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:52 AM Abortion is "contraception" after the fact. If contraception was more readily available to all women regardless of their socio-economic status then the rate of abortions would drop. I am certain that abortion would not be the first contraceptive choice of the majority of women who have them. If they could have avoided getting pregnant in the first place then there would be less abortions. I repeat the quote from that article: “An unplanned pregnancy can ruin young women economically,” explains Anderson. “We want to develop products that are more accessible to all women. Bringing the number of unplanned pregnancies down is an important step we can take to rebalance the planet.” And Bonzo, just what I expect from you - a sexist, misogynist comment with no empathy or understanding of the issue. It takes two to tango, and men should bear the burden of unwanted pregnancies as well, rather than fulfilling the old saying, "eats, roots, shoots and leaves" and thinking it is all just a game. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Bonzo3legs Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:21 AM I remember many instances of abortions in the 60s following a leg-over in the back of a car!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 22 - 03:54 AM Well if you insist on diverting the topic towards discussing population issues, take a look at this excellent piece on the BBC News website : Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born The increased access to contraception allowing women to control how many children they have, along with the increasing role of women in the workplace, the cost of childcare, etc., have caused the global fertility rate (nothing to do with sperm getting less healthy, etc.) to crash in the last 50 years. Some countries, China and Spain for example, can expect their populations to halve by 2100. In some regards this is not necessarily a good thing. It's a good read. And abortion doesn't get a mention. I asked what discussing population has to do with restricting abortion in America, the supposed theme of this thread. All I have in response so far is sidestepping. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 04 Aug 22 - 09:24 PM I'd be interested to read the scientific studies and articles on which you base your statements. You might like to read this article for a start. There are lots more relevant articles available. Why We Need a Contraception Revolution Section headings in the article: * We have already exceeded the Earth’s predicted carrying capacity—and climate change will make things worse. * To reduce unplanned pregnancies, educate and empower young women and provide them with more contraception choices. “An unplanned pregnancy can ruin young women economically,” explains Anderson. “We want to develop products that are more accessible to all women. Bringing the number of unplanned pregnancies down is an important step we can take to rebalance the planet.” * New contraception approaches could help reduce healthcare costs, save human lives, and preserve Earth’s natural resources for future generations. * New contraception concepts are already emerging. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Aug 22 - 08:41 PM The driver of population increase, or slowdown, is birth rate. There are many factors that affect birth rate which have been well-documented. Abortions scarcely impact on that at all. If you make abortion illegal, there will be more backstreet abortions. Whether or not abortions are permitted doesn't impact on the overall abortion numbers very much at all. This is a matter of sheer statistics. It's rather difficult to see why this has to be explained to intelligent people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Helen Date: 04 Aug 22 - 07:25 PM Hmm! A connection between population increase and pregnancies? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Aug 22 - 06:01 PM Perhaps someone here would like to apprise as to what the consideration of world population has to do with the issue of restricting abortions for American women, interesting though it might be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 04 Aug 22 - 04:16 PM The 5 billion increase in population in my life did not come from Italy, US or Japan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Aug 22 - 02:31 PM Average number of children in families in the USA is below 2.0. Significantly lower in Europe (1.3 in Germany, for example) and Japan. Not the result of pressures of starvation. |
.svg){kind=link}