Are you worried about the end of reproductive rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is like one big baby boomer FU to those of us who are still young enough to have babies. They got their sexual revolution, but we can't have ours!

Sorry, you can’t make this about the boomers. Barrett and Kavanaugh are not boomers and directly responsible.

Kavanaugh is the end of boomer generation, so yes, he is a boomer.

No, he is not. Boomer generation ended in 64. He was born year after.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, because the burden of raising a child is mainly on women. Many men get women pregnant and then skip out on raising and providing for the child. This is really a disadvantage for women. Also, the government is not doing a good job with the foster system now, how is that going to work in the future?

I think with the increase of genealogical DNA men aren't going to be able to get off the hook much longer.

We couldn't get rape kits tested but if the taxpayers are burdened with destitute, unwanted children, the fathers will be sought out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I go back and forth on this. I suspect it's more likely they will turn their rage and desire to control upon people in the LGBTQ+ communities - I know many in the GOP would love to overturn the right for non-heterosexual couples to marry, for instance. But yeah, I certainly think it's possible that IVF, surrogacy (maybe especially surrogacy), and other reproductive technologies are in danger, if only as a sort of side effect of their current rampage. I also think it's possible that first we might see laws restricting unmarried people or same-sex couples from using IVF. I think they would also go for preventing the destruction of unused embryos...as a PP said, this is the top of a slippery slope.

I doubt surrogacy will come under attack--it has precedent in the Bible. That's why it's in The Handmaid's Tale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go back and forth on this. I suspect it's more likely they will turn their rage and desire to control upon people in the LGBTQ+ communities - I know many in the GOP would love to overturn the right for non-heterosexual couples to marry, for instance. But yeah, I certainly think it's possible that IVF, surrogacy (maybe especially surrogacy), and other reproductive technologies are in danger, if only as a sort of side effect of their current rampage. I also think it's possible that first we might see laws restricting unmarried people or same-sex couples from using IVF. I think they would also go for preventing the destruction of unused embryos...as a PP said, this is the top of a slippery slope.

I doubt surrogacy will come under attack--it has precedent in the Bible. That's why it's in The Handmaid's Tale.

So does abortion, yet here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go back and forth on this. I suspect it's more likely they will turn their rage and desire to control upon people in the LGBTQ+ communities - I know many in the GOP would love to overturn the right for non-heterosexual couples to marry, for instance. But yeah, I certainly think it's possible that IVF, surrogacy (maybe especially surrogacy), and other reproductive technologies are in danger, if only as a sort of side effect of their current rampage. I also think it's possible that first we might see laws restricting unmarried people or same-sex couples from using IVF. I think they would also go for preventing the destruction of unused embryos...as a PP said, this is the top of a slippery slope.

I doubt surrogacy will come under attack--it has precedent in the Bible. That's why it's in The Handmaid's Tale.

It will be attacked if it involves the destruction of any embryos. At least, that would be the logical anti abortion stance. Unless the concern isn't rally about embryo's lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go back and forth on this. I suspect it's more likely they will turn their rage and desire to control upon people in the LGBTQ+ communities - I know many in the GOP would love to overturn the right for non-heterosexual couples to marry, for instance. But yeah, I certainly think it's possible that IVF, surrogacy (maybe especially surrogacy), and other reproductive technologies are in danger, if only as a sort of side effect of their current rampage. I also think it's possible that first we might see laws restricting unmarried people or same-sex couples from using IVF. I think they would also go for preventing the destruction of unused embryos...as a PP said, this is the top of a slippery slope.

I doubt surrogacy will come under attack--it has precedent in the Bible. That's why it's in The Handmaid's Tale.

So does abortion, yet here we are.

NP. Well, but one is about creating life and the other is about destroying it (in the GOP's eyes), so I think it will be safe. It's not really a "technology."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go back and forth on this. I suspect it's more likely they will turn their rage and desire to control upon people in the LGBTQ+ communities - I know many in the GOP would love to overturn the right for non-heterosexual couples to marry, for instance. But yeah, I certainly think it's possible that IVF, surrogacy (maybe especially surrogacy), and other reproductive technologies are in danger, if only as a sort of side effect of their current rampage. I also think it's possible that first we might see laws restricting unmarried people or same-sex couples from using IVF. I think they would also go for preventing the destruction of unused embryos...as a PP said, this is the top of a slippery slope.

I doubt surrogacy will come under attack--it has precedent in the Bible. That's why it's in The Handmaid's Tale.

So does abortion, yet here we are.

NP. Well, but one is about creating life and the other is about destroying it (in the GOP's eyes), so I think it will be safe. It's not really a "technology."

Nope. Exodus 21:22-23 deals with a woman who is pregnant and loses the baby because she is injured. It states that, if the only harm that is done is the loss of the fetus, it's a matter of property damage, not murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go back and forth on this. I suspect it's more likely they will turn their rage and desire to control upon people in the LGBTQ+ communities - I know many in the GOP would love to overturn the right for non-heterosexual couples to marry, for instance. But yeah, I certainly think it's possible that IVF, surrogacy (maybe especially surrogacy), and other reproductive technologies are in danger, if only as a sort of side effect of their current rampage. I also think it's possible that first we might see laws restricting unmarried people or same-sex couples from using IVF. I think they would also go for preventing the destruction of unused embryos...as a PP said, this is the top of a slippery slope.

I doubt surrogacy will come under attack--it has precedent in the Bible. That's why it's in The Handmaid's Tale.

So does abortion, yet here we are.

NP. Well, but one is about creating life and the other is about destroying it (in the GOP's eyes), so I think it will be safe. It's not really a "technology."

Nope. Exodus 21:22-23 deals with a woman who is pregnant and loses the baby because she is injured. It states that, if the only harm that is done is the loss of the fetus, it's a matter of property damage, not murder.

But... you are expecting consistent application of the Bible and that cannot be assumed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go back and forth on this. I suspect it's more likely they will turn their rage and desire to control upon people in the LGBTQ+ communities - I know many in the GOP would love to overturn the right for non-heterosexual couples to marry, for instance. But yeah, I certainly think it's possible that IVF, surrogacy (maybe especially surrogacy), and other reproductive technologies are in danger, if only as a sort of side effect of their current rampage. I also think it's possible that first we might see laws restricting unmarried people or same-sex couples from using IVF. I think they would also go for preventing the destruction of unused embryos...as a PP said, this is the top of a slippery slope.

I doubt surrogacy will come under attack--it has precedent in the Bible. That's why it's in The Handmaid's Tale.

So does abortion, yet here we are.

NP. Well, but one is about creating life and the other is about destroying it (in the GOP's eyes), so I think it will be safe. It's not really a "technology."

Nope. Exodus 21:22-23 deals with a woman who is pregnant and loses the baby because she is injured. It states that, if the only harm that is done is the loss of the fetus, it's a matter of property damage, not murder.

But... you are expecting consistent application of the Bible and that cannot be assumed.

Also the idea that surrogacy is not in danger when it’s actually already not legal in many states is absurd. It’s the least legally feasible option with reproductive technology currently. Plus obviously it only works if you have frozen embryos.

[Anonymous]

No. Not at all because of State rights and I live in a fairly liberal state and near other relatively liberal states. I also have zero interest in abortions. So personally, I am not worried but I understand why others would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Not at all because of State rights and I live in a fairly liberal state and near other relatively liberal states. I also have zero interest in abortions. So personally, I am not worried but I understand why others would be.

Until the GOP takes the house and senate and wins the next presidency and writes that federal ban.

[Anonymous]

My uncle came from a conservative Catholic family where his mom had 16 children because they didn't believe in birth control. His mom actually ended up in a mental hospital and had severe health issues because of it.

Reproductive rights are crucial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My uncle came from a conservative Catholic family where his mom had 16 children because they didn't believe in birth control. His mom actually ended up in a mental hospital and had severe health issues because of it.

Reproductive rights are crucial.

She may have had mental issues regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go back and forth on this. I suspect it's more likely they will turn their rage and desire to control upon people in the LGBTQ+ communities - I know many in the GOP would love to overturn the right for non-heterosexual couples to marry, for instance. But yeah, I certainly think it's possible that IVF, surrogacy (maybe especially surrogacy), and other reproductive technologies are in danger, if only as a sort of side effect of their current rampage. I also think it's possible that first we might see laws restricting unmarried people or same-sex couples from using IVF. I think they would also go for preventing the destruction of unused embryos...as a PP said, this is the top of a slippery slope.

I doubt surrogacy will come under attack--it has precedent in the Bible. That's why it's in The Handmaid's Tale.

But it is a not uncommon way for gay men to become pregnant so I can imagine it being attacked for that reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go back and forth on this. I suspect it's more likely they will turn their rage and desire to control upon people in the LGBTQ+ communities - I know many in the GOP would love to overturn the right for non-heterosexual couples to marry, for instance. But yeah, I certainly think it's possible that IVF, surrogacy (maybe especially surrogacy), and other reproductive technologies are in danger, if only as a sort of side effect of their current rampage. I also think it's possible that first we might see laws restricting unmarried people or same-sex couples from using IVF. I think they would also go for preventing the destruction of unused embryos...as a PP said, this is the top of a slippery slope.

I doubt surrogacy will come under attack--it has precedent in the Bible. That's why it's in The Handmaid's Tale.

But it is a not uncommon way for gay men to become parents so I can imagine it being attacked for that reason. Repeat post fixing typo.