Sam Lowry said:
Jinx 2 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Jinx 2 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Jinx 2 said:
Booray said:
Sam Lowry said:
Booray said:
ATL Bear said:
Booray said:
Count me in on the free birth control.
Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?
I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.
Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.
Even though such a consensus would mean overturning Roe?
If you couple free contraception with other social programs designed to protect women after the birth (paid maternity leave/means tested subsidized daycare) I think I could be convinced that outside of rape/incest/serious risk cases, abortion should be outlawed.
1. Sam doesn't think any form of contraception should ever be legal. He considers women who use contraception that's not Natural Family Planning (where the woman gets to test her vaginal mucus every day and the burden is largely on her and she gets to tell hubs "not tonight, honey, I'm fertile" if the couple isn't ready for another child) are "shunning childbirth." Unfettered reproduction or, as one acceptable alternative, celibacy, or, as the only other acceptable alternative, understanding that every time you have sex, a pregnancy may result, are the only legitimate options, in the view of Catholic fundies. How many women want to live like that? How many men?
2. The men on this site have such contempt for women, particularly those who are single and working, they don't support spending any money, regardless of its source, on funding paid maternity leave and subsidizing day care. Some of these guys think women should be home-schooling the kids and are hoping, like Rick Santorum, to convert the school system into vouchers so they can subsidize the Dugger lifestyle. it's a strategy akin to what the FLDS Mormons call "bleeding the beast" and how they got the government to help pay for religious indoctrination by the likes of Warren Jeffs in the form of "school" in FLDS compounds where 13- and 14-year-old girls were "married" to Jeffs and raped (on tape, which is why Jeffs is now leading the FLDS faithful from the federal pen).
Wrong, for the hundredth time.
My apologies. I did something to you that I hate for people, especially on this site, to do for me: stated your opinion for you.
Let me be clear that (1) above is my understanding of your views on abortion and contraception based on years of sparring. You once said the way you would reduce/stop contraception is to eliminate access. This thread has focused on increasing access to contraception at the same time access to abortion is eliminated. Do you support that? And if not, why?
I think I'm right about (2) above. Lots of sexist posts on this site, all the time. I wouldn't want to be a younger woman posting here. Some posters have stated that they don't believe women should have leading roles in churches or anywhere else; some have accepted the "umbrella" model where God is at the top, with the husband/father underneath him, with the mother and children under the umbrella of his protection and guidance, that I was taught in Campus Crusade for Christ in the 1970s, as God's model.. You and Canada have both stated that women shouldn't be priests. I think there's ample evidence that this model sets the stage for domestic abuse of women and children and for the kind of abuse that has undermined the Catholic Church's control over government in Ireland. It's out of balance and unhealthy.
At the same time, there's all sort of sexual innuendo aimed at women posted on this site all the time. Fewer posters now joke about "doing the nasty," but that used to be a topic of conversation all the time. Sometimes this site felt like a locker room. One poster said AOC would be "fun in the sack." That's a gross way of undermining her legitimacy as anything other other than someone to f--k. And women who do the nasty are roundly condemned because there's still the attitude that "men can't help themselves" (when the fact is, men often don't bear any consequences of illicit sex) and women are thus solely responsible for controlling sex. Laws that require even rape victims to bear the children of their rapists imply that the woman was / is either complicit or responsible for her own assault, whether or not that's what's intended. And there's enough canard out there like Todd Akins' "legitimate rape" with the idea that a woman's body can "shut things down" if assaulted that at least some men appear to think women have a supernatural form of control over ovulation and implantation.
I said I would eliminate access to contraceptives with the potential to destroy fertilized eggs. More research is needed to determine which ones are in that category. Lately I'm more of the opinion that the Pill should be eliminated regardless. I haven't and wouldn't go so far as to say that no form of contraception should ever be legal. I don't support increasing access for a couple of reasons. First, while abortion rates are at their lowest since Roe v. Wade, they are still relatively high and will likely remain so as long as the focus is on contraception. Humans are designed to reproduce, and no amount of technology or marketing will change that. Second, contraception has had devastating effects on marriage and the family completely apart from its relationship to abortion. This isn't just a "belief." It's an opinion supported by significant evidence in the social sciences.
It's been highly convenient for opponents of the male priesthood to assume the structure of the Church hierarchy somehow inevitably leads to abuse. In fact there's little if any evidence to support that. The John Jay report points to other factors, as does the prevalence of abuse in public schools and other institutions.
I have nothing but disdain for much of what men say and do to women, on this board and elsewhere. That's about all there is to say about that.
What "devastating effects" has contraception had on marriage and the family?
One effect is that women (and men) can wait until later to marry but still be sexually active. Most religions view sex outside of marriage as immoral, but that has never stopped it from happening. And not being forced to marry young for no other reason than the desire to have sex is a positive for people who aren't religious.
Another is that women are less likely to be trapped in abusive marriages for economic reasons. Men who married young because they wanted sex and then ended up with several children to support within a few short years created situations in which men became wife and child abusers and women were trapped because they had no skills and no means to support themselves and their children.
Another is that children in smaller families get more parental attention, and parents have more to invest in them. There's a relatively small privileged class of people who can bribe their kids' way into the Ivy League for whom this is a negative--I'd put the Trump juniors in that class. But it's a net positive for kids in middle class or low-income homes who have a better chance at success.
As for your "disdain," you support Donald Trump, a serial adulterer with a long history of calling women crude and mean names, referring to menstrual cycles in crude terms to describe the behavior of, for example, Megyn Kelly, serial adultery, payoffs to porn stars. Not to mention his abusive behavior toward families and children--which is viewed as OK because they're foreign nationals seeking asylum from gang violence and failed states. Supporting policies that benefit only white American families is a form of racism and the height of hypocrisy. Do you think God discriminates among families that are brown, black and white in HIs support? How would he view a policy of literally kidnapping kids at the border and losing them in the foster-care system? A certain parable about a lost sheep comes to mind.
I don't see you calling out his behavior or the behavior of other men on this site for which you express disdain. What you tolerate with no objection or ignore because that's the most convenient stance, you support. In that, the GOP has totally lost any credibility as the party of moral superiority.
Sex isn't just a religious issue. Contraception contributes to higher rates of divorce, infidelity, and illegitimacy, which are real-world problems for people and society.
I don't know that Trump treats women any worse than your friend Bill Clinton, and he may not even treat them as badly. These ad hominem rants are entirely hypocritical and unconvincing.
I'd like to see any objective studies that indicate that contraception is the SOLE factor in higher rates of divorce, infidelity and illegitimacy. If contraception does contribute to higher rates of divorce or more illegitimacy, it's because its availability allows women to gain skills that ensure they aren't forced into marriage for economic reasons (and also to avoid shame) and that they don't have to remain trapped in marriages that are unrewarding and abusive. (I'm reading Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson, who treated his wife like a servant even early in their marriage while having an affair with Alice Glass, the mistress of one of Johnson's patrons; most women today wouldn't tolerate such a marriage.)
In all of your posts, you dance around the fact that costraception greatly increases life choices for women. Do you view the fact that contraception gives women a way out of abusive or unrewarding marriages and also gives women who do not want to be celibate, but also want to pursue rewarding careers, a means to do that, as a negative? If so, why?
Finally, bad dodge of whataboutism. Clinton remained married to one women throughout his career. (Why she tolerated his infidelity is a good question, but that's her/their business.) I don't ever recall hearing him badmouth women as Trump has done. His sins were more private, for whatever reason; one is that it was frankly much harder for women to come forward about sexual harassment and assaults. Anita Hill comes to mind; women watched the Washington political male meat grinder mince a credible woman whose career success speaks to her personal integrity and realized if they wanted to succeed, they were going to have to put up and shut up. Trump not only exists in the "Me, Too" era, his "grab them by the pu--y" braggadocio helped bring it on. Women were so frankly disgusted that Americans would elect a serial sexual predator like Trump, who used his money and power to gain partners like Stormy Daniels, for whom an experience with Trump was transactional and a down payment on a tell-all book, that they revolted, bringing down Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Les Moonves, Charlie Rose and others, including Al Franken, whose sins were g-rated compared to those of the other men on this list and Trump, whose dalliance with Stormy Daniels occurred soon after his son with Melania was born. You could ask the same question about why Melania puts up with it as I did about why Hillary put up with it. But conservatives fault Hillary and don't fault Melania for turning a blind eye to adultery. There's a nice double standard.
Clinton was at least a smart guy, a capable president with a high approval rating, and a savvy politician globally. Trump, not so much of any of that.
And Clinton's supporters NEVER claimed to exemplify what has come to be known as "family values," but which is more akin to your stance of limiting women's opportunities to family duties as much as possible. They supported expanded contraception and healthcare access and complete choice for women. Trump opposed those things politically while privately engaging in behavior that requires women to have access contraception and abortion. The GOP has lost all credibility as a party of moral values by lining up behind Trump's "do as I say, not as I do/did" platform of adopting positions his base supports that are contrary to his personal behavior throughout his life.
Interested to see your sources on how contraception hurts women and contributes to higher rates of divorce. Note that countries with lower birthrates and more women in the workforce do a lot better economically. Since the economy is another mainstay of the GOP platform, positions that undermine access to abortion and contraception are the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face. States with the strict abortion laws and that teach abstinence as the only option for unmarried teens and adults will inevitably have worse economies.
