Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perfect - another person who would be fine with MUV since men shouldn’t be having sex unless they are married and ready to procreate

There's a reason that women were traditionally encouraged to get married first, so that they and children would be protected.

Again, what about the men? MUV would encourage them to get married first. Post Roe, states could even make marriage a condition of a successful application to reverse MUV and attempt procreation.

PP here. I agree about men's responsibility in not impregnating multiple women and then abandoning their responsibilities. Unfortunately, in more than a few families and communities, that concept doesn't seem to gain traction.

RACSIST!!!!!!

Hey red states! How about this as a compromise. You get use thoughts and prayers to stop abortions.

After all, that's what you use where it comes to stopping kids from getting shot in schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess so. That is a very broad generalization - controlling women. All women are not being forced to give birth when they don't want to, so no, I would not phrase my statement as "controlling women." That is just inaccurate - hence my confusion and asking for clarification. Also, I don't see that as the predominant motivation for pro-lifers, so I was confused by such a broad generalization. BTW, I actually see both sides to this debate and am not so strongly one side or the other as most people seem to be.

Wow. So in your view, in order for a law to "control" people, it must actually control every single person in that category? That's a ... novel form of analysis. You claim to see both sides, yet you're conveniently avoiding the fact that we KNOW how to reduce unwanted pregnancy (access to birth control and health care) WITHOUT forcing women to have babies they don't want.

I agree. 100% for access to birth control and health care. No, I don't see the root purpose of enacting anti-abortion laws as trying to control women. Guess we can agree to disagree on that.

\

But you literally just said that you thought an appropriate goal of banning abortion is to control women's behavior by making the consequences of their behavior more drastic. Or did you not say that? What did you mean by discussing how banning abortion would lead to increased use of birth control? The whole point is one can reach that goal (increasing birth control) WITHOUT coercing women by punishing the opposite behavior (ie controlling). You need to stand up and explain why you think the more coercive and controlling route to increasing use of birth control (banning abortion) is acceptable, when we KNOW that there is a non-coercive route (making long term birth control freely available).

No, and prior post just above is not me. I just find the issue has so many facets that it is hard to come up with laws either way that encompass the whole of it. Women in most states cannot prostitute themselves. I don't see a lot of the same arguments for prostitution and how that is not letting a woman do what she wants with her body. Maybe there are arguments along that line, I just don't really see it. If a woman is 35 weeks pregnant and a crazy person stabs her in the uterus and kills the fetus, is that murder? I think, yes, in most cases that is the case. However, if a woman at 35 weeks walks into a clinic and wants an abortion that is different because she is the one initiating things? IDK. It seems like having free rampant abortion at will is not the answer, but I don't agree with banning abortion. Like I said, there are just so many facets to this and it doesn't seem like the straight line political issue, one side vs the other, that is portrayed and argued about.

On the other hand, I do see the language as trying to control women as a little inflammatory and not conducive to construction conversation, but again, I guess that is just me.

This is such a red herring. Late term abortions are not the norm. They are a tiny, tiny percentage of abortions overall. And what’s particularly offensive about using this red herring - as has been explained MANY times on this thread and others - is that women seeking abortions late term are usually doing so under tragic circumstances - their child has a condition that is incompatible with life, for example. Or the Mother’s life is in jeopardy.

No one is killing live babies. No one is ripping out healthy babies that would otherwise live and murdering them. It’s just a grotesque red herring and I’m so sick of people using it because they are either poorly informed or want to inflame fear and ignorance.

This is generally true. Which is why is I was so surprised to read the last story here:
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718546468/opponents-fight-efforts-to-protect-late-term-abortion-rights

This lady had an abortion at 27-28 weeks. Baby and mother were healthy/it wasn’t for health reasons. How is that even legal? That is way past viability.

You don’t know that it was at 27-28 weeks - you’re inferring that from the sentence that said the one clinic she found would do an abortion through the end of the second trimester (28 weeks). She was 22 weeks when she discovered she was pregnant, and could have had the abortion within a week after finding out. Note that she had to pay $10k for it plus travel out of state. There are going to be extremely few instances of such cases of someone finding out they’re pregnant at such a late date, and most women couldn’t afford to shell out that amount anyway if they can find a clinic that will do it.

Sorry, pp here. Wasn’t wearing my glasses and misread when she discovered she was pregnant - it was 26 weeks not 22. I still say there are so few clinics that would do this abortion. I mean, she had to go out of state to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess so. That is a very broad generalization - controlling women. All women are not being forced to give birth when they don't want to, so no, I would not phrase my statement as "controlling women." That is just inaccurate - hence my confusion and asking for clarification. Also, I don't see that as the predominant motivation for pro-lifers, so I was confused by such a broad generalization. BTW, I actually see both sides to this debate and am not so strongly one side or the other as most people seem to be.

Wow. So in your view, in order for a law to "control" people, it must actually control every single person in that category? That's a ... novel form of analysis. You claim to see both sides, yet you're conveniently avoiding the fact that we KNOW how to reduce unwanted pregnancy (access to birth control and health care) WITHOUT forcing women to have babies they don't want.

I agree. 100% for access to birth control and health care. No, I don't see the root purpose of enacting anti-abortion laws as trying to control women. Guess we can agree to disagree on that.

\

But you literally just said that you thought an appropriate goal of banning abortion is to control women's behavior by making the consequences of their behavior more drastic. Or did you not say that? What did you mean by discussing how banning abortion would lead to increased use of birth control? The whole point is one can reach that goal (increasing birth control) WITHOUT coercing women by punishing the opposite behavior (ie controlling). You need to stand up and explain why you think the more coercive and controlling route to increasing use of birth control (banning abortion) is acceptable, when we KNOW that there is a non-coercive route (making long term birth control freely available).

No, and prior post just above is not me. I just find the issue has so many facets that it is hard to come up with laws either way that encompass the whole of it. Women in most states cannot prostitute themselves. I don't see a lot of the same arguments for prostitution and how that is not letting a woman do what she wants with her body. Maybe there are arguments along that line, I just don't really see it. If a woman is 35 weeks pregnant and a crazy person stabs her in the uterus and kills the fetus, is that murder? I think, yes, in most cases that is the case. However, if a woman at 35 weeks walks into a clinic and wants an abortion that is different because she is the one initiating things? IDK. It seems like having free rampant abortion at will is not the answer, but I don't agree with banning abortion. Like I said, there are just so many facets to this and it doesn't seem like the straight line political issue, one side vs the other, that is portrayed and argued about.

On the other hand, I do see the language as trying to control women as a little inflammatory and not conducive to construction conversation, but again, I guess that is just me.

This is such a red herring. Late term abortions are not the norm. They are a tiny, tiny percentage of abortions overall. And what’s particularly offensive about using this red herring - as has been explained MANY times on this thread and others - is that women seeking abortions late term are usually doing so under tragic circumstances - their child has a condition that is incompatible with life, for example. Or the Mother’s life is in jeopardy.

No one is killing live babies. No one is ripping out healthy babies that would otherwise live and murdering them. It’s just a grotesque red herring and I’m so sick of people using it because they are either poorly informed or want to inflame fear and ignorance.

This is generally true. Which is why is I was so surprised to read the last story here:
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718546468/opponents-fight-efforts-to-protect-late-term-abortion-rights

This lady had an abortion at 27-28 weeks. Baby and mother were healthy/it wasn’t for health reasons. How is that even legal? That is way past viability.

You don’t know that it was at 27-28 weeks - you’re inferring that from the sentence that said the one clinic she found would do an abortion through the end of the second trimester (28 weeks). She was 22 weeks when she discovered she was pregnant, and could have had the abortion within a week after finding out. Note that she had to pay $10k for it plus travel out of state. There are going to be extremely few instances of such cases of someone finding out they’re pregnant at such a late date, and most women couldn’t afford to shell out that amount anyway if they can find a clinic that will do it.

That's a weird story, but I note that you NEVER see pro-lifers arguing to simply change the state laws that allow post-viability abortion with no medical indications. That's because they are likely exceedingly rare; and the true agenda is to use that figment of the imagination as a cudgel to ban all abortion. FWIW someone who would go through an abortion at 27 weeks at great expense and travel is probably extremely mentally unstable, so I can't really purport to know what's going on there. I don't love it and would not be too upset if states banned it (most states do).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess so. That is a very broad generalization - controlling women. All women are not being forced to give birth when they don't want to, so no, I would not phrase my statement as "controlling women." That is just inaccurate - hence my confusion and asking for clarification. Also, I don't see that as the predominant motivation for pro-lifers, so I was confused by such a broad generalization. BTW, I actually see both sides to this debate and am not so strongly one side or the other as most people seem to be.

Wow. So in your view, in order for a law to "control" people, it must actually control every single person in that category? That's a ... novel form of analysis. You claim to see both sides, yet you're conveniently avoiding the fact that we KNOW how to reduce unwanted pregnancy (access to birth control and health care) WITHOUT forcing women to have babies they don't want.

I agree. 100% for access to birth control and health care. No, I don't see the root purpose of enacting anti-abortion laws as trying to control women. Guess we can agree to disagree on that.

\

But you literally just said that you thought an appropriate goal of banning abortion is to control women's behavior by making the consequences of their behavior more drastic. Or did you not say that? What did you mean by discussing how banning abortion would lead to increased use of birth control? The whole point is one can reach that goal (increasing birth control) WITHOUT coercing women by punishing the opposite behavior (ie controlling). You need to stand up and explain why you think the more coercive and controlling route to increasing use of birth control (banning abortion) is acceptable, when we KNOW that there is a non-coercive route (making long term birth control freely available).

No, and prior post just above is not me. I just find the issue has so many facets that it is hard to come up with laws either way that encompass the whole of it. Women in most states cannot prostitute themselves. I don't see a lot of the same arguments for prostitution and how that is not letting a woman do what she wants with her body. Maybe there are arguments along that line, I just don't really see it. If a woman is 35 weeks pregnant and a crazy person stabs her in the uterus and kills the fetus, is that murder? I think, yes, in most cases that is the case. However, if a woman at 35 weeks walks into a clinic and wants an abortion that is different because she is the one initiating things? IDK. It seems like having free rampant abortion at will is not the answer, but I don't agree with banning abortion. Like I said, there are just so many facets to this and it doesn't seem like the straight line political issue, one side vs the other, that is portrayed and argued about.

On the other hand, I do see the language as trying to control women as a little inflammatory and not conducive to construction conversation, but again, I guess that is just me.

This is such a red herring. Late term abortions are not the norm. They are a tiny, tiny percentage of abortions overall. And what’s particularly offensive about using this red herring - as has been explained MANY times on this thread and others - is that women seeking abortions late term are usually doing so under tragic circumstances - their child has a condition that is incompatible with life, for example. Or the Mother’s life is in jeopardy.

No one is killing live babies. No one is ripping out healthy babies that would otherwise live and murdering them. It’s just a grotesque red herring and I’m so sick of people using it because they are either poorly informed or want to inflame fear and ignorance.

This is generally true. Which is why is I was so surprised to read the last story here:
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718546468/opponents-fight-efforts-to-protect-late-term-abortion-rights

This lady had an abortion at 27-28 weeks. Baby and mother were healthy/it wasn’t for health reasons. How is that even legal? That is way past viability.

You don’t know that it was at 27-28 weeks - you’re inferring that from the sentence that said the one clinic she found would do an abortion through the end of the second trimester (28 weeks). She was 22 weeks when she discovered she was pregnant, and could have had the abortion within a week after finding out. Note that she had to pay $10k for it plus travel out of state. There are going to be extremely few instances of such cases of someone finding out they’re pregnant at such a late date, and most women couldn’t afford to shell out that amount anyway if they can find a clinic that will do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess so. That is a very broad generalization - controlling women. All women are not being forced to give birth when they don't want to, so no, I would not phrase my statement as "controlling women." That is just inaccurate - hence my confusion and asking for clarification. Also, I don't see that as the predominant motivation for pro-lifers, so I was confused by such a broad generalization. BTW, I actually see both sides to this debate and am not so strongly one side or the other as most people seem to be.

Wow. So in your view, in order for a law to "control" people, it must actually control every single person in that category? That's a ... novel form of analysis. You claim to see both sides, yet you're conveniently avoiding the fact that we KNOW how to reduce unwanted pregnancy (access to birth control and health care) WITHOUT forcing women to have babies they don't want.

I agree. 100% for access to birth control and health care. No, I don't see the root purpose of enacting anti-abortion laws as trying to control women. Guess we can agree to disagree on that.

\

But you literally just said that you thought an appropriate goal of banning abortion is to control women's behavior by making the consequences of their behavior more drastic. Or did you not say that? What did you mean by discussing how banning abortion would lead to increased use of birth control? The whole point is one can reach that goal (increasing birth control) WITHOUT coercing women by punishing the opposite behavior (ie controlling). You need to stand up and explain why you think the more coercive and controlling route to increasing use of birth control (banning abortion) is acceptable, when we KNOW that there is a non-coercive route (making long term birth control freely available).

No, and prior post just above is not me. I just find the issue has so many facets that it is hard to come up with laws either way that encompass the whole of it. Women in most states cannot prostitute themselves. I don't see a lot of the same arguments for prostitution and how that is not letting a woman do what she wants with her body. Maybe there are arguments along that line, I just don't really see it. If a woman is 35 weeks pregnant and a crazy person stabs her in the uterus and kills the fetus, is that murder? I think, yes, in most cases that is the case. However, if a woman at 35 weeks walks into a clinic and wants an abortion that is different because she is the one initiating things? IDK. It seems like having free rampant abortion at will is not the answer, but I don't agree with banning abortion. Like I said, there are just so many facets to this and it doesn't seem like the straight line political issue, one side vs the other, that is portrayed and argued about.

On the other hand, I do see the language as trying to control women as a little inflammatory and not conducive to construction conversation, but again, I guess that is just me.

This is such a red herring. Late term abortions are not the norm. They are a tiny, tiny percentage of abortions overall. And what’s particularly offensive about using this red herring - as has been explained MANY times on this thread and others - is that women seeking abortions late term are usually doing so under tragic circumstances - their child has a condition that is incompatible with life, for example. Or the Mother’s life is in jeopardy.

No one is killing live babies. No one is ripping out healthy babies that would otherwise live and murdering them. It’s just a grotesque red herring and I’m so sick of people using it because they are either poorly informed or want to inflame fear and ignorance.

This is generally true. Which is why is I was so surprised to read the last story here:
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718546468/opponents-fight-efforts-to-protect-late-term-abortion-rights

This lady had an abortion at 27-28 weeks. Baby and mother were healthy/it wasn’t for health reasons. How is that even legal? That is way past viability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

What??? Shouldn’t the man get a vasectomy and use condoms? Why the heck is birth control falling on the woman when she isn’t getting pregnant by herself? Given the stakes that she would have no choice should she get pregnant the guy needs to be doing what her it takes NOT to get her pregnant.

It makes sense mathematically too; 1 woman can be pregnant once for 9ish months. Think of how much impregnating 1 man can do in that time.

About 270, if he really gets around.

Hey, I've got an idea! How about every man who welches on his child support payments gets his you-know-whats cut off? If he can't support the children he helps create, then he shouldn't create any more. On the woman's side, if she has more than four kids and is on public assistance, she gets sterilized too. Can't keep making babies you can't support, man or woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perfect - another person who would be fine with MUV since men shouldn’t be having sex unless they are married and ready to procreate

There's a reason that women were traditionally encouraged to get married first, so that they and children would be protected.

Again, what about the men? MUV would encourage them to get married first. Post Roe, states could even make marriage a condition of a successful application to reverse MUV and attempt procreation.

PP here. I agree about men's responsibility in not impregnating multiple women and then abandoning their responsibilities. Unfortunately, in more than a few families and communities, that concept doesn't seem to gain traction.

Susan Collins has just no earthly idea why all these states are passing all these abortion bans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess so. That is a very broad generalization - controlling women. All women are not being forced to give birth when they don't want to, so no, I would not phrase my statement as "controlling women." That is just inaccurate - hence my confusion and asking for clarification. Also, I don't see that as the predominant motivation for pro-lifers, so I was confused by such a broad generalization. BTW, I actually see both sides to this debate and am not so strongly one side or the other as most people seem to be.

Wow. So in your view, in order for a law to "control" people, it must actually control every single person in that category? That's a ... novel form of analysis. You claim to see both sides, yet you're conveniently avoiding the fact that we KNOW how to reduce unwanted pregnancy (access to birth control and health care) WITHOUT forcing women to have babies they don't want.

I agree. 100% for access to birth control and health care. No, I don't see the root purpose of enacting anti-abortion laws as trying to control women. Guess we can agree to disagree on that.

\

But you literally just said that you thought an appropriate goal of banning abortion is to control women's behavior by making the consequences of their behavior more drastic. Or did you not say that? What did you mean by discussing how banning abortion would lead to increased use of birth control? The whole point is one can reach that goal (increasing birth control) WITHOUT coercing women by punishing the opposite behavior (ie controlling). You need to stand up and explain why you think the more coercive and controlling route to increasing use of birth control (banning abortion) is acceptable, when we KNOW that there is a non-coercive route (making long term birth control freely available).

No, and prior post just above is not me. I just find the issue has so many facets that it is hard to come up with laws either way that encompass the whole of it. Women in most states cannot prostitute themselves. I don't see a lot of the same arguments for prostitution and how that is not letting a woman do what she wants with her body. Maybe there are arguments along that line, I just don't really see it. If a woman is 35 weeks pregnant and a crazy person stabs her in the uterus and kills the fetus, is that murder? I think, yes, in most cases that is the case. However, if a woman at 35 weeks walks into a clinic and wants an abortion that is different because she is the one initiating things? IDK. It seems like having free rampant abortion at will is not the answer, but I don't agree with banning abortion. Like I said, there are just so many facets to this and it doesn't seem like the straight line political issue, one side vs the other, that is portrayed and argued about.

On the other hand, I do see the language as trying to control women as a little inflammatory and not conducive to construction conversation, but again, I guess that is just me.

This is such a red herring. Late term abortions are not the norm. They are a tiny, tiny percentage of abortions overall. And what’s particularly offensive about using this red herring - as has been explained MANY times on this thread and others - is that women seeking abortions late term are usually doing so under tragic circumstances - their child has a condition that is incompatible with life, for example. Or the Mother’s life is in jeopardy.

No one is killing live babies. No one is ripping out healthy babies that would otherwise live and murdering them. It’s just a grotesque red herring and I’m so sick of people using it because they are either poorly informed or want to inflame fear and ignorance.

And I will add - women who seek abortion later in the 1st trimester and in the 2nd trimester are doing so because they lacked access to health care (in the form of education and birth control; and easy access to early abortion.) If you sincerely want to reduce 2nd trimester abortion, you MUST increase access to reproductive health care in all forms.

"Second-trimester abortion is an important component of comprehensive women’s health care, and women seek termination later in pregnancy for a variety of medical and social reasons. Circumstances that can lead to second-trimester abortion include delays in suspecting and testing for pregnancy, delay in obtaining insurance or other funding, and delay in obtaining referral, as well as difficulties in locating and traveling to a provider (5). Poverty, lower education level, and having multiple disruptive life events, have been associated with higher rates of seeking second-trimester abortion (3). In addition, major anatomic or genetic anomalies may be detected in the fetus in the second trimester and women may choose to terminate their pregnancies (47–95%) (6–8). The identification of major anatomic or genetic anomalies in the fetus through screening and diagnostic testing most commonly occurs in the second trimester, although first-trimester screening and chorionic villus sampling can enable first-trimester diagnosis of aneuploidy. Some obstetric and medical indications for second-trimester termination include preeclampsia and preterm premature rupture of membranes, among other conditions. Additional indications for uterine evacuation in the second trimester are pregnancy failure before 20 weeks of gestation and fetal demise. In 2005, the U.S. fetal mortality rate was 6.22 fetal deaths at 20 weeks of gestation or more per 1,000 live births and fetal deaths, and this rate was higher for teenagers; women aged 35 years and older; and among non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native women (9)."

https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Practice-Bulletins/Committee-on-Practice-Bulletins-Gynecology/Second-Trimester-Abortion?IsMobileSet=false

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess so. That is a very broad generalization - controlling women. All women are not being forced to give birth when they don't want to, so no, I would not phrase my statement as "controlling women." That is just inaccurate - hence my confusion and asking for clarification. Also, I don't see that as the predominant motivation for pro-lifers, so I was confused by such a broad generalization. BTW, I actually see both sides to this debate and am not so strongly one side or the other as most people seem to be.

Wow. So in your view, in order for a law to "control" people, it must actually control every single person in that category? That's a ... novel form of analysis. You claim to see both sides, yet you're conveniently avoiding the fact that we KNOW how to reduce unwanted pregnancy (access to birth control and health care) WITHOUT forcing women to have babies they don't want.

I agree. 100% for access to birth control and health care. No, I don't see the root purpose of enacting anti-abortion laws as trying to control women. Guess we can agree to disagree on that.

\

But you literally just said that you thought an appropriate goal of banning abortion is to control women's behavior by making the consequences of their behavior more drastic. Or did you not say that? What did you mean by discussing how banning abortion would lead to increased use of birth control? The whole point is one can reach that goal (increasing birth control) WITHOUT coercing women by punishing the opposite behavior (ie controlling). You need to stand up and explain why you think the more coercive and controlling route to increasing use of birth control (banning abortion) is acceptable, when we KNOW that there is a non-coercive route (making long term birth control freely available).

No, and prior post just above is not me. I just find the issue has so many facets that it is hard to come up with laws either way that encompass the whole of it. Women in most states cannot prostitute themselves. I don't see a lot of the same arguments for prostitution and how that is not letting a woman do what she wants with her body. Maybe there are arguments along that line, I just don't really see it. If a woman is 35 weeks pregnant and a crazy person stabs her in the uterus and kills the fetus, is that murder? I think, yes, in most cases that is the case. However, if a woman at 35 weeks walks into a clinic and wants an abortion that is different because she is the one initiating things? IDK. It seems like having free rampant abortion at will is not the answer, but I don't agree with banning abortion. Like I said, there are just so many facets to this and it doesn't seem like the straight line political issue, one side vs the other, that is portrayed and argued about.

On the other hand, I do see the language as trying to control women as a little inflammatory and not conducive to construction conversation, but again, I guess that is just me.

You're overthinking. There actually are not all that many facets, not when you get to the actual facts. The VAST majority of abortions are in the 1st trimester. NO woman decides to just abort her previously wanted pregnancy at 35 weeks. Unplanned pregnancy can be prevented by providing better access to contraceptives and health care. If you're concerned about "free rampant abortion" then focus on ensuring access to birth control and sex ed. I'm just not clear on what you think the "other side" here is based on what ACTUALLY occurs (not made up scenarios).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

What??? Shouldn’t the man get a vasectomy and use condoms? Why the heck is birth control falling on the woman when she isn’t getting pregnant by herself? Given the stakes that she would have no choice should she get pregnant the guy needs to be doing what her it takes NOT to get her pregnant.

It makes sense mathematically too; 1 woman can be pregnant once for 9ish months. Think of how much impregnating 1 man can do in that time.

Yes, snip snip.

Anonymous wrote:These draconian backward anti abortion laws have nothing to do with babies or children or the well being of the unborn. If that was the case we’d have free medical coverage for all, more money for public education, and better access to affordable, quality childcare.

These laws are about controlling women and making sure that unless a woman is prepared to have a baby, she doesn’t have sex.

Period.

Exactly.

speaking of lots of impregnating:

https://www.oregonlive.com/nfl/2017/05/ex-nfl_player_antonio_cromarti.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

What??? Shouldn’t the man get a vasectomy and use condoms? Why the heck is birth control falling on the woman when she isn’t getting pregnant by herself? Given the stakes that she would have no choice should she get pregnant the guy needs to be doing what her it takes NOT to get her pregnant.

It makes sense mathematically too; 1 woman can be pregnant once for 9ish months. Think of how much impregnating 1 man can do in that time.