Are you worried about the end of reproductive rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the constitution Having a child is a privilege not a right, however children have constitutional right to live. Don't shoot the messenger, you'll need an amendment to change that

None of that is in the Constitution.

Exactly hence the title reproductive rights is some made up thing to sound legitimate

It's like you don't even know the 9th Amendment exists.

Technically, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to realize it either.

It is wise and reasonable to say that you know overwhelmingly more about judicial matters than the Supreme Court justices.

I guess it's more accurate to say that they are blatantly ignoring the 9th and 13th amendments in order to implement their preferred policy positions. But my way is pithier, so.

Of course not, I am absolutely taking your knowledge over Supreme Court justices. Why wouldn’t I? You are superior.

Kind of a low bar, I guess, but thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

Go look at Louisiana where they’ve moving forward with legislation that would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, which would also implicate hormonal birth control (and non-hormonal IUDs) that operate in part by thinning the uterine lining and/or creating a hostile uterine environment to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

If life begins at fertilization and must be protected at all costs, that applies equally to unimplanted embryos.

Except hormonal birth control does not work the way you said. It prevents fertilization, therefore there would be no fertilized egg to get implanting like you incorrectly said.

You need to educate yourself. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

I don’t need to do anything. You need to not tell others what to do.

You’re right. It is your prerogative to wallow in ignorance if you so choose. I will revise the post and repost here:

Your post is factually incorrect and grossly misinformed. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

Go look at Louisiana where they’ve moving forward with legislation that would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, which would also implicate hormonal birth control (and non-hormonal IUDs) that operate in part by thinning the uterine lining and/or creating a hostile uterine environment to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

If life begins at fertilization and must be protected at all costs, that applies equally to unimplanted embryos.

Except hormonal birth control does not work the way you said. It prevents fertilization, therefore there would be no fertilized egg to get implanting like you incorrectly said.

You need to educate yourself. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

Right, with hormonal birth control the egg doesn’t get fertilized. Like you just indicated. Thank you.
I never said anything about iuds.

So you're clearly trolling, but for the people who are reading this thread, to emphasize, hormonal birth control (the Pill) does prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in addition to preventing the egg from fertilizing in the first place. Do not believe lawmakers when they say they are not coming for contraception next.

I’m not anti abortion. I’m not religious either. The pill works to prevent fertilization. It does absolutely nothing after an egg is fertilized. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

Go look at Louisiana where they’ve moving forward with legislation that would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, which would also implicate hormonal birth control (and non-hormonal IUDs) that operate in part by thinning the uterine lining and/or creating a hostile uterine environment to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

If life begins at fertilization and must be protected at all costs, that applies equally to unimplanted embryos.

Except hormonal birth control does not work the way you said. It prevents fertilization, therefore there would be no fertilized egg to get implanting like you incorrectly said.

You need to educate yourself. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

Right, with hormonal birth control the egg doesn’t get fertilized. Like you just indicated. Thank you.
I never said anything about iuds.

BCPs use all three mechanisms, not just the first two. You are deeply misinformed about how birth control works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

Go look at Louisiana where they’ve moving forward with legislation that would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, which would also implicate hormonal birth control (and non-hormonal IUDs) that operate in part by thinning the uterine lining and/or creating a hostile uterine environment to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

If life begins at fertilization and must be protected at all costs, that applies equally to unimplanted embryos.

Except hormonal birth control does not work the way you said. It prevents fertilization, therefore there would be no fertilized egg to get implanting like you incorrectly said.

You need to educate yourself. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

Right, with hormonal birth control the egg doesn’t get fertilized. Like you just indicated. Thank you.
I never said anything about iuds.

So you're clearly trolling, but for the people who are reading this thread, to emphasize, hormonal birth control (the Pill) does prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in addition to preventing the egg from fertilizing in the first place. Do not believe lawmakers when they say they are not coming for contraception next.

I’m not anti abortion. I’m not religious either. The pill works to prevent fertilization. It does absolutely nothing after an egg is fertilized. Full stop.

DP. You are simply wrong about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the constitution Having a child is a privilege not a right, however children have constitutional right to live. Don't shoot the messenger, you'll need an amendment to change that

None of that is in the Constitution.

Exactly hence the title reproductive rights is some made up thing to sound legitimate

It's like you don't even know the 9th Amendment exists.

Technically, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to realize it either.

It is wise and reasonable to say that you know overwhelmingly more about judicial matters than the Supreme Court justices.

Here's a fun exercise, list every Supreme Court Case where the 9th amendment was used to uphold a right. It shouldn't take long because there is only one case, and even that case only mentions the 9th in a concurrence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

Go look at Louisiana where they’ve moving forward with legislation that would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, which would also implicate hormonal birth control (and non-hormonal IUDs) that operate in part by thinning the uterine lining and/or creating a hostile uterine environment to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

If life begins at fertilization and must be protected at all costs, that applies equally to unimplanted embryos.

Except hormonal birth control does not work the way you said. It prevents fertilization, therefore there would be no fertilized egg to get implanting like you incorrectly said.

You need to educate yourself. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

I don’t need to do anything. You need to not tell others what to do.

You’re right. It is your prerogative to wallow in ignorance if you so choose. I will revise the post and repost here:

Your post is factually incorrect and grossly misinformed. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

So, they'll get rid of the combined pill and remove the third mechanism. Done. Now you can use your pill to prevent ovulation and prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. Those two mechanisms alone are probabaly over 97% effective. You all are constantly throwing out red herrings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to reproduce,

Truth! Vasectomies for all...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

Go look at Louisiana where they’ve moving forward with legislation that would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, which would also implicate hormonal birth control (and non-hormonal IUDs) that operate in part by thinning the uterine lining and/or creating a hostile uterine environment to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

If life begins at fertilization and must be protected at all costs, that applies equally to unimplanted embryos.

Except hormonal birth control does not work the way you said. It prevents fertilization, therefore there would be no fertilized egg to get implanting like you incorrectly said.

You need to educate yourself. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

I don’t need to do anything. You need to not tell others what to do.

You’re right. It is your prerogative to wallow in ignorance if you so choose. I will revise the post and repost here:

Your post is factually incorrect and grossly misinformed. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

So, they'll get rid of the combined pill and remove the third mechanism. Done. Now you can use your pill to prevent ovulation and prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. Those two mechanisms alone are probabaly over 97% effective. You all are constantly throwing out red herrings.

OMG do you have a Magic Science Wand to do that?! Sweet - let me know when you've invented, tested and received authorization for your Brand New Pill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the constitution Having a child is a privilege not a right, however children have constitutional right to live. Don't shoot the messenger, you'll need an amendment to change that

None of that is in the Constitution.

Exactly hence the title reproductive rights is some made up thing to sound legitimate

It's like you don't even know the 9th Amendment exists.

Technically, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to realize it either.

It is wise and reasonable to say that you know overwhelmingly more about judicial matters than the Supreme Court justices.

Here's a fun exercise, list every Supreme Court Case where the 9th amendment was used to uphold a right. It shouldn't take long because there is only one case, and even that case only mentions the 9th in a concurrence.

You’re the one who knows it all. You do it. This exercise will be clear proof that you are monumentally superior to the justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

Go look at Louisiana where they’ve moving forward with legislation that would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, which would also implicate hormonal birth control (and non-hormonal IUDs) that operate in part by thinning the uterine lining and/or creating a hostile uterine environment to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

If life begins at fertilization and must be protected at all costs, that applies equally to unimplanted embryos.

Except hormonal birth control does not work the way you said. It prevents fertilization, therefore there would be no fertilized egg to get implanting like you incorrectly said.

You need to educate yourself. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

Right, with hormonal birth control the egg doesn’t get fertilized. Like you just indicated. Thank you.
I never said anything about iuds.

So you're clearly trolling, but for the people who are reading this thread, to emphasize, hormonal birth control (the Pill) does prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in addition to preventing the egg from fertilizing in the first place. Do not believe lawmakers when they say they are not coming for contraception next.

I’m not anti abortion. I’m not religious either. The pill works to prevent fertilization. It does absolutely nothing after an egg is fertilized. Full stop.

DP. You are simply wrong about this.

At some point in time, the BCP evolved into what I believe is called a combined pill, that has three stop measures, the last one of which is creating a hostile environment for implantation. PP is a jerk, but is right about how most forms of the BCP work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

Go look at Louisiana where they’ve moving forward with legislation that would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, which would also implicate hormonal birth control (and non-hormonal IUDs) that operate in part by thinning the uterine lining and/or creating a hostile uterine environment to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

If life begins at fertilization and must be protected at all costs, that applies equally to unimplanted embryos.

Except hormonal birth control does not work the way you said. It prevents fertilization, therefore there would be no fertilized egg to get implanting like you incorrectly said.

You need to educate yourself. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

I don’t need to do anything. You need to not tell others what to do.

You’re right. It is your prerogative to wallow in ignorance if you so choose. I will revise the post and repost here:

Your post is factually incorrect and grossly misinformed. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

So, they'll get rid of the combined pill and remove the third mechanism. Done. Now you can use your pill to prevent ovulation and prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. Those two mechanisms alone are probabaly over 97% effective. You all are constantly throwing out red herrings.

You’re skipping the part where we bring this back on topic to fertility treatments. Now that you’ve admitted we would have to do away with any medical care that might negatively affect a fertilized egg, what happens to unimplanted embryos from IVF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

Go look at Louisiana where they’ve moving forward with legislation that would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, which would also implicate hormonal birth control (and non-hormonal IUDs) that operate in part by thinning the uterine lining and/or creating a hostile uterine environment to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

If life begins at fertilization and must be protected at all costs, that applies equally to unimplanted embryos.

Except hormonal birth control does not work the way you said. It prevents fertilization, therefore there would be no fertilized egg to get implanting like you incorrectly said.

You need to educate yourself. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

I don’t need to do anything. You need to not tell others what to do.

You’re right. It is your prerogative to wallow in ignorance if you so choose. I will revise the post and repost here:

Your post is factually incorrect and grossly misinformed. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

So, they'll get rid of the combined pill and remove the third mechanism. Done. Now you can use your pill to prevent ovulation and prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. Those two mechanisms alone are probabaly over 97% effective. You all are constantly throwing out red herrings.

OMG do you have a Magic Science Wand to do that?! Sweet - let me know when you've invented, tested and received authorization for your Brand New Pill.

Well, that's how the pill was originally invented, to prevent ovuation. It was later combined. Shouldn't be too hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where state laws define life as beginning at conception, how would those laws view embryos created via IVF? They would say those are babies, yes? Where state laws ban abortion, possibly with exceptions in cases of rape/incest/health of the pregnant woman, how would those laws be applied to embryos not implanted - either disposed of or placed in long-term cryopreservation?

Believing overturning Roe will have no effect on IVF treatments is naive.

It’s also a deliberate misinformation campaign to keep women complacent until after their rights have already been stripped away.

It’s a deliberate fear mongering campaign from you and other libs.

That's what they said about a possible RvW overturn. It's "settled law".

You cannot ban the murder of humans because life begins at conception, and then make ANY exceptions. There cannot be selective reduction if you ban abortion. There cannot be expections for rape and incest. It is not the fault of the embryo as to how it was conceived. You cannot flush embyros by the thousands down the drain. You cannot allow IUDs to cause fertilized embryos to be flushed out of the womb.

If you ban abortion and still allow all of the above.... then it would almost be like fetal life is not the point. Which would be really weird.

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/08...ves-mississippi-contraception/
When asked if Mississippi might next target the use of contraceptives such as the Plan B pill or intrauterine devices, Reeves demurred, saying that was not what the state was focused on “at this time.”