I have some stupid questions, and some comments.

[LuckyCharms]

I am reading that the supreme court will be "going after" contraception next. And that's about all I know about this issue.

My questions are probably naive, but they're still questions, so I'll ask them here.

What the fuck is the reasoning here? Is this like an "every sperm is sacred" type of deal here?

They strike down Roe v Wade, and now they want to get rid of contraception? What kind of bullshit is this?

Are they just talking about contraception that WOMEN use (birth control pills, IUDs, diaphragms, implants)? Are the going after condoms and vasectomies as well? If they are not going after condoms and vasectomies, why not? Are they just going after contraception that women use, but contraception that men use is OK?

Please excuse my ignorance here. This stuff all seems so insane to me that I am having trouble wording my questions intelligently, I just don't understand the reasoning behind all of this.

I'm amazed that there are THOUSANDS of factors that the court has apparently not considered in their decision to strike down Roe v Wade.

I look at this thing very simply.

In most circumstances, human beings have naturally occurring hormones that cause them to desire sexual relations with someone else. That someone else may be someone of the same gender, or someone of a different gender than themselves. So by my way of thinking, we are NATURALLY inclined to want to have sex with someone.

Some humans are asexual, and may not necessarily want to have sex with someone else (although I believe that being asexual does not NECESSARILY mean that you NEVER want to have sex). In any case, all of this is not a decision that you make. It's "the way you are". It's all "natural".

So, let's just discuss this with the understanding that your way of being is natural, it's not a decision that you make. If you believe in God, then "it's the way God made you". If you don't believe in God, then it's "the way you are".

Considering the above factors, heterosexual people may want to have sex with someone of a different gender in order to create a baby. Or, they may want to have sex merely because it is a natural and pleasurable thing to do.

If someone wants to have sex for pleasure, then they will want to prevent that sex act from creating another potential life. Because creating another life has millions of implications. Literally millions. Health implications. Financial implications. Social implications. Quality of life implications. Climate implications.

So, some people may wish to prevent a normal and naturally occurring pleasurable act from resulting in the creation of another life because of millions of these implications. Another factor to think about is that the results of these implications mainly affect women. They have to carry the not yet born potential human being in their own bodies. She may or may not want to do that at that particular moment, or she may never want to do that. Or, her body may not be able to safely do that. Or, her genetic factors, the genetic factors of her partner, or their genetic factors combined together...may result in the creation of a potential human that may be born into this world with an agonizing, painful, terrible quality of life.

If people want to avoid these implications, they simply prevent them from occurring in the first place by using contraception. Sometimes, because of the way life naturally is, the beginning of a potential new life is created regardless. In this case, the "start" or "potential start" of this new life may want to be stopped before the millions of implications have an overwhelming effect on the person/people who are involved in this, including the implications affecting the FUTURE human being for maybe 80 years or so.

I know I'll probably get some backlash on my thoughts here because I'm wording this very poorly. I can't get out exactly what I am trying to say. so while I can't boil all of this down into a phrase that will fit on a bumper sticker, I'll try to boil it down to one paragraph. Note that the summary below also includes what I believe they are going to try to do with gay marriage, but that's another long discussion.

A few fuckers wearing black robes are attempting to LEGISLATE who you are. They are legislating who you love. They are legislating who you have sex with, and how and when you have sex with them. They are legislating that you must accept the result of a sex act, when you may not have chosen to have that sex act in the first place. They are trying to force a person (who at this point isn't a person yet, but merely a potential person) how they are going to live their lives for the next 80 years, when they didn't even choose to become a person at all in the first place. A few fuckers in black robes, who were placed in those black robes mainly due to the actions of a mad man, are attempting to force people to be who they are not. They are negating nature. They are playing god.

Someone who does not know you is telling you who you are.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. There's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about what contraception does; many antis

lie about how contraception is also an abortifacient.

In any case, all of these actions are rooted in white supremacy, with its fetishization of the "nuclear family" that accepts as many children as God will grant them. If people would just give themselves over to living the Right Way, everything would be so much better.

[stumpysbear]

2. Sex is for procreation...

The Christofascists think sex for pleasure is a sin.

[dalton99a]

4. They have no qualms about fucking other people's wives

or high school cheerleaders

[OnDoutside]

7. Yes, obedience is for the little people.

[LakeArenal]

8. They "claim" it reproduction. But they still have sex themselves.

[Orangepeel]

3. the court will say there is no basis to stop states from banning it

and then right wing states will use a variety of "reasons", mostly lies about particular birth control methods being abortifacients.

[momta]

5. Three things

First, very well stated. Nothin’ wrong with your words.

Second, it has nothing to do with “life”. It’s about punishing women for having sex.

Third, preaching to the choir.

[OnDoutside]

6. Answer: They don't care. They've been whipped up into a frenzy

over the last 50 years. Logic had no bearing on this. Liberals fell for the settled law bullshit as much as the so-called religious right fell for the bullshit that was fed to them. Where you are today is, despite the warning signals for decades but especially since what McConnell has been doing since Obama, liberals in general have been sitting on their butt disbelieving they would actually go through with it. Well it's happened and it will get worse. Suck it up buttercups or do something about it, and not just reverse this, but hammer the living shit out of the right that it will take 200 years for them to get near pulling this stunt again. Otherwise, the handmaid's tale is a fancy version of what the reality will be.

[Jim__]

9. Prior to Roe v Wade the supremes decided Griswold v Connecticut

Prior to Griswold in 1965, some states outlawed contraception. Griswold ruled that's none of the state's business. Roe was based, at least partially, on the Griswold decision.

Here's a brief synopsis of Griswold v Connecticut

In particular, Griswold v. Connecticut lays a foundation for the concept of a right to keep issues related to our bodies private. In the United States during the early twentieth century, it was illegal in many parts of the country to provide married couples with contraceptive devices, like the birth control pill, or to give advice about pregnancy and family planning.

Estelle Griswold, director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. Buxton, a physician and the medical director of the New Haven, CT location, were both found guilty of violating two Connecticut laws. These laws criminalize use of contraception for anyone, including married couples, as well as providing any counseling on the subject. Griswold and Buxton counseled married patients about family planning and contraception. This case asks if the Constitution protects a married couple's right to learn about and use contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

[wryter2000]

10. It is insane

And dishonest and hypocritical. Don't look for logic.

On edit...the only logic is puritanical hate of sex, especially the sexuality of women.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

11. I wish more doctors would speak up publicly,

go on all the talk shows and speak to state legislatures, show up at the town hall meetings that elected officials have, and explain exactly why women have abortions and why they can easily be a good idea.

Unfortunately, the anti-choice idiots seem to think that a lot of women just cruise along until they're 8 months pregnant, then decide, "Oh, heck, I don't really want this baby" and get an abortion. They need to learn a whole lot more about a truly unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, about abusive partners, about fetuses diagnosed with something that's called "Incompatible with life".

And if the anti-choice people were rushing to fund pre-natal care, and post-birth care for ALL babies, especially the ones who will be born but condemned to a short, expensive life, it would be one thing. But they smugly don't understand any of this.

[femmedem]

12. I think the biggest threat is to methods that prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted.

The right-wing extremists will argue that life begins when the sperm meets the egg. That would threaten the IUD and emergency contraception.

I don't know what argument they'd use against barrier methods and methods that prevent ovulation, but who knows? I don't put anything past them.

[haele]

13. Depends if their position is based on a religion or on being "Conservative"

Based on Religion/Cult - In Vitro fertilization, contraceptives, and surgical/medical abortions are against Gawd's Plan. If you get pregnant for whatever reason, part of the Plan. If you die or become sterile due to complications, if the fetus isn't viable, if there's severe disabilities in the baby when born - Gawd's Plan.

Based on a "Conservative" position - it's not a women's role to upset the status quo and make that sort of decision for herself. Women are weaker than men, more emotional than men, and made to have babies, so that's their purpose in life.
If it's not advantageous to the Status Quo, she can terminate a pregnancy, but otherwise, that's her natural state. Baby maker.

Haele

[Baked Potato]

14. Good post! I think a huge part of it is revenge and "owning" the Democrats. Nt