There. Right there. That’s your campaign rally call.
“Contraception is next.”
It sucks but fear will get everyone to the polls better than anything else. Please stop nursery rhymes and name calling bs.
100%. If they think life starts at conception then the pill, IUDs, and plan B are out. Then we’ll see the mental gymnastics over condoms.
They’ll never ban condoms. This is all about controlling women, not sex.
The religious right thinks premarital sex is a sin. And they are all about imposing their views on others.
The religious right thinks YOUR premarital sex is a sin. They are totally fine with THEIR premarital/adulterous/rape sex.
A common misconception is that conservative/religious men in the lower ecclons aren’t similarly oppressed.
The truth is that sweeping populations of men are controlled by the higher ups in those groups.
It’s the leaders controlling “the rabble”, not all the men controlling all the women.
It’s both. Hashtag notallmen
yesshortmen
Love it.
If a peasant feels superior to his wife, he’ll kick her when the master kicks him. Having women at the bottom of the pile makes it easier for the elite to maintain power.
Can you explain how the pill and IUD are out?
The combined oral contraceptive pill suppresses ovulation, there’s nothing to conceive with.
Copper IUDs denature the head of the sperm, meaning they are no longer able to fertilise an egg.
In both instances, there’s either a no egg, or no viable sperm. It’s no different to having sex while infertile (is that a crime too? Because if it is I’d like to see them try and stop me)
I can see how the pill could end up on the chopping block, as it’s secondary method of action is to prevent the uterine lining thickening enough to support implantation of a fertilised egg, but copper IUDs prevent contraception, so life never begins, and thus nothing is “murdered”
Oh the answer is quite simple they will be “out” because they enable godless whores to have sex outside of marriage without consequences. And by consequences we mean forced conception and birth and with any luck the mutilation and/or death of the woman if anything goes wrong.
As Jesus intended. Next question.
Ah thank you, I was using too much logic and failed to remember that misogynistic laws aren’t made from a position of reason.
Do you know the reason behind separation of church and state? Freedom from religion.
deleted by creator
From the party that brought us the hit “don’t take our guns”, comes their next single, “we’re coming for your condoms.”
To be fair, I am humbled because while I know IVF has been banned in a misguided attempt to ban abortions, I am team stop breeding, so I have enjoyed that self inflicted gunshot wound on the right.
Makes me see how I’m opposite aligned on the topic, not just disagreeing with their point.
deleted by creator
I mean… I agree.
A sperm isn’t a human. An egg isn’t a human. An embryo isn’t a human.
The laws are quite frankly assanine.
Condoms, birth control, and safe abortions for all.
I pause a bit at girls popping morning after pills like tic tacs. I don’t think they are meant for that. I think the aforementioned would serve those ladies better, but I won’t stand in their way.
As a dude, I have a little but not a lot of say in all that.
What I sure as shit know is that no man has the right to force a woman to incubate a child, and the way I word that highlights how I think the world is fucked, it’s overpopulated, our education and social services are quite frankly shit, and we don’t need children being brought into this dumpster fire.
I hope for a day where that isn’t such a horrible idea, but that day isn’t today.
A sperm isn’t a human. An egg isn’t a human. An embryo isn’t a human.
I agree with your point but I hate the way you phrased it. The things you mentioned aren’t people, but sperm, eggs, and embryos all belong to a specific species, so if a human sperm, human egg, and human embryo aren’t human, I don’t know what you’d call them to distinguish them from their counterparts from other species.
“Isn’t a life”?
But we aren’t talking about cat IVF, so the distinction isn’t needed.
A human embryo is human regardless of whether we’re talking about other species or not. So is a human corpse. I’ve also seen people say an embryo, egg, etc. isn’t alive, which is patently false; they can die, so they’re alive. Nonhuman beings can’t be people, and nonliving things can’t be people, but being human and being alive aren’t the traits that matter, except as they relate to being a person.
That’s why I’m suggesting “not a person” is the right language to use, because we’re talking about the concept of personhood, which is what we use to distinguish entities with rights from those without.
Imma be real here, imo, all of what you just said is gobbledygook.
I’m not sure why you felt the need to tell me your command of English is poor, but you do you.
