Drowning = Pregnancy???

[Cybrweez]

I think it would be a waste of time to try and ban contraception. But, does a state have the legal ability to? I think so. Why not? I mean, people want the US to ban guns, yet that's actually mentioned in the Constitution, so banning things not mentioned should be even easier?

[Cail]

Sure they have the ability to, and you don't have to use guns as your yardstick. Remember the panic over Four Loko a few months back? A drink was banned because it dared to mix caffeine and alcohol. And then there's the bans on marijuana and other drugs too.

[Vraith]

Well, I don't want to go where this argument ends up ["is there a right to privacy or not?" and the associated issues]...BTDT...but I can't think of a legal and logical way to say the States can ban contraception [and definitely not guns, and probably not 4-Loko either] unless you're ALSO willing to say things like "The FBI is prevented from executing warrantless/unreasonable searches, but the States can allow state/local cops to do it if they want to."

All I'm saying is to claim the ad [or whatever] means that drowning=pregnancy, [and by extension then dying=giving birth] is to completely miss the point...which is that to forbid PREVENTION, in both cases, results in unwanted instances of both.

On a pragmatic level, the number of women and children's lives saved by the availability of contraception is at least in the hundreds of millions.

[Cail]

There is no enumerated right to privacy in the Constitution. The R v. W decision dreamed up a right to privacy that only covers abortion, as that same right to privacy doesn't allow you to sell your organs, use drugs, or prostitute yourself.

I don't believe that contraception should ever be banned, but in a society that accepts prohibitions on drugs, guns, smoking, and other personal choices, you can't argue that our government couldn't do it.

[Rawedge Rim]

No, Santorum definitely said the States should have the right to outlaw contraception and sexual behaviors.

After further review, I have to give this one to you.

So, you're not willing to give up blow jobs and "Doggy-Style", amongst other common sexual activities, at Santorum's (And others') direction? Cool. glad we can count on you to support that at least

Don't ask and I won't tell

OTOH, unlike a couple of others, if I catch myself giving out bogus information, I'll at least offer a retraction.

[Vraith]

There is no enumerated right to privacy in the Constitution. The R v. W decision dreamed up a right to privacy that only covers abortion, as that same right to privacy doesn't allow you to sell your organs, use drugs, or prostitute yourself.

I don't believe that contraception should ever be banned, but in a society that accepts prohibitions on drugs, guns, smoking, and other personal choices, you can't argue that our government couldn't do it.

On most of that, I agree.
No enumerated rights: true. But the Constitution also specifically says it does not enumerate all of the rights of the people...explicitly acknowledges other rights NOT listed exist.
AND I think it isn't legally/logically consistent to maintain even the enumerated ones if there is not a fundamental right to privacy. It is an axiom that must exist for the rest of the structure to stand.

And I didn't say...or mean...the Gov'ts [whatever level] COULDN't do it...that's just a matter of power. It would be [is, for many of those that already exist] INCONSISTENT legally/logically to do so.

[Cail]

There is no enumerated right to privacy in the Constitution. The R v. W decision dreamed up a right to privacy that only covers abortion, as that same right to privacy doesn't allow you to sell your organs, use drugs, or prostitute yourself.

I don't believe that contraception should ever be banned, but in a society that accepts prohibitions on drugs, guns, smoking, and other personal choices, you can't argue that our government couldn't do it.

On most of that, I agree.
No enumerated rights: true. But the Constitution also specifically says it does not enumerate all of the rights of the people...explicitly acknowledges other rights NOT listed exist.
AND I think it isn't legally/logically consistent to maintain even the enumerated ones if there is not a fundamental right to privacy. It is an axiom that must exist for the rest of the structure to stand.

And I didn't say...or mean...the Gov'ts [whatever level] COULDN't do it...that's just a matter of power. It would be [is, for many of those that already exist] INCONSISTENT legally/logically to do so.

You're missing the important point here. The right to privacy concocted in R v. W only covers abortion. It doesn't exist for any other medical purpose, nor does it exist for other personal choices.

If you try to commit suicide and fail, you'll be involuntarily confined to a mental facility no matter how hard you try to assert your right to privacy.

[deer of the dawn]

And, that right was supposed to be "between a woman and her doctor". Most people who get an abortion never actually meet an M.D. along the way. It's all done by technicians.

Anyway, is there really a groundswell to "ban birth control"? (Please remember that I live in Africa and we keep losing access to news.) Because it sounds like a straw man to me. (Or is that Romney? Maybe that's his problem after all, what his head is stuffed with.)

All I'm saying is to claim the ad [or whatever] means that drowning=pregnancy, [and by extension then dying=giving birth] is to completely miss the point...which is that to forbid PREVENTION, in both cases, results in unwanted instances of both.

I claim the meme portrays unwanted pregnancy as putting a woman in a helpless victim role, and that what is happening to her body is a fatal horror and it's all the fault of people who want to ban birth control, as if that would ever happen anyway. And as if in more than 99% of cases (and that only among women seeking abortion, not the entirety of pregnant women) she was somehow not willingly participant in the act that led to her pregnancy, that it is all just "happening" to her. That should offend for two reasons-- that it denies her responsibility as a woman, and that pregnancy is a pathologic condition.

[Cail]

And, that right was supposed to be "between a woman and her doctor". Most people who get an abortion never actually meet an M.D. along the way. It's all done by technicians.

Anyway, is there really a groundswell to "ban birth control"? (Please remember that I live in Africa and we keep losing access to news.) Because it sounds like a straw man to me. (Or is that Romney? Maybe that's his problem after all, what his head is stuffed with.)

Good point about the dearth of M.D.s at abortion clinics.

And no, there's no credible push to ban birth control. It's just a scare tactic.

[Orlion]

Anyway, is there really a groundswell to "ban birth control"? (Please remember that I live in Africa and we keep losing access to news.) Because it sounds like a straw man to me. (Or is that Romney? Maybe that's his problem after all, what his head is stuffed with.)

The main source is a mandate by (I believe) Obama where all health care provisions offered by a company to employees need to offer birth control. This pissed off a bunch of people on the right, cause they ain't paying for no abortions or for whores to party down! Also, some religious institutions (Catholic ones come to mind) did not want to provide birth control due to their religious beliefs. People on the left then started crying foul! Quit declaring war on women, 'Publicans! Others then said denying birth control to non-Catholic workers was akin to forcing their beliefs on their employees, some student (grad/law I believe) testified to congress. Rush, classy fellow that he is, called her a prostitute and said he should have video of her sexual encounters since his tax money would be paying for it. People told him to burn in hell, Rush apologized, Santorom went insane thus ensuring that Romney got the Republican candidacy.

Then some other Congressional POS talked out of his rectum about 'legitimate rape' not being a cause for pregnancy and we got the meme we are discussing in this thread.

That's the outside of it. Keep in mind that birth control, aside from control birth, is also a useful medical therapy for some conditions. This gets glanced over by both sides but reflects worse on Republicans, at least that's my impression.

[Vraith]

And no, there's no credible push to ban birth control. It's just a scare tactic.

I agree, there's no credible push ATM. [yea, the catholic church would be in favor of it...but even most catholic individuals aren't right now...and there is a push to stop sex-ed except for abstinence, which is tangential but not irrelevant]
Nevertheless, that IS what the meme is about.
The meme may be a scare tactic, or not...I'd never seen it till this thread.
What kind of tactic is it to say something isn't about what it IS about? Or about something else?
How many threads have us [royal us, not me-you us] arguing about THAT argument?

[Cail]

And no, there's no credible push to ban birth control. It's just a scare tactic.

I agree, there's no credible push ATM. [yea, the catholic church would be in favor of it...but even most catholic individuals aren't right now...and there is a push to stop sex-ed except for abstinence, which is tangential but not irrelevant]
Nevertheless, that IS what the meme is about.
The meme may be a scare tactic, or not...I'd never seen it till this thread.
What kind of tactic is it to say something isn't about what it IS about? Or about something else?
How many threads have us [royal us, not me-you us] arguing about THAT argument?

I will bet you any amount of money you want that there will never be a credible push to ban birth control in either of our lifetimes.

Democrats and Republicans need to accept two very simple truths....

Bush was in office 8 years and had a majority in congress for part of it. There was no legislation introduced (much less passed) to outlaw abortion.

Obama has been in office for 4 years (probably 4 more) and had a majority in congress for part of it. There was no legislation introduced (much less passed) to outlaw guns.

Both parties work for exactly the same thing (eternal power and repayment of their sponsors), they just use different fringe issues to stir up their base.

[deer of the dawn]

I would move for a constitutional amendment limiting the access of Rush Limbaugh to microphones. He can use his right to free speech anywhere where only those who actually want to hear him have to.

[Rawedge Rim]

I would move for a constitutional amendment limiting the access of Rush Limbaugh to microphones. He can use his right to free speech anywhere where only those who actually want to hear him have to.

Difference is that neither you or I are required to finance his use of said microphone.

Government mandates to require insurance to cover contraception or abortion are requireing you and I to finance the use of those services.

[Vraith]

Government mandates to require insurance to cover contraception or abortion are requireing you and I to finance the use of those services.

And it's nothing compared to requiring "you and I" to finance Creationism as science [and apparently, I haven't looked into this yet, so don't vouch for accuracy, many modern maths are as false and "unproven" and dangerous as evolution], religious schools, and abstinence-only education.

[Savor Dam]

Hurray for New Math
New Math!
It's so simple
So very simple
That only a child can do it...

[sindatur]

Hurray for New Math
New Math!
It's so simple
So very simple
That only a child can do it...

I need to obtain this album (as well as the following two mentioned), my brother used to play, Bill Cosby "Ajax Liquors/Noah's Ark", and Robin Williams Reality what a Concept frequently when I was young, memories of good laughs.

Oh, also need to get George Carlin "7 Words You can't Say On TV":

"Sir, it's time to get on the plane"

"Fuck You, Lady, I'm getting IN the Plane"

I do see the liberal argument that this Meme is a comparison of Banning Birth Control to Banning Life Jackets, but, of course, that has no impact on anyone's argument about the morality/Right of having an abortion, and though some may want to use it as such now, I don't believe the original intention was to compare Pregnancy to Drowning

[Savor Dam]

Ajax Liquors and Ajax Airlines were Hudson and Landry.

"Four fifths of tequila, four fifths of scotch, two cases of beer...are you having a party?"

"No, I just trying to work up the nerve to go to confession..."

Wow, have not thought about those routines in many years!

As for Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television, I still have the copy of Class Clown my parents gave me for my birthday when it came out...and my father took a paring knife to the Seven Words track after one playing. Didn't matter, I could quote most of the routine from memory...and still can.

[sindatur]

Ajax Liquors and Ajax Airlines were Hudson and Landry.

"Four fifths of tequila, four fifths of scotch, two cases of beer...are you having a party?"

"No, I just trying to work up the nerve to go to confession..."

Wow, have not thought about those routines in many years!

As for Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television, I still have the copy of Class Clown my parents gave me for my birthday when it came out...and my father took a paring knife to the Seven Words track after one playing. Didn't matter, I could quote most of the routine from memory...and still can.

Oh my bad, duh, of course you're Right, Bill Cosby was only a 45 of Noah's Ark. I believe Ajax was also a 45, but, with both tracks on opposites sides. Lehr and Williams were 33 1/3 Albums, and Carlin was my own cassette tape

[Rawedge Rim]

Government mandates to require insurance to cover contraception or abortion are requireing you and I to finance the use of those services.

And it's nothing compared to requiring "you and I" to finance Creationism as science [and apparently, I haven't looked into this yet, so don't vouch for accuracy, many modern maths are as false and "unproven" and dangerous as evolution], religious schools, and abstinence-only education.

I don't know of a single government run school that seriously teaches Creationism as a serious subject.

Don't know anything whatsoever about the "math models"

I will say however, that however distasteful you may find "Abstinance Only" sex education, it has one absolutely truthfull assertion that cannot be gainsaid: If one reframes from engaging in sexual intercourse, one will not become pregnant, or become infected with a sexually transmitted disease."

Any other solution is a roll of the dice.