|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Oh man those deficit hawk Republicans will surely turn up for Democrats in the midterms!
How fucking out of touch can they be.
|
On May 05 2022 05:31 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 05:22 plasmidghost wrote:On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself. Forcibly detransitioned in this context means that if you want to have anything done medically in the context of gender transition, such as getting on testosterone, and you're on it, the state could make it illegal to take it like they're trying here in Texas and in dozens of other states. It doesn't mean that the person isn't trans, of course, it's that they're losing the opportunity to transition I see. I hadn't heard of any push to restrict a person's access to hormone treatment (aside from the issue of minors, which is a different situation.) Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 05:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself. Being pregnant is (1) a psychological barrier to "being a man", but also releases a crapload of hormones which do things like make your breasts swell and wreak havoc on your body. No doubt those hormones undo whatever hormone treatment the person has already undergone and is undergoing. That would mean you are forcibly de-transitioned. I understand, thank you both for clarification
There is a bill proposed in Missouri that would ban trans medical care to anyone under 25. I don't think it's passed the Senate, but it passed the House
|
On May 05 2022 04:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 04:10 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 05 2022 02:06 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion. I don't think that's a fair characterization of dp's point, which was that banning abortions is a better way to reduce abortions than investing more money in sex ed and making contraceptives more available. I won't go into the sex ed point, because I don't think there is good data for either side of this debate, but if there is, Drone's is probably closest and supports dp's point. That said, I have serious questions about the numbers in Drone's statistics, because getting numbers for something that is legal is inherantly far easier than getting numbers for something that is illegal. Abortion clinics in Norway are obviously quite happy to give their numbers in a survey. Girls performing coathanger abortions on themselves because there is no such clinic are obviously (1) harder to find, and (2) less likely to give accurate numbers. Fewer abortions being reported does not actually mean fewer abortions were performed. He stated that spending on making contraceptives more available is nonsensical, because adults already have easy access to contraceptives. I don't know if that is true or not, but at face value it isn't an absurd argument. I know that contraceptives are fairly easy to get in western Europe, even for kids (aged 12+, I think under 12s the doctor will notify the parents if a girl asks for the pill, and pharmacies might also refuse to sell condoms to people who look very young), and furthermore, contraceptive implants, IUDs and other longer-term contraceptives are also generally subsidized by public healthcare. That said, I have no clue about the US. I could imagine the greater inequality and non-public healthcare means contraceptives might be prohibitively expensive for some people? Whether making contraceptives cheaper would actually lead to a significantly lower number of abortions? I don't know. JimmiC didn't talk about making contraception cheaper in the original comment that dp replied to, nor did JimmiC restrict his mention of contraception to only children (which dp tried to assert, later on). The only way dp's point makes sense is if we retcon what JimmiC said. It appears as if dp eventually conceded that contraception (one of JimmiC's two points) beats out dp's original position (simply banning abortion), as dp started to try to move the topic of contraception onto their own side. Also, from Drone's article: "Perhaps surprisingly, studies show that abortion rates are often higher in nations where abortion is illegal than they are in nations where it is legal. This is because abortion tends to be more readily available in wealthier, more developed nations, where women are less likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy—in large part because birth control and proper sexual education are also widely available and sexual crimes are less common. Conversely, women in developing and least-developed countries, who tend to have decreased access to birth control and education, but who are more often the victims of sexual crimes, are three times more likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy. Yet, 93 percent of the countries with the most restrictive abortion laws are developing nations." It's clearly not just about merely banning abortion, and more about all the other quality-of-life factors in play, such as socioeconomic status, birth control / contraception, sex education, and sex crimes. I don't think Drone's source makes a super strong argument one way or another, but it definitely doesn't establish that banning abortion wins against contraception + sex education (which, again, was the original 1 vs. 2 comparison). Edit: @Drone too, since that's your source ^^ There are certainly a lot of variables to consider! Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree 100% that improving sex ed and availability of contraceptives make infinitely better policy than banning abortions. But that wasn't the statement, and while dp started off so flippantly and trolly that it's amazing he wasn't actioned, he actually came back with arguments at later points and got bashed for it. Here was the initial exchange: On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. JimmyC was very vague about both aspects and notably left it to others, including yourself, to actually make that case, I don't think it is at all settled either way. In Jimmy's defense, it seems more like he was spitballing ideas than speaking from a point of certainty, whereas dp does seem very certain that the reverse is true. I personally so far think the data, insofar as there is much going around, is very much a toss up. What I took exception over was attacking dp over his follow-up point: On May 04 2022 23:43 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler + On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions. Not only are you wrong with regards to sex education, but you've conveniently ignored the fact that contraception can easily be 95-99% effective at preventing pregnancy, which means an enormous amount of abortions would be prevented. Ignoring your comment about sex ed, which I didn't expand on beyond that it's effectiveness would not change that the overall numbers are too small to accomplish what he purports, let's get to contraception. It is readily available to the VASSSST majority looking to use it. 91% of abortions are in the 20 and above age range, all of which have the ability to get contraception. which seems like an entirely reasonable counter-argument to the idea that easier access to birth control would reduce the number of abortions. Edit: yup, so pretty much what dp expanded on above me I disagree, being able to buy condoms at the store does not equal easy access to methods of birth control. For one thing it is only for the male and there is tons of information out there about how ineffective that can be do to social pressure and so on. This is before we get into all the various sexual assualts that happen. For example with the pill you would need to pay a doctor to persribe you the pill and given how it is in many of the places where abortion will illegal it is a legitimate fear that a doctor will either not perscribe or shame the unmarried woman from asking. There are many other examples as well, keep in mind small town Texas, Florida is not similar to places you have been. Even drug stores/convient stores will put the cobdoms behind the counter forcing people yo ask for them and the people will spread rumors, make comments and on and on about the unmarried women purchasing them. Next Drones article and it is not alone in this regard, suggests that places with illegal abortion have more abortions, not 0 abortions. This is not surprising as it is true in other versions of prohibition as well. I proposed that access and sex ed would likely reduce more thab outlawing. DP agrees that those measures would reduce abortions, he has not shown or even attempted to show that outlawing them will. And as you stated I was npt concrete, because I was not certain, and he is. Where is the data or proof for tgis certainity? So far he has just argued that the measures I suggest will not bring abortions to 0, which I never suggested.
You can go to a doctor/clinic for 50-100$ and be prescribed the pill. There is telemedicine which can be even cheaper and you don't even have to leave your house. You can get meds delivered to your door if you are so inclined. Monthly cost between 8-10$. Are you saying women do not have access to doctors, pharmacies or 110$? I pointed out condoms because they are so readily available that there is never an argument you can't find them. And that puts the responsibility back on men as well, not forcing the women to carry the blunt of responsibility.
Which is why you pivoted from them to rape pregnancy outliers. Then into this random belief that adults can't find contraception because they are from a small town, as if the ability to use the internet or travel to another town are impossible tasks. And imagine if the people in the store made comments or judged them. The horror!! This is again what I mean about infantilizing adults.
Again I will provide what I can find but unfortunately data on the effectiveness of making it illegal is not a huge thing that people are looking to find out. Comparisons mainly rely on third world countries and comparing effectiveness there, which you can imagine is not really apples to apples with the US. What I find weird is that you seem to think lack of access to sex ed and contraceptives are a huge hurdle that increases abortions, but losing legal access to abortions will somehow not affect the rate downward.
Finally, you really have to stop with the 0 stuff. I already asked you to show me where I said anything like this. You ignore that and repeat it. It's some random talking point you created and keep arguing against.
|
|
|
On May 05 2022 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:
This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt?
NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS
If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book.
Yikes. We should be funding things we need or forgiving student debt. The Democrats don't pretend to be the party of fiscal responsibility anyway, so there's not really anything to be gained here by Biden paying down the debt.
|
There are what, 4? 4 Republicans who would vote for Biden so long as he pays down the debt?
|
Even 4 is charitable, lol
|
|
|
On May 05 2022 06:05 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 04:44 JimmiC wrote:On May 05 2022 04:10 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 05 2022 02:06 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm not sure if you're referencing what JimmiC said, but to be clear, it's not sex ed vs. banning abortions. It's sex ed + using contraception on one side, against merely banning abortions on the other. While the sex ed might not be as influential as banning abortion, the contraception aspect is definitely more effective. JimmiC's point is valid even before factoring in the sex ed, because of just how much more effective using contraception is than merely banning abortion. I don't think that's a fair characterization of dp's point, which was that banning abortions is a better way to reduce abortions than investing more money in sex ed and making contraceptives more available. I won't go into the sex ed point, because I don't think there is good data for either side of this debate, but if there is, Drone's is probably closest and supports dp's point. That said, I have serious questions about the numbers in Drone's statistics, because getting numbers for something that is legal is inherantly far easier than getting numbers for something that is illegal. Abortion clinics in Norway are obviously quite happy to give their numbers in a survey. Girls performing coathanger abortions on themselves because there is no such clinic are obviously (1) harder to find, and (2) less likely to give accurate numbers. Fewer abortions being reported does not actually mean fewer abortions were performed. He stated that spending on making contraceptives more available is nonsensical, because adults already have easy access to contraceptives. I don't know if that is true or not, but at face value it isn't an absurd argument. I know that contraceptives are fairly easy to get in western Europe, even for kids (aged 12+, I think under 12s the doctor will notify the parents if a girl asks for the pill, and pharmacies might also refuse to sell condoms to people who look very young), and furthermore, contraceptive implants, IUDs and other longer-term contraceptives are also generally subsidized by public healthcare. That said, I have no clue about the US. I could imagine the greater inequality and non-public healthcare means contraceptives might be prohibitively expensive for some people? Whether making contraceptives cheaper would actually lead to a significantly lower number of abortions? I don't know. JimmiC didn't talk about making contraception cheaper in the original comment that dp replied to, nor did JimmiC restrict his mention of contraception to only children (which dp tried to assert, later on). The only way dp's point makes sense is if we retcon what JimmiC said. It appears as if dp eventually conceded that contraception (one of JimmiC's two points) beats out dp's original position (simply banning abortion), as dp started to try to move the topic of contraception onto their own side. Also, from Drone's article: "Perhaps surprisingly, studies show that abortion rates are often higher in nations where abortion is illegal than they are in nations where it is legal. This is because abortion tends to be more readily available in wealthier, more developed nations, where women are less likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy—in large part because birth control and proper sexual education are also widely available and sexual crimes are less common. Conversely, women in developing and least-developed countries, who tend to have decreased access to birth control and education, but who are more often the victims of sexual crimes, are three times more likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy. Yet, 93 percent of the countries with the most restrictive abortion laws are developing nations." It's clearly not just about merely banning abortion, and more about all the other quality-of-life factors in play, such as socioeconomic status, birth control / contraception, sex education, and sex crimes. I don't think Drone's source makes a super strong argument one way or another, but it definitely doesn't establish that banning abortion wins against contraception + sex education (which, again, was the original 1 vs. 2 comparison). Edit: @Drone too, since that's your source ^^ There are certainly a lot of variables to consider! Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree 100% that improving sex ed and availability of contraceptives make infinitely better policy than banning abortions. But that wasn't the statement, and while dp started off so flippantly and trolly that it's amazing he wasn't actioned, he actually came back with arguments at later points and got bashed for it. Here was the initial exchange: On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. JimmyC was very vague about both aspects and notably left it to others, including yourself, to actually make that case, I don't think it is at all settled either way. In Jimmy's defense, it seems more like he was spitballing ideas than speaking from a point of certainty, whereas dp does seem very certain that the reverse is true. I personally so far think the data, insofar as there is much going around, is very much a toss up. What I took exception over was attacking dp over his follow-up point: On May 04 2022 23:43 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2022 11:27 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 11:18 NewSunshine wrote:On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one. You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one. + Show Spoiler + On it's face, it's statistically impossible. Less than 10% of abortions are in the age range that would be most influenced by sex ed. That is before even getting to what effect sex ed has on reduction of abortions. Not only are you wrong with regards to sex education, but you've conveniently ignored the fact that contraception can easily be 95-99% effective at preventing pregnancy, which means an enormous amount of abortions would be prevented. Ignoring your comment about sex ed, which I didn't expand on beyond that it's effectiveness would not change that the overall numbers are too small to accomplish what he purports, let's get to contraception. It is readily available to the VASSSST majority looking to use it. 91% of abortions are in the 20 and above age range, all of which have the ability to get contraception. which seems like an entirely reasonable counter-argument to the idea that easier access to birth control would reduce the number of abortions. Edit: yup, so pretty much what dp expanded on above me I disagree, being able to buy condoms at the store does not equal easy access to methods of birth control. For one thing it is only for the male and there is tons of information out there about how ineffective that can be do to social pressure and so on. This is before we get into all the various sexual assualts that happen. For example with the pill you would need to pay a doctor to persribe you the pill and given how it is in many of the places where abortion will illegal it is a legitimate fear that a doctor will either not perscribe or shame the unmarried woman from asking. There are many other examples as well, keep in mind small town Texas, Florida is not similar to places you have been. Even drug stores/convient stores will put the cobdoms behind the counter forcing people yo ask for them and the people will spread rumors, make comments and on and on about the unmarried women purchasing them. Next Drones article and it is not alone in this regard, suggests that places with illegal abortion have more abortions, not 0 abortions. This is not surprising as it is true in other versions of prohibition as well. I proposed that access and sex ed would likely reduce more thab outlawing. DP agrees that those measures would reduce abortions, he has not shown or even attempted to show that outlawing them will. And as you stated I was npt concrete, because I was not certain, and he is. Where is the data or proof for tgis certainity? So far he has just argued that the measures I suggest will not bring abortions to 0, which I never suggested. You can go to a doctor/clinic for 50-100$ and be prescribed the pill. There is telemedicine which can be even cheaper and you don't even have to leave your house. You can get meds delivered to your door if you are so inclined. Monthly cost between 8-10$. Are you saying women do not have access to doctors, pharmacies or 110$? I pointed out condoms because they are so readily available that there is never an argument you can't find them. And that puts the responsibility back on men as well, not forcing the women to carry the blunt of responsibility. Which is why you pivoted from them to rape pregnancy outliers. Then into this random belief that adults can't find contraception because they are from a small town, as if the ability to use the internet or travel to another town are impossible tasks. And imagine if the people in the store made comments or judged them. The horror!! This is again what I mean about infantilizing adults. Again I will provide what I can find but unfortunately data on the effectiveness of making it illegal is not a huge thing that people are looking to find out. Comparisons mainly rely on third world countries and comparing effectiveness there, which you can imagine is not really apples to apples with the US. What I find weird is that you seem to think lack of access to sex ed and contraceptives are a huge hurdle that increases abortions, but losing legal access to abortions will somehow not affect the rate downward. Finally, you really have to stop with the 0 stuff. I already asked you to show me where I said anything like this. You ignore that and repeat it. It's some random talking point you created and keep arguing against. Yes. This is how poverty works. You never have enough money for all of the necessities are continually have to choose what you're going without. Eight to ten dollars a month can represent a week's worth of food each month.
Even when people have health insurance and only have to pay a co-pay for the doctor visit and part of their prescription costs, which is not guaranteed with how many employers are careful to keep their employees as part time or categorized as independent contractors, Republicans have been actively inhibiting requirements that birth control pills be covered by insurance.
|
On May 05 2022 06:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:https://twitter.com/EmilieSimons46/status/1521850521350516739This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt? NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book. Yikes. We should be funding things we need or forgiving student debt. The Democrats don't pretend to be the party of fiscal responsibility anyway, so there's not really anything to be gained here by Biden paying down the debt.
The thing to be gained is a smaller deficit. Although I agree you can probably get more votes if you keep the cash flowing by running multi-trillion dollar deficits.
|
|
|
The acog link quite thoroughly convinced me that the US is a shithole country. 49% of pregnancies are unintentional, and over half of women who want to use contraceptives are in need of public funding thereof (which is obviously absent for the vast majority of these women). I checked numbers in Spain and it seems about 35% of pregnancies are unintended.
Spain is hardly a beacon of good policy, so I suspect northern Europe it's far lower still. The US really should do better than Spain at least... but instead is far worse. One thing Spain does have? Public healthcare providing options for birth control...
|
On May 05 2022 06:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 06:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 05 2022 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:https://twitter.com/EmilieSimons46/status/1521850521350516739This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt? NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book. Yikes. We should be funding things we need or forgiving student debt. The Democrats don't pretend to be the party of fiscal responsibility anyway, so there's not really anything to be gained here by Biden paying down the debt. I'm thinking he is targeting all the voters who think Trump and his band of idiots are idiots but continue to vote Republican because they think of the historical "fiscal conservative". If you can take away the false narrative that Trump is about removing red tape and no spending so much than all that is left to vote for him is his various "pwn the libs" comments and the far right social agenda.
Thats what hes trying to do, but Democrats arent going to win on swing voters, theyre going to win on turnout and enthusiasm and austerity politics doesnt generate enthusiasm in Democrat voters.
|
On May 05 2022 05:59 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 05:31 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 05:22 plasmidghost wrote:On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself. Forcibly detransitioned in this context means that if you want to have anything done medically in the context of gender transition, such as getting on testosterone, and you're on it, the state could make it illegal to take it like they're trying here in Texas and in dozens of other states. It doesn't mean that the person isn't trans, of course, it's that they're losing the opportunity to transition I see. I hadn't heard of any push to restrict a person's access to hormone treatment (aside from the issue of minors, which is a different situation.) On May 05 2022 05:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself. Being pregnant is (1) a psychological barrier to "being a man", but also releases a crapload of hormones which do things like make your breasts swell and wreak havoc on your body. No doubt those hormones undo whatever hormone treatment the person has already undergone and is undergoing. That would mean you are forcibly de-transitioned. I understand, thank you both for clarification There is a bill proposed in Missouri that would ban trans medical care to anyone under 25. I don't think it's passed the Senate, but it passed the House
If you're referring to this:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/missouri-lawmakers-move-forward-bills-targeting-transgender-youth/story?id=84322160
it is in regards to minors, as it bars physicians and health care professionals employed by state and local governments from providing “gender transition procedures” to anyone under the age of 18. It also prohibits state or locally-run facilities from performing the procedure on minors.
I have not heard anything about adults being affected by any restriction on medical hormone treatments. It's a rather important distinction to make when framing the possible future of removing personal liberties from citizens (at least in my opinion.)
|
On May 05 2022 06:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 06:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 05 2022 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:https://twitter.com/EmilieSimons46/status/1521850521350516739This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt? NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book. Yikes. We should be funding things we need or forgiving student debt. The Democrats don't pretend to be the party of fiscal responsibility anyway, so there's not really anything to be gained here by Biden paying down the debt. The thing to be gained is a smaller deficit. Although I agree you can probably get more votes if you keep the cash flowing by running multi-trillion dollar deficits.
If a party was trying to be fiscally responsible (and I don't think either party is), then I completely agree with you. I'm not sure how important of an issue the deficit / national debt is, to voters, so if it's not particularly high on the list, then I can't really see candidates or incumbents caring at all (even if they ought to).
On May 05 2022 06:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 06:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 05 2022 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:https://twitter.com/EmilieSimons46/status/1521850521350516739This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt? NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book. Yikes. We should be funding things we need or forgiving student debt. The Democrats don't pretend to be the party of fiscal responsibility anyway, so there's not really anything to be gained here by Biden paying down the debt. I'm thinking he is targeting all the voters who think Trump and his band of idiots are idiots but continue to vote Republican because they think of the historical "fiscal conservative". If you can take away the false narrative that Trump is about removing red tape and no spending so much than all that is left to vote for him is his various "pwn the libs" comments and the far right social agenda.
Perhaps, although I think Biden would be much better off getting liberals/progressives to vote with actual progressive ideas, than trying to persuade fiscal conservatives to vote for him by doing whatever this is.
|
|
|
On May 05 2022 06:25 Acrofales wrote:
The acog link quite thoroughly convinced me that the US is a shithole country. 49% of pregnancies are unintentional, and over half of women who want to use contraceptives are in need of public funding thereof (which is obviously absent for the vast majority of these women). I checked numbers in Spain and it seems about 35% of pregnancies are unintended.
Spain is hardly a beacon of good policy, so I suspect northern Europe it's far lower still. The US really should do better than Spain at least... but instead is far worse. One thing Spain does have? Public healthcare providing options for birth control...
Always found it weird that they have the highest fertility rate of all developed countries by some margin, while having way worse parental rights and benefits than the next ones.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 05 2022 06:53 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 05:59 plasmidghost wrote:On May 05 2022 05:31 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 05:22 plasmidghost wrote:On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself. Forcibly detransitioned in this context means that if you want to have anything done medically in the context of gender transition, such as getting on testosterone, and you're on it, the state could make it illegal to take it like they're trying here in Texas and in dozens of other states. It doesn't mean that the person isn't trans, of course, it's that they're losing the opportunity to transition I see. I hadn't heard of any push to restrict a person's access to hormone treatment (aside from the issue of minors, which is a different situation.) On May 05 2022 05:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself. Being pregnant is (1) a psychological barrier to "being a man", but also releases a crapload of hormones which do things like make your breasts swell and wreak havoc on your body. No doubt those hormones undo whatever hormone treatment the person has already undergone and is undergoing. That would mean you are forcibly de-transitioned. I understand, thank you both for clarification There is a bill proposed in Missouri that would ban trans medical care to anyone under 25. I don't think it's passed the Senate, but it passed the House If you're referring to this: https://abcnews.go.com/US/missouri-lawmakers-move-forward-bills-targeting-transgender-youth/story?id=84322160it is in regards to minors, as it Show nested quote +bars physicians and health care professionals employed by state and local governments from providing “gender transition procedures” to anyone under the age of 18. It also prohibits state or locally-run facilities from performing the procedure on minors. I have not heard anything about adults being affected by any restriction on medical hormone treatments. It's a rather important distinction to make when framing the possible future of removing personal liberties from citizens (at least in my opinion.)
Hmm, I looked it up and it seems that it was just the legislators arguing for the 25 year-old age restriction.
The thing with the procedure language is that I don't know of any doctors that perform transition-related surgeries on anyone under 18. This language defines things like puberty blockers as a procedure, so they wouldn't be allowed, even though there is 0% risk to using them, as has been evidenced since it was first tried in the early 1980s. If kids and teens can't get access to puberty blockers or hormones, there's a severe mental, physical, and financial strain put on them. For instance, I didn't get on hormones until I was 23, well after puberty, and the cost to medically transition if I were to do medically necessary transition surgeries would be well over $100,000 since insurance doesn't cover more than the absolute bare minimum. As for the mental effects, the depression and general hopelessness that I experienced during my puberty as a result of the physical changes I was experiencing drove me to suicide attempts on over a dozen different times. I don't want any trans kid to go through what I went through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
