So here I am. The waters have retreated and I’m standing on dry beach, and all these new people are standing around and near me. I’m being welcomed, and it all seems very friendly. I want to let my guard down. I really do. But damn, folks, it’s HARD.
Recently, I had a conversation with Chris about birth control. We all know that “just don’t have sex” doesn’t work, and hasn’t worked since before written history. I was explaining that to me, it just makes sense that if you want a low abortion rate (which I do), then the answer is to have effective, inexpensive, low side-effect birth control. Preferably, you want several types, too, so that people have choices, and so that men and women both can be involved in being responsible.
I pointed out that there are many people on the Right who advocate eradicating both abortion AND birth control, and I want to know why. Why is that so important, to remove birth control from people? It makes no sense to me.
I admit, I may have said to Chris that a good portion of unwanted babies (via rape and incest, for example) all have come about because of men. Women don’t rape men and then get upset over getting pregnant (or there are so few that I’ve not only never read about it, I’ve never even heard a whisper about it) and become so emotional that they require an abortion. That makes men the problem. This is, of course, a grand simplification of the issue and removes franchise from women, which is not cool. But the idea is there, and it’s not a wrong idea, it’s just that it’s too vague as currently stated. Chris’s response was, of course, that men who commit incest or diddle little girls should be fed through a wood chipper on low speed, feet first, wearing a tourniquet. I heartily agree with him on that one.
But that doesn’t address the birth control issue. The worst part is, I don’t even really know how to ask the question, or what to say to get a reasonable (ie truthful, meaningful, statistically relevant) answer. How many people on the Right are interested in legislating or otherwise taking away the right to use birth control? This is not a question about paying for it, by the by. I know there’s insurance issues and all that. That’s not a part of what I’m after here. For the purposes of this line of questioning, you can assume that everyone pays up front cash for their birth control. How do I find out whether the Left is correct about this issue?
Now, I know some of you are going to say, “The Left opened their mouths, therefore they’re lying.” You’re probably correct. But HOW are you correct? And how correct are you? I have personally heard enough Right leaning politicians make negative commentary about birth control that I know there’s a nugget of truth in there. Is that all it is? A handful of malcontents that the rest of the party just ignores? Or is it more of a grass roots movement that might, under the right circumstances, catch fire and burn me and mine?
What makes all this even worse, for me, is that Plan B (which is a type of abortion, let’s be blunt and honest here) is being equated with birth control. They are not the same. I do not have an issue with Plan B, or how it works, but it’s not birth control in the way that most people mean it (ie the Pill, condoms, spermicide, IUDs, etc.). And since I’ve mentioned it, many of the anti-abortion groups are also incredibly anti-IUD. Of course, many of those are also anti-birth control as well.
I just don’t understand a lot of this. I realize some of my confusion may be because of my Left viewpoint, but I really am trying to understand. If you want less pregnancies, you either stop having sex, or you use birth control. Those are the only two options, folks. Am I missing something?
In the history of the universe as we know it, stopping having sex has never worked. Statistically speaking, it’s one of the worst failures on record. In case you would like stats on that, here’s some information:
- Funding for Abstinence Only Education (Nat’l Library of Medicine)
- Abstinence Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates (PLOS One)
- Abstinence and Abstinence Only Education (Journal of Adolescent Health)
That leaves us with birth control. Yet the loudest voices out there are the ones that are yelling to get rid of birth control, AND to stop abortions and teen pregnancies and and and…
It’s just not logical.
The squeaky wheel always gets the grease. The loudest voices are always heard more than the quiet ones. I understand that. And I understand that the Right doesn’t decry people under its umbrella as much as the Left does, when people get “out of line” so to speak. I have to ask, though… If many of those on the Right are in support of birth control and against abortion, why aren’t at least a few of those people picking up a bullhorn and letting everyone know?
Some of the problem is that the Left does a lot of the reporting. They want the Right to look bad, so they focus on the (presumably) few that are making noise about banning birth control. This makes the Right look bad, and the Left is happy. Usually when it’s something like this, though, where it’s the reporters that are causing it, I can look around and find news from the Right that has information that’s much more balanced or nuanced or just plan sane. But I can’t find it. It’s been suggested to me that this is a matter of “no one on the Right cares about it and therefore we don’t talk about it, so when the Left reports on it, we sound like we don’t care.” Basically, it’s not something that the Right focuses on and so there’s no “party line,” but it sounds like the Right is all about banning birth control when the Left lights it up. I don’t know. Again, this is really confusing to me.
Birth control is of interest to everyone. Where abortion can be clearly pointed at as a question of morals (no matter when, at SOME point that egg and sperm unite and become a baby), birth control actively prevents the egg and sperm uniting. Both men and women (should) have an equal interest in birth control. It’s a legitimate health issue. It’s safe, which we know after almost 100 years of pretty much constant use. Why isn’t this a party prerogative, or at least something that’s discussed as a valid method to lower the abortion rate? I know for me, every time someone says they want to stop abortions, I suggest that they use birth control or stop having sex, because both those things stop abortions effectively.
I’m happy that Trump has definitively said that he personally supports early abortions (which he declined to define, but said that Florida’s six week ban was a bit too short a time because many women don’t know they’re pregnant at the six week point), that he will always support whatever’s needed for those who’ve suffered rape or incest. That isn’t speaking for the party, though. Trump, if he wins, is going to be in office for four years. What about the folks that come after him? I need to know what they’re thinking, and they’re just not speaking about it.
Someone, please, use a bullhorn and talk to me (if not everyone else left of you) about this topic.
Comments
20 responses to “Confusion, Caution, Concern”
the left started screaming when roe v wade was “overturned”.. all it did was move control(if you will) of abortion back to individual states.. I have never heard of any republicans wanting to “ban birth control”..ever. some religious don’t like birth control but even that has faded. personally birth control should have zero involvement of ANY gubmint individuals or groups… it should be between individuals. you may find some republicans have said they don’t like gubmint funding “planned parenthood” and that could be twisted to mean “ban birth control”… many “issues” screamed about today I ignore as they are distractions and divisive tatics. the older I get the less I want to be around ANY people..
Overturning RvW was definitely a moment. I was taken aback, until I went and read the actual original case law, at which point I realized it was horrendously worded. Something better than RvW needed to be in place, or nothing needed to be in place. Giving it back to the States seems reasonable to me.
Now, people on the Left feel that you shouldn’t have to go looking out of state for “health care”. But the bottom line is, we’ve always had to do that. I have to drive over an hour to get my toe dealt with. My sister had to drive three hours to get her knee replaced. I’ve had to go out of state for dentistry. When RvW came into place, it WAS difficult for a woman to go from state to state to get care. Today, that is not the case.
Texas is pushing that particular line, in my very angry opinion. Texas has local ordinances that prohibit the use of county roads to transport people out of state for an abortion. However, women still have the right to travel to other states where abortion is legal. The question is, can you actually GET out of state without using those county roads? That’s more complicated than trying to figure out what states you can carry in. Having to know specific *roads* you can drive on? Come on. Either we’re leaving it to the states, or we’re not. I have real issues with this Texas law.
I know that a lot of people got upset because Republicans didn’t pass the “right to contraception” bill from a few months ago, but I know why that happened. It’s because it included Plan B and a couple of other things, including the chemical abortion regime.
Recently, I found out that Plan B doesn’t actually cause an abortion, by the way. I didn’t know that until today. Plan B prevents the egg from implanting (and one is not actually pregnant until implantation, something all doctors agree on, otherwise every woman would be committing murder every time she had a period). If a woman is already pregnant (meaning the egg has implanted itself in her womb), Plan B does nothing at all. So I now include Plan B as birth control. Chemical abortion is still most definitely not birth control, however.
This article (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/04/kat-cammack/gop-talking-point-suggests-birth-control-not-risk-/) really talks fairly openly about some of the things I’ve been concerned about. IUDs seem to be a hot topic in some states. Six states: Oklahoma, Idaho, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas. All have attempted (and not succeeded, at least anyhow) in banning IUDs. While you might say that since they didn’t succeed, I don’t need to worry about it… that’s kind of like saying that since a state didn’t succeed in banning firearm sales, we don’t need to keep an eye on them. I might not need to *panic* but I do need to be aware.
Texas has plenty of State Highways and IIRR about five interstates.
The only way they’d know you were on a CR is if you got stopped and it came out that you were on the way to get an abortion. (Kinda like the kerfluffle about trans in the BR. if you’re a chick, you’re going to be in a stall anyways)
Also, so I don’t have to log in for another comment-
I don’t have a problem with birth control (I wish the youngest would have used it 15 years ago, but there we are….) or Plan B.
What I have a problem with is the sadistic way the Left takes glee in tearing a baby apart with no kind of pain control.
That’s what I thought, however… I really don’t want to be driving with a pregnant woman (on the way to *whatever*) and be stopped and treated like an empty casing floating in the back of your truck is treated in Massachusetts. If you get my drift.
At this point, I would not go into Texas with a pregnant person or to visit a pregnant person, at least in the areas that are currently being asses about transportation across state lines. I don’t want to become a test case. The worst part (imo) is that the laws are written in a way in which *no one* has standing, so no one can fight against it.
OK, on the birth control front.
I do not know of a single person who wants to outlaw birth control. Nor can I name a single politician that supports it. They are, for the most part OK with condoms, IUDs, the “pill”, everything up to abortifacients. (The Plan B, Day After pill). I am sure there are some that are adamant any form of birth control is a sin, but they are such a small fringe element they are ignorable. (In my opinion.)
And, you hit the nail on the head there. The problem between the right and the left comes down to terminology. The left calls the day after abortion pills “birth control.” The right calls them abortions. And, that difference is amplified for political purposes. A few years back, Hobby Lobby got into the shi**er with the news media because they are a Christian run company, and did not want their insurance to cover abortifacients. They were perfectly OK with insurance covering some 59-60 of the named drugs, but the three/four abortifacients were not OK. But, the news… it was all Hobby Lobby hates women because they will not allow their insurance to cover birth control.
I would be curious. What politicians are pushing to outlaw birth control? I cannot actually name one, but I do see a LOT of headlines that claim there are a lot of Republicans trying to ban access to birth control. When you actually look at the article, it is about public funding, or not allowing mail order of abortifacients. (A position I fully support, as those drugs can cause uncontrollable bleeding and other deadly side effects.)
>> I do not know of a single person who wants to outlaw birth control. Nor can I name a single politician that supports it. They are, for the most part OK with condoms, IUDs, the “pill”, everything up to abortifacients. (The Plan B, Day After pill). << There's at least one Republican in each of the six states I mentioned above to curby, who have attempted to get IUDs banned. I doubt they're alone. I found out more about Plan B (which came out long after I needed to be concerned with such things), again up in my response to curby. 🙂 >> And, you hit the nail on the head there. The problem between the right and the left comes down to terminology. The left calls the day after abortion pills “birth control.” The right calls them abortions. And, that difference is amplified for political purposes. << Exactly. That's partly why I changed Plan B to actually being contraception. It doesn't cause an abortion, full stop. It does the same thing that the Pill does, IUDs do, etc.: it stops implantation. No implantation means no pregnancy, therefore no abortion. I think we need to have some very strict, medical definitions for all of these things. Right now, "abortion" seems to cover everything from the IUD and Plan B through to surgical late term abortion and beyond, as well as actual emergency terminations due to immanent death of the mother. Maybe we need doctors to sit down and discuss the categories. Category A includes contraception, defined as "things which prevent pregnancy from happening." This includes all barrier methods (condoms, etc), the Pill, the shot, the patch, IUDs, Plan B, and any future methods that prevent implantation of the egg in the uterus. Category B includes early and mid-term fetal removal methods, defined as "removing an implanted egg or fetus, aka abortion." This includes chemical, suction, and dilation and cuterage methods of removal. Category C includes late term removal methods, defined as "the purposeful removal of a 15+ week fetus due to maternal health issues, aka emergency D&C." This would only be used when the mother's health was at immanent risk, and then only at the mother's insistence. This category would also include any removal method used to save a mother's life wherein the pregnancy was accidentally terminated. Removal of the fetus at any point past the 15th week should not be referred to as abortion, and should instead be referred to as "saving the life of the mother." Of course, that's just me. I suspect the majority of people on the Right would be okay with that. I suspect the majority of people on the Left would be okay with that. A few on either side would consider it too much/ not enough respectively, but once terms are made by medical personnel, and this kind of thing is made into a Bill, I am guessing it would pass quickly. The loud minorities can go back to picketing abortion clinics or whatever. Oh, and abortions and all related removals of a fetus MUST happen at a hospital. Good freakin' lord I was upset when I found out Americans get this stuff done in offices with no oversight and poorly trained technicians. As to birth control pills and insurance, I just don't get the upset. If you're just using birth control for "not getting pregnant," then pretty much any one of them will do. The cost is about $20 a month, maybe $30 if you get one of the triphasic ones (a valid concern for some people with PCOS and such). If you're using birth control pills because of a health concern, and need a specific one, then an exception could be made. Insurance doesn't need to cover my pills anymore than it needs to cover a man's condoms. The cost just isn't that high, and for the small minority who actually cannot afford it, there are plenty of clinics where you can get them for free (pills, patches, and condoms). If someone needs something medically (and yes, the BC pill is used medically for some things, like for treating peri-menopause symptoms in women of a certain age), that should be required to be covered by insurance, provided that insurance covers other medications for similar issues. And no, I do not support mail order pills. I don't support mail order birth control pills, either. As with other prescribed medications, you should have to go talk to your doctor about getting them. Maybe a script could last for 3 years instead of 1, or even 5 years for younger women... but going to see a doc to get that script is, imo, very important.
Terminology again.
A conservative saying IUDs should be banned is a safe distance from banning all birth control. For a while there, IUDs were not readily available because of severe side effect potential.
While I do not agree with banning IUDs, I do think their use should be under strict doctor supervision. That opinion is based on information from decades ago, so if my fears are unfounded, I am good with it. See the doctor because the side effects can be life changing.
Back to the point of the post.
The issue is the folks on the left are grouping every form of birth control together and insinuating that a politician that wants to ban mail order abortifacients (with very good reasons) wants to ban “birth control.”
I see it, have been for years. And, I am glad to see others are, including a reformed leftie like yourself.
Okay… I provided several names, and there are a number more. So it’s a “real” thing. IUDs of *one brand* were taken off the shelf because they were poorly made and turned into little guillotines inside women’s bodies. It was a single brand, the Dalkon Shield, and it was pulled from the market in 1974 (https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/dalkon-shield). That was seriously bad, especially because bad advertising on someone’s part made a lot of women feel that ALL IUDs were bad, which was just not true. Frankly, today IUDs are pretty much the safest and most effective method of preventing pregnancy available, with a failure rate that ranks about the same as sterilization (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557403/). Obviously not all women can (or want to) use them, so choices should be there.
Doctors need to be there to put in and take out an IUD. There should be one post-operative visit, a few weeks after getting an IUD, to be sure it’s placed properly and staying where it needs to be, and that no issues are happening because of it. Once that happens, a patient need not see the doc until it needs to come out (ranging from 3 to 10 years depending on the type and brand).
I think I may have a bit of an answer here. This is in no way a criticism of any religion, and I hope not to offend. I attended an all girl Catholic high school back in the late 60s when free love, hippies and do your own thing was, well, the thing. I remember one of the nice Church ladies teaching our “Christian Marriage” class. The nuns did not teach that class (or deal with such issues), so they brought in married ladies from the parish. I remember being told that good girls (and of course you want to be a good girl) wait for marriage as that is God’s will. Then after marriage God will give you a baby when He feels the time is right. Sex before marriage would result in the burden (not to mention sin and humiliation) of an unwanted baby, because you went against God’s will. Using contraceptives – obviously – went against God’s will because He would decide, not you, when to have a baby or not. (I know… don’t try to figure it out or you will get a headache.) I would not be surprised if a lot of the conservative anti-contraceptive folk are still working with this theory. I was starting to pull away from the Catholic church around this time in my life and started thinking on my own and asking questions that gave the nuns gray hair (why?, why not). So yes, now at 72 years of age, I strongly support contraception… informed use, inexpensive and without judgement or stigma. I support abortion for a damned good reason. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Abortion is NOT a contraceptive.
Yeah, I went to public school (in another country even) and got those talks. Of course, mine included, “You don’t want to get pregnant now, because it would interfere with your career!” Good grief.
And yes, I think you’re right that some of the anti-contraception folks are using that line of thinking. Did you know that the BC pill has a “week off” to allow menstruation because of the Catholic Church? It’s not medically necessary (and in fact, can be medically complicating in a statistically relevant number of women), but in order to get the church to “agree” to it, they put that week in. Oy.
I’m all for contraception. Having found out how Plan B works, I now consider it to be contraception as well, and am all for it (I was before as well, but that’s my own opinion). But yeah, abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. We’ll never get rid of it… women have been doing it for thousands of years. Banning it simply makes it unsafe and illegal. But there should be limits, yes, and there should be a push for birth control.
Long time republican here (the small “L” libertarians left me long ago). I have always believed the Plan B type meds should be right next to the Tums and asprin on the shelf at the local convivence store. The only involvement the govt. should have is to make sure they are safe.
I’ve never had a problem with Plan B because I knew it was only effective in the first ten days or so. I’m a lot more of an advocate now that I understand how it works (by preventing implantation, aka pregnancy, and not by inducing abortion, aka the removal of an implanted egg or fetus). The fact that Plan B is neither an abortifacient, nor dangerous (doesn’t cause excessive bleeding, etc) does make me think it belongs OTC but behind the counter.
I sure am puzzled by the notion that “there are many people on the Right who advocate eradicating both abortion AND birth control”. I know some religions frown on birth control, which means that believers are supposed not to participate. But in the US that does not translate to advocating the outlawing of birth control, and I have heard nothing that suggests such a thing is being seriously proposed, much less risks being adopted.
Check some of the stuff I said to curby up top. IUDs are definitely being targeted. At this point, having used several “dark” browsers and extensive (several hours) research, I’m willing to say that I can’t find anyone advocating ditching the Pill. But IUDs are definitely a form of birth control and there are six states who have leaders who made efforts to ban them. That’s enough to cause me concern.
Hi Allyson,
What I am about to write is probably destined to be moderated into oblivion, ridiculed by others, or decried as “ist” in its message. Bear with me and see it all through, it may help you understand.
1) Can you cite anyone on the right that has called for the removal of legitimate birth control items (excepting abortifacients, as you did in your post)? If you can’t, what’s the issue? It’s not like the leftist media is above inventing evidence or an alleged anonymous source to push their viewpoint and rile their base. Definitions matter as CBMT mentioned. The left likes to change definitions to suit their purpose so abortifacients become “birth control” no different than illegal aliens becomes “immigrants”.
2) if you can provide citations, are you compelled to agree with them? It’s no different than your concern about MTG’s moonbattery and being associated.
Since you asked, let’s explore (brace yourself and bear in mind I’m the messenger, I may or may not agree with what I found); it may be deeper and more controversial than you think. Look at society today. Many on the conservative side of the spectrum see extreme excesses. Think Pride month and the graphic celebrations, seemingly intended to offend or drag queen story hour. I find both excessive although I have zero issue with an adult doing adult things that don’t run afoul of decency laws on the books. What led to those types of excesses occurring? Depending on how deep you search, it has been argued that the dissolution of the nuclear family led to those excesses.
“Ok, what led to said dissolution?” It likely wasn’t welfare, as some have posited, since that has been around since FDR’s time. It has been argued that the discovery and marketing of hormonal birth control (BC) led to the destruction of the nuclear family. If one were to plot adoption of BC along with the incidence of divorce, an interesting observation is readily apparent: the number of women using the pill increased exponentially from around 1963-1973. Divorces took an exponential leap from 1973-1975. I’ll admit that correlation does not equal causation; I’ve searched for other studied factors that could explain the explosion in divorce rates, but came up with nothing that adequately explains it. Sure, other factors contribute to varying degrees; but, in my estimation, when viewed in totality, it appears to be caused by BC. When did the era of free love that Kat mentioned occur? After BC was made available…
“Great Sarin, but that doesn’t relate to my post about outlawing BC.” When boiled down to its essence, there were social stigmas attached to single motherhood before the advent of hormonal birth control, which were, generally, an effective deterrent to sexual behavior. Your sources focus solely on abstinence education, which altogether avoid societal tolerance, acceptance or even celebration of overt sexualization of our children. Any education program is worth less than used toilet paper if not reinforced at home and within society as a whole. When a person is able to control their biological urges, they’re likely to control the other, less difficult aspects in their life. While possibly far fetched, the above may adequately explain the extremest views on BC that may or may not exist.
The above not withstanding, conservatism, at its core, is about trying to balance modernity and conserve the values upon which this country was founded. That’s no simple task and there’s no one correct answer.
I’m Jewish, so I’ll compare it to observance in Jews as it makes sense to me in this way. The most observant are the ultra orthodox. They’re trying to live to the letter of the law as written in the Old Testament. Then you have modern orthodox. They’re observant, but make minuscule accommodations for today’s world. Next up are conservative Jews, they are trying to balance modern life and conserve the traditions of the faith. Reform Jews are next. They’re trying to live up to their name and reform the religion to fit into modern times. Then Reconstructionist Jews. Theyre trying to rebuild the religion to fit their views and society. Lastly there are the secularists, who are Jews in name only.
I fall between the modern orthodox and conservative Jewish spectrum. Of the conservative Jews I know, some keep strict kosher. Some keep a kosher home, but will occasionally eat stuff that’s off limits when outside the home. Others will get down on pork and shellfish without hesitation. Political conservatism is similar. You can sort of mix and match.
If I’m accused of being a fake conservative, my thought is to debate, in good faith. If I lose, I’m conservative enough to admit it and consider how to incorporate it into my worldview. I would expect the same of any conservative.
Anyhow, that’s enough of my rambling. I do hope it helps you to feel a bit more welcome to let your guard down on this side.
Sarin, were you a dick? NO. Did you attack Allyson? NO. Did you state your opinion? YES. Did you state your opinion firmly? YES. Did you reference facts? YES.
There is nothing in your post that would cause me to think your post needed to be moderated. Ally almost never moderates.
You are good. Thank you for your comments!
“What I am about to write is probably destined to be moderated into oblivion, ridiculed by others, or decried as “ist” in its message.”
Not at all. I might not agree with you on every point, but it was politely written, and didn’t malign anyone. That’s the definition of on point. Thank you for posting, I appreciate the feedback.
“Can you cite anyone on the right that has called for the removal of legitimate birth control items (excepting abortifacients, as you did in your post)?”
Kevin West, OK – against IUDs and possibly other forms (the Bill is being rewritten, or so I understand, due to concerns about making lists of women and their health care data, which was decried by pretty much everyone on the panel hearing it): (https://www.fox23.com/news/new-abortion-bill-would-also-restrict-contraceptives-iuds-and-create-an-abortion-database/article_16657b96-cba7-11ee-99fd-032cd643a12c.html)
Kari Lake, AZ – against IUDs, has stated that since life begins at conception (not implantation), basically everything should be banned that interferes with the process of pregnancy. (Ignore the fear mongering about the so called right to conception act, and read the actual information: https://www.americansforcontraception.org/take-action/states/arizona)
Rita Flemming, IN – prevented IUDs from being included in a HB 1426 (https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2024/bills/house/1426/details) to allow hospitals to offer women on Medicade long acting birth control because she believed and stated that IUDs cause abortions (important because IUDs are indicated in some women more than subdural BC for many reasons, and IUDs do not cause abortions – https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2024/03/01/four-myths-about-house-bill-1426/)
I could spend another hour here… I don’t want to. I think I’ve made my point on IUDs, and I have previously admitted that I’m not seeing the stink over the Pill anywhere.
“if you can provide citations, are you compelled to agree with them?”
I’m not *compelled* to agree with them, no. But I do worry, and I believe it’s a legitimate worry. IUDs have many uses, with avoiding pregnancy being only one. And I do worry about the “slippery slope” that we also worry about in 2A cases. If we give in to this, does it mean that we’ll also have to give in to that, later?
As you can see by the names above, there are legitimate people who are speaking against IUDs and IVF, pumping up “fetal personhood,” and identifying the moment of conception as the moment when life starts. The reason that I have a strong negative reaction to all this, is that if you have fetal personhood, and definite conception as the start of life, then women across the globe are guilty of “murdering” their “children” every month when their fertilized egg doesn’t implant. And yes, there is ample proof that it happens 30 to 50% of the time (https://www.shreeivfclinic.com/blogs/symptoms-of-failed-implantation-of-fertilized-egg/#:~:text=Failed%20implantation%20is%20relatively%20common,even%20realizes%20she%20is%20pregnant.).
I don’t have a problem with Pride month, and rather enjoy it now that the alphabet soup people have stopped dissing people who are bi. 🙂 I do have issues with the amount of skin shown at many of the parades. I like what Boston has done, with the separation of adult (ie 21+ with drinking and showing of IDs) and kids, and the parade requiring people to be following all laws about nudity and such. I found the parade and celebration to be fun, and not at all prurient. I’m aghast with the parades that have kink and nudity in them (even though I, an adult, enjoy both those things… I take my kids to these parades and they don’t need to see that).
I run into a lot of disagreement with some of your conclusions, although I agree that the excesses of today seem to match up with the lessening of importance on the family. I don’t say “nuclear” because that’s not a natural thing (a “nuclear family” is very firmly defined as a mother and father living in a home with their children, natural or adopted). It’s something that came about in the 60s, and is not the norm for the human species. We ARE family oriented, but families do not need to be “mom, dad, kids” in order for people to gain benefit from them. The two parent advantage is, however, VERY real (https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-two-parent-advantage) (https://www.npr.org/2023/10/22/1207322878/single-parent-married-good-for-children-inequality)
As to other reasons so many women divorced their husbands when it became legal, try doing searches that include domestic violence in them. That is a much bigger factor than birth control, imo. I’ve done the research before, but am unwilling to spend more time at it right now.
For me, the idea of birth control being demonized means MORE unwanted or single-parent children. The data seems to back me up. Better birth control, more access to birth control, means less babies and less abortions. The numbers just don’t lie. Aspirin between the knees just doesn’t work very well.
Regardless, thank you for sharing. As noted, not anything that would be moderated. Had you not stated that, it would never have crossed my mind, and I spent time looking for something offensive or underhanded and didn’t find it. 🙂
I think the differences in terminology is the biggest problem. You are defining abortion as ending a pregnancy which definitionally begins at implantation. Many on the pro-life side define abortion as destroying a life. Life begins at conception not implantation. The fertilized egg is growing and has divided several times before implantation occurs. If life starts at conception and abortion is the destruction of that life, then plan B, IUDs, and under some circumstances even hormonal BC can logically be considered abortifacients.
Your argument that women are passing fertilized eggs that fail to implant is the same as mechanically or chemically preventing implantation is the same as saying there is no moral difference between surgical abortions and miscarriage. The argument is against the intentionality.
I’m going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one, Chuck. If God (and we probably disagree on that, too, but I do believe in the Divine, so let’s continue…) designs a system where it’s natural and normal for fertilized eggs, aka life, to pass from the body, and we replicate that chemically, it’s not morally different.
If so, I could easily argue that using a rubber is abortion. I could argue that “spilling your seed” is not only a moral sin, but also abortion. I could argue that the use of a gun, which is designed largely to end life, is morally the equivalent of abortion.
A surgical abortion is when a doctor goes in and manually, decidedly chooses to snip the cord connecting mother and child. Even an early abortion is that. While I don’t morally have a problem with it, I am not afraid to face that it IS murder. It ends a life which has begun, and which could have continued were it not interfered with.
Birth control that affects the uterus to make it inhospitable to sperm and egg and implantation stops that connection from ever beginning. There is literally nothing to abort. It’s literally a coin toss whether it would have voided the uterus on its own.
What you appear to be saying above, and I apologize if I’ve misunderstood, is that since the intention was not to get pregnant, anything which prevents pregnancy is therefore an abortifacient. To follow that to its logical conclusion, that would also include praying, putting an aspirin between one’s knees, condoms, every form of birth control ever conceived, douches, and falling down stairs, among other things. I don’t accept that.
Intention is important, but it’s not the be-all, end-all. It’s part of a very large equation, just as much with a firearm as with a penis.
Sorry I wasn’t clear enough. My argument is that it depends upon definitions. Is abortion ending a pregnancy or ending a life through purposeful action. I am talking about the intention to end a life not the intention to not get pregnant.
A fertilized egg that naturally fails to implant is no different than a miscarriage that naturally occurs. It means something went wrong and is not part of the natural design.