Clever slogan from the WarOnWomen

[Maria D]

Annnd Chump just made reference to his penis in the debate ... I think I am just going to submit myself to one of those 8-year cryogenic studies, and maybe when I wake up, it'll all have just been a nightmare.

Gawd. I just saw a clip of this and it's really making me think hard about this whole situation we (the US) find ourselves in. Regardless of anyone's political leanings, this is truly f*ked up. HE IS THE FRONT RUNNER OF ONE OF TWO OF OUR MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES. We can laugh or cry out loud at the absurdity that is Trump, but we are living amidst people that are fervently supporting this guy!

And it's not just people who hate Hillary, or who think Sanders is a communist, or hate Cruz or whatever. They LIKE TRUMP.
That scares me a hell of a lot more than Trump himself.

edited to add:

Our neighbors to the north will help us out - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGTznIy6i4w

 

[nala]

Just want to add in many many big (and small) businesses it really still is an "old boys club/network". Sad but true.
We are getting there and achieving equality but slowly. Just like racial equality and same sex equality etc.

Kenny, feel free to insult me anytime if the apology includes your Octavia.

Ever wonder why there is no such thing as a good old girls club? Maybe its BC those of us who are lucky enough to have benefitted from the women's rights movement are the same ones claiming that we aren't voting for Hillary just BC she is a woman? Guess one of the reasons we are not treated equally in every realm is BC we don't know how to stick together like the good old boys.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Our reproductivr rights are constantly challenged.

States closed locations you can get abortions, driving hours to and from a clinic, some causing you to stay the night to preform the procedure. Women who do not have the money to take off work, pay for sitters, etcetera are put in a difficult position

Starts are lowering the acceptable length of pregnancy before one is allowed to get an abortion. Women may not even know they are pregnant before they reach this deadline. Or, are forced to accomplish the difficulty outlined in the previous paragraph in a short timeframe.

You're required to wait 24 hours in some areas. Forcing someone to be put through emotional punishment because they choose a perfectly legal procedure.

In some states you have to get an unnecessary vaginal ultrasound.

You have to get parental concent. 38 States require parental involvement in a minors choice to end her pregnancy. Now one, and sometimes both parents get a decision in the matter.

So, I am going to pivot slightly. If it's bad to impose abortion criteria, a waiting period & restrictions to obtain an abortion (your right), why is it then okay to impose those same things when it comes to me buying a gun? But I digress ...

I really don't see those things you noted as being "oppressive" or attacking women's reproductive rights. So you have to drive a couple hours ... it's not a "right" to have abortion clinics peppering communities like McDs. Stay overnight to have the procedure? Why not, seems safer for women ... many surgeries require a hospital stay, time off from work, a baby sitter, etc. and this is a medical procedure, and one that if it's not done right, can prove life threatening. We don't have a problem getting a sitter when it's girls night out or to go on business travel. I am put in difficult positions with juggling parenthood all the time, you deal, it's called being a parent (to the ones "you" didn't abort). And ya know (warning - here comes my hardass), practicing safer sex will mitigate those "difficult positions". Yes, I know, some women are sadly impregnated by rape, but these are small numbers - very small.

And emotional punishment ... because they had to wait 24 hours ... really? What about the emotional punishment she may experience for the rest of her life if she makes a rush decision due to pressure from b/f, parents, friends, etc to terminate and later regrets it or feels guilt? And as a parent who is responsible for my child (legally, medically, financially, and in every other way until she turns 18, and still to some degree after), yes, I have a right to know if my minor daughter is going to have an abortion. Again, if something goes wrong, the butcher won't accompany her to the hospital to make decisions for her, pay the medical bills, or be there to nurse her back to health and through recovery. So you're darn right - as a parent - I have the right and NEED to know and consent on her receiving a medical procedure.

Abortion is still legal and your right. It's not a right for it to be "convenient". So what exactly is "under attack"?

 

[kenny]

Kenny, feel free to insult me anytime if the apology includes your Octavia.

Oh no ... get in line, missy - missy ... he wronged me first!

Awww OK I cannot believe I am saying this but you are right. Fair's fair. Kenny you may hand it over to JoCoJenn.
You owe me one JoCo.

But but but ... it's all sawn into a zillion little 0.0001-point pieces because we were supposed to get that big earthquake.

 

[missy]

Our reproductivr rights are constantly challenged.

States closed locations you can get abortions, driving hours to and from a clinic, some causing you to stay the night to preform the procedure. Women who do not have the money to take off work, pay for sitters, etcetera are put in a difficult position

Starts are lowering the acceptable length of pregnancy before one is allowed to get an abortion. Women may not even know they are pregnant before they reach this deadline. Or, are forced to accomplish the difficulty outlined in the previous paragraph in a short timeframe.

You're required to wait 24 hours in some areas. Forcing someone to be put through emotional punishment because they choose a perfectly legal procedure.

In some states you have to get an unnecessary vaginal ultrasound.

You have to get parental concent. 38 States require parental involvement in a minors choice to end her pregnancy. Now one, and sometimes both parents get a decision in the matter.

So, I am going to pivot slightly. If it's bad to impose abortion criteria, a waiting period & restrictions to obtain an abortion (your right), why is it then okay to impose those same things when it comes to me buying a gun? But I digress ...

I really don't see those things you noted as being "oppressive" or attacking women's reproductive rights. So you have to drive a couple hours ... it's not a "right" to have abortion clinics peppering communities like McDs. Stay overnight to have the procedure? Why not, seems safer for women ... many surgeries require a hospital stay, time off from work, a baby sitter, etc. and this is a medical procedure, and one that if it's not done right, can prove life threatening. We don't have a problem getting a sitter when it's girls night out or to go on business travel. I am put in difficult positions with juggling parenthood all the time, you deal, it's called being a parent (to the ones "you" didn't abort). And ya know (warning - here comes my hardass), practicing safer sex will mitigate those "difficult positions". Yes, I know, some women are sadly impregnated by rape, but these are small numbers - very small.

And emotional punishment ... because they had to wait 24 hours ... really? What about the emotional punishment she may experience for the rest of her life if she makes a rush decision due to pressure from b/f, parents, friends, etc to terminate and later regrets it or feels guilt? And as a parent who is responsible for my child (legally, medically, financially, and in every other way until she turns 18, and still to some degree after), yes, I have a right to know if my minor daughter is going to have an abortion. Again, if something goes wrong, the butcher won't accompany her to the hospital to make decisions for her, pay the medical bills, or be there to nurse her back to health and through recovery. So you're darn right - as a parent - I have the right and NEED to know and consent on her receiving a medical procedure.

Abortion is still legal and your right. It's not a right for it to be "convenient". So what exactly is "under attack"?

It is not a fair apples to apples comparison JoCoJenn. Having the right (as adult women) to do with our bodies what is right for us should not be the concern of the government or anyone else who is not directly affected for that matter. It doesn't affect you or me directly. However just allowing anyone to get a gun without a background check and without the necessary safety measures is foolish and dangerous. But that is another topic for another day. We are talking about women's rights now and this is how people (generally speaking not accusing you of this) who are not pro women and their rights try to muddy the situation.

Yes our reproductive rights *are* constantly being challenged JoCoJenn.

Kenny, feel free to insult me anytime if the apology includes your Octavia.

Oh no ... get in line, missy - missy ... he wronged me first!

Awww OK I cannot believe I am saying this but you are right. Fair's fair. Kenny you may hand it over to JoCoJenn.
You owe me one JoCo.

But but but ... it's all sawn into a zillion little 0.0001-point pieces because we were supposed to get that big earthquake.

Well, if you had asked me I would have said NO to sawing the Octavia into tiny little pieces and would have let one person have it. Remember the Solomon and baby story?

 

[Niel]

Our reproductivr rights are constantly challenged.

States closed locations you can get abortions, driving hours to and from a clinic, some causing you to stay the night to preform the procedure. Women who do not have the money to take off work, pay for sitters, etcetera are put in a difficult position

Starts are lowering the acceptable length of pregnancy before one is allowed to get an abortion. Women may not even know they are pregnant before they reach this deadline. Or, are forced to accomplish the difficulty outlined in the previous paragraph in a short timeframe.

You're required to wait 24 hours in some areas. Forcing someone to be put through emotional punishment because they choose a perfectly legal procedure.

In some states you have to get an unnecessary vaginal ultrasound.

You have to get parental concent. 38 States require parental involvement in a minors choice to end her pregnancy. Now one, and sometimes both parents get a decision in the matter.

So, I am going to pivot slightly. If it's bad to impose abortion criteria, a waiting period & restrictions to obtain an abortion (your right), why is it then okay to impose those same things when it comes to me buying a gun? But I digress ...

I really don't see those things you noted as being "oppressive" or attacking women's reproductive rights. So you have to drive a couple hours ... it's not a "right" to have abortion clinics peppering communities like McDs. Stay overnight to have the procedure? Why not, seems safer for women ... many surgeries require a hospital stay, time off from work, a baby sitter, etc. and this is a medical procedure, and one that if it's not done right, can prove life threatening. We don't have a problem getting a sitter when it's girls night out or to go on business travel. I am put in difficult positions with juggling parenthood all the time, you deal, it's called being a parent (to the ones "you" didn't abort). And ya know (warning - here comes my hardass), practicing safer sex will mitigate those "difficult positions". Yes, I know, some women are sadly impregnated by rape, but these are small numbers - very small.

And emotional punishment ... because they had to wait 24 hours ... really? What about the emotional punishment she may experience for the rest of her life if she makes a rush decision due to pressure from b/f, parents, friends, etc to terminate and later regrets it or feels guilt? And as a parent who is responsible for my child (legally, medically, financially, and in every other way until she turns 18, and still to some degree after), yes, I have a right to know if my minor daughter is going to have an abortion. Again, if something goes wrong, the butcher won't accompany her to the hospital to make decisions for her, pay the medical bills, or be there to nurse her back to health and through recovery. So you're darn right - as a parent - I have the right and NEED to know and consent on her receiving a medical procedure.

Abortion is still legal and your right. It's not a right for it to be "convenient". So what exactly is "under attack"?

Because the right to our body is quite different than the right to an object.

And you know, actually, the majority of women who get abortions do NOT regret them.
So an emotional punishment for the woman who got raped and has to let that violation fester inside her for another 24 hours because some politician thinks 24 hours will either change her mind or get her out of the acceptable time frame for an abortion.

And if something " goes wrong" is a scare tactics pro lifters use, something rarely goes wrong. And to your point, if you really feel it necessary to have parental concent, why need both?
Eta: it is safe when done by the appropriate healthcare professional, not a back ally one, which these policies force your women into

The right to a prior abortion actually is important, particular when the timeframe of when it's performed matters.

 

[the_mother_thing]

It is not a fair apples to apples comparison JoCoJenn.(

Good morning!

So, please know I am not trying to make this into an abortion debate, or a gun debate; I tend to break things down when I analyze them to try and arrive at as close to A2A as possible so that I am thinking "fair" . And I think this 'argument' could apply to a broad spectrum. So, I think it IS A2A when you look at the basis of them both being "rights". And that is where I based my opinion. Taking the emotion/beliefs aspect out (being pro-choice and/or pro-2A), it comes down to a person's rights, and either they should have "contingencies" placed on them or they shouldn't. Both present potential "harm" to the individual and/or others to some degree. But I don't see it fair to apply contingencies to one and protest them being applied to another - regardless of which direct that favors. We have background checks, waiting periods, registrations, laws, etc around one "right", and there are even limits on the 1A, so why is it objectionable that there be contingencies on the right to choose?

 

[missy]

It is not a fair apples to apples comparison JoCoJenn.(

So, please know I am not trying to make this into an abortion debate, or a gun debate; I tend to break things down when I analyze them to try and arrive at as close to A2A as possible . And I think this 'argument' could apply to a broad spectrum. So, I think it IS A2A when you look at the basis of them both being "rights". And that is where I based my opinion. Taking the emotion/beliefs aspect out (being pro-choice and/or pro-2A), it comes down to a person's rights, and either they should have "contingencies" placed on them or they shouldn't. Both present potential "harm" to the individual and/or others to some degree. But I don't see it fair to apply contingencies to one and protest them being applied to another - regardless of which direct that favors. We have background checks, waiting periods, registrations, laws, etc around one "right", and there are even limits on the 1A, so why is it objectionable that there be contingencies on the right to choose?

The major difference is that we are talking about our own bodies and other people telling us what is and what is not acceptable to do with regards to our own bodies. That is a huge difference and to compare the two I find insulting. I know you are not intending to offend and I don't take offense per se but IMO it is an insulting comparison.

You know, my personal motto in life generally is do what you want to as long as it doesn't affect me negatively. So if a woman (and her partner) decide they don't want that pregnancy to go to fruition it is 100% their decision (IMO). If someone wants to buy a gun (someone who is mentally unstable or who has criminal intent) it is our duty as a country to make sure that they don't get that gun with which they intend to cause harm. Purchasing arms is not something that should be a right for all. The government needs to do what is necessary to protect us the general public. In fact that should be the major role of the government IMO. Keep their people safe. Which under Obama I feel we are so much less so than before but now I digress.

 

[the_mother_thing]

The major difference is that we are talking about our own bodies and other people telling us what is and what is not acceptable to do with regards to our own bodies. That is a huge difference and to compare the two I find insulting. I know you are not intending to offend and I don't take offense per se but IMO it is an insulting comparison.

You know, my personal motto in life generally is do what you want to as long as it doesn't affect me negatively. So if a woman (and her partner) decide they don't want that pregnancy to go to fruition it is 100% their decision (IMO). If someone wants to buy a gun (someone who is mentally unstable or who has criminal intent) it is our duty as a country to make sure that they don't get that gun with which they intend to cause harm. Purchasing arms is not something that should be a right for all. The government needs to do what is necessary to protect us the general public. In fact that should be the major role of the government IMO. Keep their people safe. Which under Obama I feel we are so much less so than before but now I digress.

Thank you for not taking my comment as insulting because I truly don't ever mean to offend or insult anyone; merely just sharing how I arrived at my thinking on the matter. And I know we disagree on the matter, and appreciate we can do so respectfully.

While I respect its your body/your choice, I do see that choice posing a potential "harm" to others or to impact them negatively, outside of the decision maker. It removes the choice for a man to be a father, the opportunity for a parent to be a grandparent, (and I know we disagree here based on when one sees "life"), but - from my perspective/opinion, the choice of a child to live. And that is the aspect of the "gun debate" that drives people who assess life earlier than others nuts - that the "ban guns - save the children" slogans fly, meanwhile supporting abortion. I personally find it hypocritical, but I know we don't all share the same views & opinions on the matter, and I respect that.

So, I too digress ... I need coffee. But I sincerely appreciate the respectful discussion and allowing me to explain my thoughts and thinking on the matter. I don't aim to change someone else's mind; only enable understanding.

 

[Niel]

The major difference is that we are talking about our own bodies and other people telling us what is and what is not acceptable to do with regards to our own bodies. That is a huge difference and to compare the two I find insulting. I know you are not intending to offend and I don't take offense per se but IMO it is an insulting comparison.

You know, my personal motto in life generally is do what you want to as long as it doesn't affect me negatively. So if a woman (and her partner) decide they don't want that pregnancy to go to fruition it is 100% their decision (IMO). If someone wants to buy a gun (someone who is mentally unstable or who has criminal intent) it is our duty as a country to make sure that they don't get that gun with which they intend to cause harm. Purchasing arms is not something that should be a right for all. The government needs to do what is necessary to protect us the general public. In fact that should be the major role of the government IMO. Keep their people safe. Which under Obama I feel we are so much less so than before but now I digress.

Thank you for not taking my comment as insulting because I truly don't ever mean to offend or insult anyone; merely just sharing how I arrived at my thinking on the matter. And I know we disagree on the matter, and appreciate we can do so respectfully.

While I respect its your body/your choice, I do see that choice posing a potential "harm" to others or to impact them negatively, outside of the decision maker. It removes the choice for a man to be a father, the opportunity for a parent to be a grandparent, (and I know we disagree here based on when one sees "life"), but - from my perspective/opinion, the choice of a child to live. And that is the aspect of the "gun debate" that drives people who assess life earlier than others nuts - that the "ban guns - save the children" slogans fly, meanwhile supporting abortion. I personally find it hypocritical, but I know we don't all share the same views & opinions on the matter, and I respect that.

So, I too digress ... I need coffee. But I sincerely appreciate the respectful discussion and allowing me to explain my thoughts and thinking on the matter. I don't aim to change someone else's mind; only enable understanding.

Again, when you try to equate a zygote, say, to my 3 year old child its insulting and does little to support your stance on pro life option.

Then possibly of a life and a life are not the same.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Again, when you try to equate a zygote, say, to my 3 year old child its insulting and does little to support your stance on pro life option.

Then possibly of a life and a life are not the same.

This comes down to what you believe vs. what I believe (when life begins), and we just disagree. I would say that it's equally insulting to suggest that my unborn child was not a life, as that minimizes & devalues her, in my eyes.

Again, I'm not trying to change your mind on the matter. I respect your position/beliefs, and only ask for the same in return.

 

[Niel]

Again, when you try to equate a zygote, say, to my 3 year old child its insulting and does little to support your stance on pro life option.

Then possibly of a life and a life are not the same.

This comes down to what you believe vs. what I believe (when life begins), and we just disagree. I would say that it's equally insulting to suggest that my unborn child was not a life, as that minimizes & devalues her, in my eyes.

Again, I'm not trying to change your mind on the matter. I respect your position/beliefs, and only ask for the same in return.

I respect your beliefs were allowed to think any thing we want. I do not respect the position as the position is part of a movement that wants to restrict my rights to my body.

 

[Niel]

For example your belief that there is not gender inequality is, in my opinion flawed, but fine.

Your position that we should stop complaining becuase we don't have thing to complain about is a hindrance to the women who are fighting, still, for equality.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I respect your beliefs were allowed to think any thing we want. I do not respect the position as the position is part of a movement that wants to restrict my rights to my body.

Thank you. And like you, I respect your beliefs, but I don't respect the position of the movement that wants to restrict my legal and constitutional right (or anyone else's) to own a firearm based on unwarranted 'instability' or 'criminal' presumptions. So we agree to disagree on both topics, and that's fine.

 

[missy]

The major difference is that we are talking about our own bodies and other people telling us what is and what is not acceptable to do with regards to our own bodies. That is a huge difference and to compare the two I find insulting. I know you are not intending to offend and I don't take offense per se but IMO it is an insulting comparison.

You know, my personal motto in life generally is do what you want to as long as it doesn't affect me negatively. So if a woman (and her partner) decide they don't want that pregnancy to go to fruition it is 100% their decision (IMO). If someone wants to buy a gun (someone who is mentally unstable or who has criminal intent) it is our duty as a country to make sure that they don't get that gun with which they intend to cause harm. Purchasing arms is not something that should be a right for all. The government needs to do what is necessary to protect us the general public. In fact that should be the major role of the government IMO. Keep their people safe. Which under Obama I feel we are so much less so than before but now I digress.

Thank you for not taking my comment as insulting because I truly don't ever mean to offend or insult anyone; merely just sharing how I arrived at my thinking on the matter. And I know we disagree on the matter, and appreciate we can do so respectfully.

While I respect its your body/your choice, I do see that choice posing a potential "harm" to others or to impact them negatively, outside of the decision maker. It removes the choice for a man to be a father, the opportunity for a parent to be a grandparent, (and I know we disagree here based on when one sees "life"), but - from my perspective/opinion, the choice of a child to live. And that is the aspect of the "gun debate" that drives people who assess life earlier than others nuts - that the "ban guns - save the children" slogans fly, meanwhile supporting abortion. I personally find it hypocritical, but I know we don't all share the same views & opinions on the matter, and I respect that.

So, I too digress ... I need coffee. But I sincerely appreciate the respectful discussion and allowing me to explain my thoughts and thinking on the matter. I don't aim to change someone else's mind; only enable understanding.

JoCoJenn, nobody has the "right" to become a grandparent OK? My goodness do you think it is OK to force someone to have a child they don't want just for the right of a person to become a grandparent? Like it or not it is *our* bodies and we should have the only say in if we go ahead and have that birth go to fruition. I did say the father gets some say but if I am being COMPLETELY honest here I still feel the final decision comes down to the woman who is actually *carrying* that birth to fruition.

So while I respect the fact that it is more than one person's decision to some degree the only 2 people that should be involved in that decision is the woman who is carrying the fetus and the man whose sperm it belongs to. That's it. And it still needs to come down to the woman's final decision. Respect her right to do what she feels is right with her body.

I feel like we are living in some dark utopian society where others get to dictate what is right or wrong for someone else when it truly has nothing to do with them nor does it affect them in any way. We have enough children/people being born to the detriment of the world as it is now but again I digress. Yet another topic for another day. Even if we did not have more than enough people I still stick to the statements that under all circumstances it should be the woman's right to decide what to do with her own body. PERIOD.

 

[missy]

I respect your beliefs were allowed to think any thing we want. I do not respect the position as the position is part of a movement that wants to restrict my rights to my body.

Thank you. And like you, I don't respect the position of the movement that wants to restrict my legal and constitutional right (or anyone else's) to own a firearm based on unwarranted 'instability' or 'criminal' presumptions. So we agree to disagree on both topics, and that's fine.

Rights that are based on a world we no longer live in under conditions that no longer exist. We are not the wild wild west anymore and the right to bear arms was for protection. It shows you what is really wrong with this society where the right to bear arms is still in the constitution but women's rights to do what they want to with their own bodies is not and the ERA is still in limbo. Probably never to see the light of day. But oh goodness the right to bear arms is so much more important than women's rights. Because men wrote the Constitution and are to a large degree still in charge of life as we know it here in the good old USA.

 

[missy]

Please amend my utopian to read dystopian. As that is what I meant to write.

I feel like we are living in some dark dystopian society where others get to dictate what is right or wrong for someone else when it truly has nothing to do with them nor does it affect them in any way. We have enough children/people being born to the detriment of the world as it is now but again I digress. Yet another topic for another day. Even if we did not have more than enough people I still stick to the statements that under all circumstances it should be the woman's right to decide what to do with her own body. PERIOD.

 

[the_mother_thing]

JoCoJenn, nobody has the "right" to become a grandparent OK? My goodness do you think it is OK to force someone to have a child they don't want just for the right of a person to become a grandparent? Like it or not it is *our* bodies and we should have the only say in if we go ahead and have that birth go to fruition. I did say the father gets some say but if I am being COMPLETELY honest here I still feel the final decision comes down to the woman who is actually *carrying* that birth to fruition.

So while I respect the fact that it is more than one person's decision to some degree the only 2 people that should be involved in that decision is the woman who is carrying the fetus and the man whose sperm it belongs to. That's it. And it still needs to come down to the woman's final decision. Respect her right to do what she feels is right with her body.

I feel like we are living in some dark utopian society where others get to dictate what is right or wrong for someone else when it truly has nothing to do with them nor does it affect them in any way. We have enough children/people being born to the detriment of the world as it is now but again I digress. Yet another topic for another day. Even if we did not have more than enough people I still stick to the statements that under all circumstances it should be the woman's right to decide what to do with her own body. PERIOD.

I did not say someone has the right to be a grandparent; rather, the 'opportunity', and I was citing that as an example of how the decision and its impacts do span beyond just the decision maker; not that this 'opportunity' is more important than the decision maker.

I DEFINITELY agree with you on our population's growth. I just wish we could find a better way to manage it.

 

[missy]

JoCoJenn, nobody has the "right" to become a grandparent OK? My goodness do you think it is OK to force someone to have a child they don't want just for the right of a person to become a grandparent? Like it or not it is *our* bodies and we should have the only say in if we go ahead and have that birth go to fruition. I did say the father gets some say but if I am being COMPLETELY honest here I still feel the final decision comes down to the woman who is actually *carrying* that birth to fruition.

So while I respect the fact that it is more than one person's decision to some degree the only 2 people that should be involved in that decision is the woman who is carrying the fetus and the man whose sperm it belongs to. That's it. And it still needs to come down to the woman's final decision. Respect her right to do what she feels is right with her body.

I feel like we are living in some dark utopian society where others get to dictate what is right or wrong for someone else when it truly has nothing to do with them nor does it affect them in any way. We have enough children/people being born to the detriment of the world as it is now but again I digress. Yet another topic for another day. Even if we did not have more than enough people I still stick to the statements that under all circumstances it should be the woman's right to decide what to do with her own body. PERIOD.

I did not say someone has the right to be a grandparent; rather, the 'opportunity', and I was citing that as an example of how the decision and its impacts do span beyond just the decision maker; not that this 'opportunity' is more important than the decision maker.

I DEFINITELY agree with you on our population's growth. I just wish we could find a better way to manage it.

I appreciate that distinction but really when does it end? I mean to some degree our actions create a ripple effect that affect many people where it is just not those people's decision to tell us what to do despite that fact. For example, let's say I went to school to become a musician but my parents didn't want me to do that and instead wanted me to be a doctor. What I do as a career does to some extent affect them but still not their decision right? I mean if I am not a successful musician they might need to help me out (if they so chose to do that) whereas if I became a doctor I would be more self sufficient at least in the beginning of my career. And as a doctor I might save individual's who might otherwise die. Just looking at some extreme examples. However I am sure you would agree it is the right of the person pursuing their career to choose what they make for that career choice. Even if in that career choice we are creating a ripple effect that affects more than just the person making that decision. Even life and death ripples.

So do we let our parents dictate to us that we must carry that unplanned accidental birth to fruition for them to have the opportunity to be grandparents? Or for us to become doctors so our parents can proudly say look my child is a doctor? Or to go against our decision and do something we don't want to do for other people's sake? A decision that will directly affect our lives irrevocably forever? Shouldn't that type of decision be up to the individual whose life will be mainly affected?

Not an A2A comparison but I think you will allow it to slide respecting the comparison I am making. No matter how peripherally or not peripherally it might affect your parents, your aunts and uncles etc it is still the woman's decision and certainly not sure how you can expand that to include the government or other strangers decision on what you are allowed to do and not do with your own body. The very thought of that is, to me, terrifying and ludicrous at the same time.

Sorry for the jumbled thoughts. I cannot proof read and was just free thinking because I am in a rush now to get started with my morning LOL. But please try to understand where we are coming from and while it is OK to agree to disagree it would be also great for you to get what I am saying. It is *our* bodies we are talking about and should not be up to anyone else to decide what is right or wrong for our own bodies. Especially the Government's decision.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Rights that are based on a world we no longer live in under conditions that no longer exist. We are not the wild wild west anymore and the right to bear arms was for protection. It shows you what is really wrong with this society where the right to bear arms is still in the constitution but women's rights to do what they want to with their own bodies is not and the ERA is still in limbo. Probably never to see the light of day. But oh goodness the right to bear arms is so much more important than women's rights. Because men wrote the Constitution and are to a large degree still in charge of life as we know it here in the good old USA.

I did not say one right 'trumps' another. One is a right granted by the Constitution, and one is a right granted via the Court. I can agree to not tread on your (collective) right to 'choose' if you can agree to not tread on my right to protect my family's lives just because you think it's archaic and/or not necessary. This is as important to me as is your ability to make decisions about your body is to you.

So, let's compromise - I'll stay out of your "box"; you stay out of my gun safe.

 

[partgypsy]

Our reproductivr rights are constantly challenged.

States closed locations you can get abortions, driving hours to and from a clinic, some causing you to stay the night to preform the procedure. Women who do not have the money to take off work, pay for sitters, etcetera are put in a difficult position

Starts are lowering the acceptable length of pregnancy before one is allowed to get an abortion. Women may not even know they are pregnant before they reach this deadline. Or, are forced to accomplish the difficulty outlined in the previous paragraph in a short timeframe.

You're required to wait 24 hours in some areas. Forcing someone to be put through emotional punishment because they choose a perfectly legal procedure.

In some states you have to get an unnecessary vaginal ultrasound.

You have to get parental concent. 38 States require parental involvement in a minors choice to end her pregnancy. Now one, and sometimes both parents get a decision in the matter.

So, I am going to pivot slightly. If it's bad to impose abortion criteria, a waiting period & restrictions to obtain an abortion (your right), why is it then okay to impose those same things when it comes to me buying a gun? But I digress ...

I really don't see those things you noted as being "oppressive" or attacking women's reproductive rights. So you have to drive a couple hours ... it's not a "right" to have abortion clinics peppering communities like McDs. Stay overnight to have the procedure? Why not, seems safer for women ... many surgeries require a hospital stay, time off from work, a baby sitter, etc. and this is a medical procedure, and one that if it's not done right, can prove life threatening. We don't have a problem getting a sitter when it's girls night out or to go on business travel. I am put in difficult positions with juggling parenthood all the time, you deal, it's called being a parent (to the ones "you" didn't abort). And ya know (warning - here comes my hardass), practicing safer sex will mitigate those "difficult positions". Yes, I know, some women are sadly impregnated by rape, but these are small numbers - very small.

And emotional punishment ... because they had to wait 24 hours ... really? What about the emotional punishment she may experience for the rest of her life if she makes a rush decision due to pressure from b/f, parents, friends, etc to terminate and later regrets it or feels guilt? And as a parent who is responsible for my child (legally, medically, financially, and in every other way until she turns 18, and still to some degree after), yes, I have a right to know if my minor daughter is going to have an abortion. Again, if something goes wrong, the butcher won't accompany her to the hospital to make decisions for her, pay the medical bills, or be there to nurse her back to health and through recovery. So you're darn right - as a parent - I have the right and NEED to know and consent on her receiving a medical procedure.

Abortion is still legal and your right. It's not a right for it to be "convenient". So what exactly is "under attack"?

In 2011, state legislatures across the United States introduced over 1100 provisions related to women's health and reproductive rights,[44][47] and in the first quarter of 2012 an additional 944 provisions were introduced in state legislatures, half of which would restrict access to abortion, including things like waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds, multiple doctors visits. None of these proposals to restrict abortion were done due to being clinical best practices or medical recommendations. They were done for political reasons, soley to restrict abortion access. Obviously your view about abortion are quite clear, such as referring to the doctor as "butcher" but wouldn't you agree that medical procedures really should be between the patient (here of course a women), and the provider? I don't understand why anyone who is a conservative who thinks that government is "too big" and too intrusive, would think these kind of proposals are OK? As far as saying everyone should know sex education by know, conservatives have fought an active campaign to restrict or even provide misleading information in schools, textbooks, and trying to mandate that providers give factually incorrect information to patients (such as that abortions cause breast cancer). All of the legislation differentially impacts poor women with less resources more; they may be a minor with a not good family life, but still need a parental signature. They may work a job which does not allow them the luxury of taking off time for multiple doctors visits, overnight stays, drives to another state.

Since you wanted a specific example of discrimination, I will give you one, my own. When I was in graduate school I was told of "working in my field, being married, having a child, I could do 1 thing well, 2 of them with difficulty, and 3 was not possible." Needless to say, the same speech was not given to the males. I didn't let such talk affect me as I felt self-confident of my own abilities, and that kind of sexist stuff was in the past, right? After completing my PhD, working in one lab after completing a prestigious post-doc, as a research associate co-wrote a 4 year grant which was funded. Only at that point did I feel secure in my job position enough to get pregnant. I knew my supervisor (who was female, yes females can be sexist too) had an issue with pregnant female employees from multiple other instances, including her asking pointed questions whether I was considering getting pregnant, followed by discriminatory remarks of women who get pregnant letting other people carry their load, etc. I was very professional and after waiting 8 weeks she was the first one I told. She immediately asked if I was going to resign, and I said of course not, and gave her my schedule of leave (8 weeks). During my pregnancy she put up a calendar in the lab hallway and had me to write all pregnancy related appointments on this public calendar (though no one else in the lab had to write down their medical appointments) and then told me I had excessive appointments (I had a routine pregnancy). She kept refusing to meet with me so we could assign my duties to other coworkers for when I was in leave. She started telling me that bottle feeding was better than breast feeding and that I shouldn't breast feed. When I informed her I was planning on breast feeding and as there was no breast feeding room in the hospital I would be doing it in my office, she said nothing. When I returned from 8 week leave after a few days she marched me to the human resources saying that I had pumped in my (private) office without her permission and contaminated the lab with breast milk. I am not going to go into all the things that occurred during that time, but it was bad. Based on her behavior I was very motivated to get 3 manuscripts we had co-written submitted, but she kept postponing or canceling meetings regarding these papers. Two of the 3 papers, I would have been first author. One proactive thing I did was insist that I have a job description with monthly targets and goals (she initially refused to write a job description), so she could not accuse me later of not doing my job. About 6 months later in a fit of anger (she was really quite irrational at this point) fired me. However as she had given me an exemplary review just a month prior, the only way she could fire me was to dissolve my job position. (This put her in a difficult position as she could not hire anyone for my position for a year). However I had to walk away from my career, including the 3 manuscripts.
This was about 13 years ago. Things have improved, but honestly, there does need to be protections so employers cannot do this kind of stuff to females.

 

[missy]

Rights that are based on a world we no longer live in under conditions that no longer exist. We are not the wild wild west anymore and the right to bear arms was for protection. It shows you what is really wrong with this society where the right to bear arms is still in the constitution but women's rights to do what they want to with their own bodies is not and the ERA is still in limbo. Probably never to see the light of day. But oh goodness the right to bear arms is so much more important than women's rights. Because men wrote the Constitution and are to a large degree still in charge of life as we know it here in the good old USA.

I did not say one right 'trumps' another. One is a right granted by the Constitution, and one is a right granted via the Court. I can agree to not tread on your (collective) right to 'choose' if you can agree to not tread on my right to protect my family's lives just because you think it's archaic and/or not necessary. This is as important to me as is your ability to make decisions about your body is to you.

So, let's compromise - I'll stay out of your "box"; you stay out of my gun safe.

OK so this is just another place where I am going to respectfully disagree with you and while I am sorry I am not going to be able to compromise on this issue. The difference (to me) is critical. One is the right to do with one's body as that individual sees fit and the other affects greatly more than just that person purchasing the firearms. Now just so you know I come from a family who owns rifles and enjoyed skeet shooting when we were all younger. My dad has lots of guns and it was a hobby. However he would be the first to say that there needs to be strict gun control for the public safety. The 2 issues in my mind are just not similar. Guns and gun ownership affects many whereas my right to end an unwanted pregnancy mainly affects just me and my partner.

And while we are discussing it the right for a woman to choose *should* be in the Constitution and it shows just how messed up we are that the right to bear arms is (still) there yet a woman's right over her own body is not protected by the Constitution. And I hate to beat a dead horse (especially as an animal lover) however again I will mention why is the ERA not part of our legal repertoire?


And I agree with part gypsy. Politics should stay out of my personal choice about what to do with my body decisions!

 

[chrono]

Sort of off-topic here too but I think the USA is the only 1st world country that does not support paid time off for new mothers! This country is so backwards when it comes to women's rights and equality.

 

[missy]

Chrono, I agree. The USA is backwards when it comes to women's rights and equality for all and what is disturbing (to me) is that many women don't get it. JoCoJenn, I mean no disrespect. You have the right to believe in what you want to of course but when your beliefs affect my rights that's where I am "up in arms" lol forgive the pun.


There are many women (and men) who believe what JoCoJenn believe and are pro life (which is another term I take exception to because I too am pro people and animals living good lives and life in general and the whole term pro life is distasteful to me because it means whoever is not pro life is against life which is just not true) which is to say against a woman's right to choose
and I am worried for our future.

 

[Niel]

Let's take a fictional woman, Jane. Has Jane had an abortion? You don't know. Your life goes on and you are in no way affected by her life choice. You had no choice in her procedure if she did have one. But, did she? Hard to say, on with your life as it always has been. You look at a sheet of statistics that say 1/5 women have an abortion. How sad, what a sad world we live in. I wonder if Jane did. On with your life.

 

[AGBF]

Rights that are based on a world we no longer live in under conditions that no longer exist. We are not the wild wild west anymore and the right to bear arms was for protection. It shows you what is really wrong with this society where the right to bear arms is still in the constitution but women's rights to do what they want to with their own bodies is not and the ERA is still in limbo. Probably never to see the light of day. But oh goodness the right to bear arms is so much more important than women's rights. Because men wrote the Constitution and are to a large degree still in charge of life as we know it here in the good old USA.

I did not say one right 'trumps' another. One is a right granted by the Constitution, and one is a right granted via the Court. I can agree to not tread on your (collective) right to 'choose' if you can agree to not tread on my right to protect my family's lives just because you think it's archaic and/or not necessary. This is as important to me as is your ability to make decisions about your body is to you.

So, let's compromise - I'll stay out of your "box"; you stay out of my gun safe.

OK so this is just another place where I am going to respectfully disagree with you and while I am sorry I am not going to be able to compromise on this issue. The difference (to me) is critical. One is the right to do with one's body as that individual sees fit and the other affects greatly more than just that person purchasing the firearms. Now just so you know I come from a family who owns rifles and enjoyed skeet shooting when we were all younger. My dad has lots of guns and it was a hobby. However he would be the first to say that there needs to be strict gun control for the public safety. The 2 issues in my mind are just not similar. Guns and gun ownership affects many whereas my right to end an unwanted pregnancy mainly affects just me and my partner.

And while we are discussing it the right for a woman to choose *should* be in the Constitution and it shows just how messed up we are that the right to bear arms is (still) there yet a woman's right over her own body is not protected by the Constitution. And I hate to beat a dead horse (especially as an animal lover) however again I will mention why is the ERA not part of our legal repertoire?


And I agree with part gypsy. Politics should stay out of my personal choice about what to do with my body decisions!

JCJ-

I'm not going to discuss abortion here. I'm going to discuss your claim that it is laughable to say that women are the object of discrimination in 2016 and that you have never experienced discrimination as a woman.

This thread rather proves that the contrary is true. Maybe you don't care about or want to utilize all your rights; but your rights have been and are being curtailed. You probably know that while you were in the military you were unable to serve in some positions for which the restrictions had not, yet, been lifted. (They were lifted very recently following the successful graduation from the Ranger training course by two female soldiers.) Had the military not made the decision internally, women would still be barred from whatever positions the military saw fit to bar them from-many people thought the Navy SEALS would be the last holdout-because, as missy pointed out, women do not have equal rights under the law.

If you wanted to terminate a pregnancy in a state in which a restrictive law about abortion had been passed, you could be forced to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound for non-medical reasons. The reason for this would be to force you to look at a picture of the embryo-the collection of cells that was under three months old-before you underwent your legal abortion. In essence the state would be making you pull down your panties, spread your legs, open them up, and have someone insert a foreign object into your vagina and push it around...for no medical reason. It would be very humiliating and very uncomfortable. It would, essentially, be a form of punishment and torture to you for daring to get pregnant and to use your Constitutional right to obtain a legal abortion.It can only happen to women. Not to men. Some bunch of men in a legislature just eroded Roe v. Wade when they allowed a backward state or two or four to allow that to happen to women.

Gotta go or I'd have more.

AGBF

 

[ksinger]

I don't understand why anyone who is a conservative who thinks that government is "too big" and too intrusive, would think these kind of proposals are OK? As far as saying everyone should know sex education by know, conservatives have fought an active campaign to restrict or even provide misleading information in schools, textbooks, and trying to mandate that providers give factually incorrect information to patients (such as that abortions cause breast cancer).

Conservative doesn't necessarily mean consistent. One might even argue the opposite is true. Since most women, even the religious ones, no longer bow to the dictates of men in their own thinking and actions, the only way these guys (and some women) can get these scary, sexual, (single) women back under control, is via draconian legislation.

And in Oklahoma the attempts to ram things down our collective throats just.never.stop. This is going on right now. So yeah, women's rights are under attack every day. If they can't take the right to a legal abortion away, they will regulate the clinics that do them, out of existence, or make it so hard that it is effectively unavailable. Or as in this case, use public funds to push a point of religious dogma. Oh and understand, Oklahoma does NOT require sex ed of any kind. Many schools do it, but it is not mandated. So, not sure where they're going to teach anti-abortion lessons when sex ed is not required to be on the menu, but hey, they are letting go most of the janitorial staffs at present, and books? We no need no steenking books, so I suspect this will languish for a bit too, since our governor is dead set on making sure that no one gets taxed EXCEPT the poor.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/03/03/oklahoma_house_passes_bill_that_would_require_anti_abortion_lessons_in_all.html

 

[liaerfbv]

JoCoJenn, I'm not going to go through every point you made that I disagree with (just assume all of them), but I'm going to just say I'm really sad that you feel the way you do about my reproductive rights vs. your guns. It's just a very sad sad day for me when someone compares the rights I should have over my body to their rights over an inanimate object that kills as it's only function.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I appreciate that distinction but really when does it end? I mean to some degree our actions create a ripple effect that affect many people where it is just not those people's decision to tell us what to do despite that fact. For example, let's say I went to school to become a musician but my parents didn't want me to do that and instead wanted me to be a doctor. What I do as a career does to some extent affect them but still not their decision right? I mean if I am not a successful musician they might need to help me out (if they so chose to do that) whereas if I became a doctor I would be more self sufficient at least in the beginning of my career. And as a doctor I might save individual's who might otherwise die. Just looking at some extreme examples. However I am sure you would agree it is the right of the person pursuing their career to choose what they make for that career choice. Even if in that career choice we are creating a ripple effect that affects more than just the person making that decision. Even life and death ripples.

So do we let our parents dictate to us that we must carry that unplanned accidental birth to fruition for them to have the opportunity to be grandparents? Or for us to become doctors so our parents can proudly say look my child is a doctor? Or to go against our decision and do something we don't want to do for other people's sake? A decision that will directly affect our lives irrevocably forever? Shouldn't that type of decision be up to the individual whose life will be mainly affected?

Not an A2A comparison but I think you will allow it to slide respecting the comparison I am making. No matter how peripherally or not peripherally it might affect your parents, your aunts and uncles etc it is still the woman's decision and certainly not sure how you can expand that to include the government or other strangers decision on what you are allowed to do and not do with your own body. The very thought of that is, to me, terrifying and ludicrous at the same time.

Sorry for the jumbled thoughts. I cannot proof read and was just free thinking because I am in a rush now to get started with my morning LOL. But please try to understand where we are coming from and while it is OK to agree to disagree it would be also great for you to get what I am saying. It is *our* bodies we are talking about and should not be up to anyone else to decide what is right or wrong for our own bodies. Especially the Government's decision.

I totally get the comparison. Yes, you get to choose your career path. But, if you're reliant on someone else to foot the bill or provide support, then like it or not that money or support *may* come with strings or contingencies. I'm not saying I would do that to my child, or it's right to do it, but how I choose to spend my money is my business, and how someone else does is theirs. It's like how some companies provide education assistance - they usually have requirements to have the program be 'in the field of business' of that company, or may come with a service commitment.

I have a relative who asked to borrow money from me on two occasions - one to help them pay a couple bills when they were a little behind, and again two months later to buy an expensive pure bread dog. I paid the bills directly with no expectation or request for repayment. I did NOT loan them money to buy a dog. They got pissy with me about that; too bad, it's my money, and how I chose to spend or loan it out is up to me. And if you can't pay your light bill, a $1500 dog is not something I feel the need to loan you money for.

Also, I play devils advocate a LOT; I break things down to a basis for comparison as much as possible. And I personally do this because I really try to make sure - when I'm shaping my opinions on various matters - I'm doing it fairly, and applying equality in every aspect that I can to my positions on things because I find this takes a lot of the emotion out of things.

Are you sitting down? Please swallow your coffee. I don't share this with many - I am in fact what I refer to as 'partial pro-choice'. I actually do support a woman's right to choose what she does with her body and I'd love nothing more than to have zero knowledge of her 'box'; however, my stance and where I draw the line (as is the case with most things) is that the person making them fully owns total responsibility for those decisions. Going back to your comparison - when you bring someone else into the matter by way of 'ownership', support, dependency, etc., that is where I personally draw a line in those decisions being solely one person's, and feel others' positions on the matter deserve due consideration and maybe even contingencies because it no longer affects only that person. If you keep others' out of the equation, including the government by way of footing the bill (e.g., my tax dollars), then by all means ...

Likewise, I support my ability to own firearms because - by virtue of my responsibility for and responsible ownership of those firearms - they do not pose a threat or harm to anyone who is not trying to cause me/my family harm, and I am not dependent on ANYONE to manage them (except my instructors with whom I routinely train). They are either secured/locked up or on my person for CC, and they don't come out unless I'm training or the need arises (which I hope it never does).

So, there's my reasoning ... again, others may not agree with it, and that's fine/their prerogative. It's not my goal to change someone else's opinion; just facilitate understanding of my own.

Now, here's another picture of my cute puppy. Surely we can agree ... she's pretty darn spoiled!

 

[missy]

Awww cute puppy.

The thing is, just because *you* are a responsible gun owner doesn't mean everyone will be. And therein lies one of the problems. We need to protect the safety of all.

And just because *you* don't see discrimination doesn't mean it doesn't exist. While I respect your right to your personal views perhaps you can see just for a moment where they may be flawed in at least some way.