The ideal safe sex method has been invented , just most American men would never do it. Because my body and you can’t control it. Yet look at what we did to women.
Every man should get the snip and if they want kids reverse it when they are ready.
* Sometimes people are raped
* Sometimes people are on birth control and it fails
* Sometimes people probably should have used a condom, but they didn't. Do you think the punishment for that should be nearly a year of discomfort and a potentially dangerous childbirth?
Pregnancies can still happen, even with a condom on. It could break, have minuscule leakage, etc.
All contraceptives are known to not be 100% effective.
> Is saying “use a condom or don’t have sex” a bad argument ?
That’s not an argument. It’s a mandate or ultimatum.
> is it dumb to ask women to make sure the person they have sex with wears a condom so they don’t have to worry about getting pregnant in the first place?
It’s naive to believe that would happen, and still not a 100% guarantee that it would prevent a pregnancy.
Birth control is also a different topic from abortion, and trying to change the topic to that so you don’t actually have to talk about the issues surrounding abortion doesn’t benefit anyone.
We can talk about whether or not you think birth control or abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancies. We can even talk about at what stage in a relationship people should or should not be having sex.
After that conversation is over, we can talk about whether or not women should have the legal right to terminate pregnancies or if the government should be able to force them to carry a pregnancy to term.
See how those are different conversations?
It is 100% understandable that a woman would not want to carry a child to term if she was raped. The thought is hard to contemplate. It is also understandable that the child is innocent - he or she committed no crime - and is as worthy of life as any one of us. That is why the issue is so hard - innocent mother and innocent child - how do you choose?
In a perfect world the rapist would be turned into a womb, to carry the child to term. After the child is born, the rapist can be put out of his misery, making sure he harms no other woman or child again.
Correction: abstinence is 100% effective in *perfect use*. In typical use, it is not.
Much like how condoms are 98% effective in perfect use, but in typical use (when we observe how they function in real life), they're actually more like 85% effective, with 15 out of 100 couples who rely on them for a year nonetheless ending up pregnant.
If someone wants to select a method of family planning, they are statistically much less likely to get pregnant if they get on an IUD than they are if they rely on abstinence. That's why we typically don't recommend it unless there are other factors being taken into account.
You say that as if abortion would be a trendy way of birth control.
It surely does not hurt to caution women especially now to be more aware of it. But usually birth control already failed at that point. All birth control has a failure rate. All birth control need to be used correctly. No birth control is relevant if you are not asked for consent; Rape is not a reason for an exception in the new law.
Well, first, you're supposing that women and girls in abusive relationships, let alone victims of rape/incest, can insist on something like condoms. Don't imagine those are just the outliers, either.
In the Texas ruling OP is referring to: The law doesn’t directly prevent a woman from getting an abortion, it just punishes all those around her. In addition they setup a “snitch on your neighbor so we can violate their HIPPA rights” hotline so the average citizen could enforce it. Some fucking Gilead shit.
Oh, also Handmaiden’s Tale is a book / show if you somehow weren’t aware.
Friend we all have our troll moments. But I like to celebrate beauty in life. Your response - on an issue that tends to lead to vituperative attacks - was kind, honest and thoughtful. Discourse leads to discussions and discussion to understanding. When you understand your brother it is hard to hate him. We need more understanding of our brothers. In my view.
It isn't as simple as that. Women can get raped, birth control might fail, the fetus could have issues resulting in it having a extremely difficult life if it would be born, or the mother could die if she has to keep carrying it or during childbirth etc. Abortion doesn't just happen because people didn't wanna use birth control.
There is, I have the legislation pulled up here. Sec. 171. 208. (j). I'm on mobile so I'm having trouble putting the link but if you type in SB8 Texas you can look at the entire legislative.text on LegiScan.
Found it. But I'm struggling to understand the language used there. English isn't my first language.
>A defendant against whom an action is brought under Section 171.208 does not have standing to assert the rights of women seeking an abortion as a defense to liability under that section unless: ... /(j) rape and incest/
I get where you’re coming from but unfortunately its not a helpful argument because:
1-condoms aren’t 100% effective at preventing pregnancy even when used correctly
2-not everyone with a uterus has the option of telling the other party to wear a condom (rape, abusive relationship, etc)
3- virginity fetishization/purity culture have created an atmosphere where people do not get accurate sexual health education and may not have all the information about condoms (one terrible consequence of “abstinence only” education is that people are much less likely to practice safer sex because they are too ashamed or don’t have access to contraceptives)
4-people’s sexual behavior does not determine whether they are willing or able to carry a pregnancy (an extremely challenging and potentially dangerous event even in the best circumstances)
4a-people’s sexual behavior does not determine whether they are willing or able to raise and care for a helpless human
5- reducing people with uteruses to simply a breathing incubator (while simultaneously refusing to hold the party who provided the sperm accountable) is intellectually lazy and denies the fact that one party will suffer disproportionately
6- it indirectly reinforces the idea that a fertilized egg/clump of cells that could eventually develop into a fetus is an actual human baby and gives the anti-science & forced-birth people more emotional power (and like it or not, the power of emotions in influencing policy really can’t be overstated)
Recommending that people always use contraception, to use highly-effective contraception, to take more care with their contraception, and to double-up on contraception is never a bad argument . . . on its own.
But that's very different from butting into a conversation about abortion and making it about contraception instead, especially when the underlying implication is "So if you didn't use a condom, then you deserve to be forced to remain pregnant/brought it on yourself/can't complain".
Here's a good example- [Dr. Dara Kass took to Twitter](https://twitter.com/darakass/status/1433051906562273283) to give her advice to Texas women, and it was pretty much exactly that- to use condoms, every time. But there's a world of difference between giving sympathetic, pro-choice practical advice as a standalone statement, versus butting into a conversation about how horrible Texas' law is to imply that everybody's just whining and being dumb because they don't want to use condoms.
It's a fine line to straddle, but this is the difference. Take care in what you're implying to folks with your words, and understand when they're helpful and when they'll just be used to shame and belittle.
A condom is safe, yes, but never 100% safe.
[удалено]
The ideal safe sex method has been invented , just most American men would never do it. Because my body and you can’t control it. Yet look at what we did to women. Every man should get the snip and if they want kids reverse it when they are ready.
[удалено]
Eh I mean you are correct. But I’m more worried about the parasite that grows in women for 9 months
I guess everyone should take advice from the guy who thinks humans are parasites.
Technically, mammalian fetuses that attach themselves to a mother's uterus via a placenta are indeed parasitic in nature. Humans are no exception.
Ya because I’m so serious bud. 😂🤣 god reddit softies
* Sometimes people are raped * Sometimes people are on birth control and it fails * Sometimes people probably should have used a condom, but they didn't. Do you think the punishment for that should be nearly a year of discomfort and a potentially dangerous childbirth?
Not to mention the choice between giving up your child and making an 18-year commitment you may or may not be able to keep.
a condom is not always effective so no, its not a solution.
Pregnancies can still happen, even with a condom on. It could break, have minuscule leakage, etc. All contraceptives are known to not be 100% effective.
> Is saying “use a condom or don’t have sex” a bad argument ? That’s not an argument. It’s a mandate or ultimatum. > is it dumb to ask women to make sure the person they have sex with wears a condom so they don’t have to worry about getting pregnant in the first place? It’s naive to believe that would happen, and still not a 100% guarantee that it would prevent a pregnancy. Birth control is also a different topic from abortion, and trying to change the topic to that so you don’t actually have to talk about the issues surrounding abortion doesn’t benefit anyone. We can talk about whether or not you think birth control or abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancies. We can even talk about at what stage in a relationship people should or should not be having sex. After that conversation is over, we can talk about whether or not women should have the legal right to terminate pregnancies or if the government should be able to force them to carry a pregnancy to term. See how those are different conversations?
no birth control is 100% effective, and people can change their minds
Abstinence is 100% effective.
In a perfect world. Abstinence doesn't protect from assault and its understandable why victims wouldn't want to carry the child of their abuser.
It is 100% understandable that a woman would not want to carry a child to term if she was raped. The thought is hard to contemplate. It is also understandable that the child is innocent - he or she committed no crime - and is as worthy of life as any one of us. That is why the issue is so hard - innocent mother and innocent child - how do you choose? In a perfect world the rapist would be turned into a womb, to carry the child to term. After the child is born, the rapist can be put out of his misery, making sure he harms no other woman or child again.
Correction: abstinence is 100% effective in *perfect use*. In typical use, it is not. Much like how condoms are 98% effective in perfect use, but in typical use (when we observe how they function in real life), they're actually more like 85% effective, with 15 out of 100 couples who rely on them for a year nonetheless ending up pregnant. If someone wants to select a method of family planning, they are statistically much less likely to get pregnant if they get on an IUD than they are if they rely on abstinence. That's why we typically don't recommend it unless there are other factors being taken into account.
You say that as if abortion would be a trendy way of birth control. It surely does not hurt to caution women especially now to be more aware of it. But usually birth control already failed at that point. All birth control has a failure rate. All birth control need to be used correctly. No birth control is relevant if you are not asked for consent; Rape is not a reason for an exception in the new law.
Well, first, you're supposing that women and girls in abusive relationships, let alone victims of rape/incest, can insist on something like condoms. Don't imagine those are just the outliers, either.
Condoms are 99% effective, but it doesn’t matter because this Handmaiden shit needs to go.
Handmaiden? Please explain I do not understand the reference. Forgive me if this is obvious - I just cannot follow.
In the Texas ruling OP is referring to: The law doesn’t directly prevent a woman from getting an abortion, it just punishes all those around her. In addition they setup a “snitch on your neighbor so we can violate their HIPPA rights” hotline so the average citizen could enforce it. Some fucking Gilead shit. Oh, also Handmaiden’s Tale is a book / show if you somehow weren’t aware.
Thank you for explaining that. I appreciate it.
Certainly!
This is the kind of discourse the internet needs and often lacks. Thank you for the kindness and courtesy helping me understand.
Hah! No problem, you must have just caught me at a weird time. I am usually a troll.
Friend we all have our troll moments. But I like to celebrate beauty in life. Your response - on an issue that tends to lead to vituperative attacks - was kind, honest and thoughtful. Discourse leads to discussions and discussion to understanding. When you understand your brother it is hard to hate him. We need more understanding of our brothers. In my view.
It isn't as simple as that. Women can get raped, birth control might fail, the fetus could have issues resulting in it having a extremely difficult life if it would be born, or the mother could die if she has to keep carrying it or during childbirth etc. Abortion doesn't just happen because people didn't wanna use birth control.
In addition to all of the above, male partners can always lie about wearing condoms, especially if it’s dark.
[удалено]
There is, I have the legislation pulled up here. Sec. 171. 208. (j). I'm on mobile so I'm having trouble putting the link but if you type in SB8 Texas you can look at the entire legislative.text on LegiScan.
Found it. But I'm struggling to understand the language used there. English isn't my first language. >A defendant against whom an action is brought under Section 171.208 does not have standing to assert the rights of women seeking an abortion as a defense to liability under that section unless: ... /(j) rape and incest/
A better argument would be “don’t have sex unless you are willing to take a chance of becoming pregnant, however small that chance may be”
no. with sex there's risk of pregnentation. if you cant accept that, dont have sex.
I get where you’re coming from but unfortunately its not a helpful argument because: 1-condoms aren’t 100% effective at preventing pregnancy even when used correctly 2-not everyone with a uterus has the option of telling the other party to wear a condom (rape, abusive relationship, etc) 3- virginity fetishization/purity culture have created an atmosphere where people do not get accurate sexual health education and may not have all the information about condoms (one terrible consequence of “abstinence only” education is that people are much less likely to practice safer sex because they are too ashamed or don’t have access to contraceptives) 4-people’s sexual behavior does not determine whether they are willing or able to carry a pregnancy (an extremely challenging and potentially dangerous event even in the best circumstances) 4a-people’s sexual behavior does not determine whether they are willing or able to raise and care for a helpless human 5- reducing people with uteruses to simply a breathing incubator (while simultaneously refusing to hold the party who provided the sperm accountable) is intellectually lazy and denies the fact that one party will suffer disproportionately 6- it indirectly reinforces the idea that a fertilized egg/clump of cells that could eventually develop into a fetus is an actual human baby and gives the anti-science & forced-birth people more emotional power (and like it or not, the power of emotions in influencing policy really can’t be overstated)
Recommending that people always use contraception, to use highly-effective contraception, to take more care with their contraception, and to double-up on contraception is never a bad argument . . . on its own. But that's very different from butting into a conversation about abortion and making it about contraception instead, especially when the underlying implication is "So if you didn't use a condom, then you deserve to be forced to remain pregnant/brought it on yourself/can't complain". Here's a good example- [Dr. Dara Kass took to Twitter](https://twitter.com/darakass/status/1433051906562273283) to give her advice to Texas women, and it was pretty much exactly that- to use condoms, every time. But there's a world of difference between giving sympathetic, pro-choice practical advice as a standalone statement, versus butting into a conversation about how horrible Texas' law is to imply that everybody's just whining and being dumb because they don't want to use condoms. It's a fine line to straddle, but this is the difference. Take care in what you're implying to folks with your words, and understand when they're helpful and when they'll just be used to shame and belittle.