Business as usual.

Federal agencies routinely impose a sort of quiet-period on public communication during administrative transitions. It just seems scary now because Trump.



Serious response:

It really comes down to the question of whether or not the fetus inside of you is a human being which, under the constitution, has rights and liberties (eg: the right to life) which overrides your right to elect not to be pregnant after the fact. I don't claim to hold a position either way on this, but it's a not-unreasonable question which stands largely unaddressed by the pro-choice crowd.

As to the whole birth-control thing- yeah, I agree that society as a whole would be better served by having fewer unwanted pregnancies. That said, if there were an oral contraceptive available for males, I would expect it to be governed by the same corporate policies. If we're totally honest, this is really a case in which the scales are tipped in favor of women. At least you have *SOME* means of oral contraception available to you. Men have no options aside from vasectomy (which is rather permanent-ish) and condoms, which diminish sexual pleasure for both parties.

I mean, why wouldn't you want everything that you work on going through the office of government censorship before being released to the public?

It's not like academic science has any sort of metrics for evaluating claims right?
I mean, the Chairman of the House "Science" committee has said that we should get the unvarnished truth straight from the president himself! Why would we listen to scientists with experience and credentials when we can listen to alternative facts!
(Source: Leading House Republican: Listen to Trump for 'the unvarnished truth' | MSNBC)

Men are absolute bitches when it comes to birth control. There have been things that showed promise but the side effects were too bad to tolerate, even though the accepted side effects of birth control for women were similar-ish in scope.
Look up RISUG.

The pro-choice crowd addresses the question you raise by pointing out that the existence of mass of a few cells should not override the autonomy, i.e. life and liberty, of a sentient being. According to data from the Guttmacher institute, abortions in the US are at an all time low right now because of better birth control access. Shockingly, much of this is the work of planned parenthood.

Most pro-choice folks would likely argue that they'd like to see abortions happen as infrequently as possible. The option should remain though because the child rearing responsibilities often fall on the mother and child support doesn't compensate someone for time. I'm guessing that in most cases the life and liberty of the mother suffer far more than those of the father.

Birth control is also not 100% effective even used properly. Do you penalize someone for taking necessary precautions and falling victim to the fallibility of medicine?

Seems scary now because anti-science.
Contract freeze at the EPA, Mick Mulvaney doesn't seem to think that the government should fund scientific research, and the overall disdain the GOP seems to have for academic science given their picks for those that have a say in the matter.

If you're talking about the Male BC study I think you are talking about, it was denied because the number of men experiencing symptoms was like 95%. Female hormonal birth control definitely can suck but that particular BC for men was atrocious. There have been much more effective methods with basically no side effects using a dissolvable polymer that is used as a block to the vas defrenes. Its a cheap injection basically and is 100% reversible. I believe it is in use and available in India and much of Asia. If this were available in the US I am pretty sure you would have men lining up around the block for it.

You're engaging in question-begging. Joe just stipulated that one side's position is staked on the belief that a fetus is not merely a mass of a few cells, but a human life deserving of all protections afforded to that category.

Opinion 1: I'm pro-life.

Opinion 2: Government is the most incorrect vehicle for taking a stand against pro-choice.

Option 3: I don't care I just don't want to pay for it.(taxpayer)

Pretty sure this was taken care of in "day 5".

Edit: Because I can...

The tax payer didnt pay for it before either.

And this is the reason why it makes no sense to the pro-choice crowd. Essentially using a round about way to limit access to a service provider that does far more than the one thing some folks have an issue with (well and birth control I guess?) even though no federal funding is used for it. The left is providing for that service already. They use the donations to do that.

Cutting off planned parenthood's head would decrease access to abortion, a legal service, sure, but it would create a huge void in access to primary care as well in many parts of the country.

Are hospitals that perform abortions going to stop getting medicare funding as well?

There haven't been many other studies like it because there's no market for it. It's pretty much established as the burden of the woman at this point. RISUG is the polymer you're mentioning. It didn't gain traction because it's cheap and effective and men freak out about their dicks.

Given the psychology of men with respect to sex and ejaculation etc, I have a feeling no one would be lining up to take something that would likely drastically alter fluid production/composition.

I wasn't targeting Joe, but his stipulation of the belief regarding the life of a few cells.

Cancer is a process that can occur normally and lead to cells that are capable of spreading and replicating indefinitely. I don't see people fighting to keep these natural immortal cells alive. I mean, if masses of cells that can grow and divide of their own accord are somehow capable of being sentient, then is excising a tumor akin to murder? Those cells were doing everything they could to live!

This is easily the dumbest thing I've seen you write so far.
Does a group of cancer cells become a fully formed human being if left unchecked? Obviously no.
Does a fertilized egg? Yes, it does.

So what if this human has a defect? Can we get the coat hanger then? Where do we draw the line?

I don't know. The only two valid arguments for abortion are eugenics, or eliminating the burden of raising a child.
I personally am comfortable with neither.
I am simply pointing out that the "bundle of cells" argument is a crock of horse shit.

No but it would be a natural process that would most certainly try to form all over a fully formed human if left unchecked.
So abortion is bad, birth control is bad because it makes women sluts and they should just use aspirin. This logic clearly works.
Again, the way I've seen it, pro-choice folks don't want abortion to happen because they'd rather see women have access to birth control and never even be faced with that decision period.

My favorite part of this is how this is all so focused on the woman as well. Funny how no one talks about men and their responsibilities in these situation, eh?

Again, abortion is legal in this country. The arguments against it mostly come from a judeo-christian moralistic viewpoint. So much for separation... You realize that many cultures, religions, and society's never saw it like this, right? But obviously the judeo-christian way is something that all Americans must adhere to regardless of where they come from. Why is it so unsatisfying to people to live their own life with whatever code they decide to do so? Why is it your right to force the state to limit people's choice instead of empowering your own view point? No one is forcing your family members to have an abortion...

It's weird how once the child is born, the anti-choice folks seem to have nothing more to say.

Depends.

Some defects lead to death very soon after birth. If abortion spared a life full of only pain and agony, I'd take that chance. Not to mention the pain a family faces when that happens. Are you advocating that women carry a fetus that is going to be still born or not be viable to term?

Ahh yes, making up two arguments and avoiding the rest of them.
What about risk to the life of the mother? How about rape? How about an unviable fetus?

The idea that life begins at conception is a judeo christian idea. Why do you have the right to force that belief onto others?

Also, isn't it weird that in the 60's and 70's evangelicals believed that life began at first breath?
My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

The idea that life begins at conception is as much a crock of shit as the idea that it's just a bunch of cells.

Joe,

I just realized that the thermostat video was you. I just watched it again and burst out laughing. Let no man ever say that you are not thorough. Good choice on the racer 5 as well.

was planned Parenthood not government funded?

Why did trump just defund it?

Wut?

Seriously, wut? Who said anything about women being sluts.

Yes, birth control is a better option than terminating a pregnancy. What is your point?

The baby grows inside the woman...

My argument had nothing at all to do with religion.

You mean when they were ignorant about how human beings develop, as you clearly are? Shocking.

Because they believe (correctly) that a fetus is human life. They are against murder.

Duh?


Ok, now you are actually addressing what I said. This accounts for a very tiny amount of abortions performed in a year, but it does happen.
No, I would not be comfortable with making that decision, but it is understandable why someone would. I am sympathetic to the people who are faced with that reality, but trying to use that argument for justifying abortion across the board is dishonest at best.

I'm not "making up" anything, nor did I avoid the others. You are trying to use an appeal to emotion because you don't have a reason based argument. Those account for less than 10% of abortions performed annually if we are being generous.
The VAST majority of abortions occur because it is inconvenient to the parent to give birth to and care for a child. Besides risk of life to the mother, everything else falls under eugenics.

No, it is an idea firmly rooted in science. I'm a biologist, and without wasting time trying to teach you a few years worth of knowledge about reproduction, I will reiterate that human development begins when an egg is fertilized by sperm.
There is no counter argument to this. It is a fact. The only thing you can do is say that the developing human has no moral standing at that point or that it somehow doesn't matter because it doesn't look or act like a developed person.
It isn't the job of science to impart moral standing on anything but researchers themselves. I think part of the problem is that many people in academia use their positions to preach about their views. I certainly encountered this all the time in school.

Not really. As I already pointed out, we know much more about human production now than we did even a few decades ago.
I'm not surprised that a group of religious people in the 60s thought this way. So what? What does that have to do with anything?
I haven't said a single thing about religion.

So because a developing human has no ability to reason and is mostly a burden on the person caring for him/her, it is ok to kill it?
Here's a homework assignment. Go to a nursing home, find the oldest invalid you can find, and kill him/ her.
Let us know how it works out for you.

Birth control pills and condoms and other methods are all available for free at the County Health Clinic. So is the medical care. Let's not believe for a minute that Planned Parenthood is the only way that a woman who is poor can obtain birth control. That is disingenuous.