The Political Thread

[Arcadia]

4 hours ago, Artemis said:

That, and many view contraception as another form of abortion.  My dad (ambivalent to the abortion issue himself) was/is under the impression that all types of birth control kill already-conceived babies.  He doesn't really understand how most of them are actually preventative, stopping conception before it occurs.  And if that's what he thinks, I'm sure there are lots of other people who think it too

That's what I was going to add as well; some consider birth control itself to be murder, because it prevents the fertilized egg from developing. (I think I've got that right.) It's not an entirely indefensible p.o.v., imo. 

[Fantasy Lover]

My thoughts to the whole "contraception is murder" bs

[J.P.]

15 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

If one pharmacy refuses, isn't there another pharmacy more than willing? 

Not if you live in a smaller town. And I'm not sure if the pharmacies in Poland work on a base of the usual business competition. But I think if you don't want to sell those things, you should think of a different occupation.

Plus - some of the contraceptive pills are prescribed for medical reasons. I took them for a long time to keep my endometriosis under control.

[Carol the Dabbler]

17 hours ago, Artemis said:

My dad (ambivalent to the abortion issue himself) was/is under the impression that all types of birth control kill already-conceived babies.

That is indeed true of certain things that are called contraceptives.  For example, there's the morning-after pill, which (as Arcadia mentioned) prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine lining, meaning that it can't continue to develop and so it dies.  I believe that's also the way some types of IUDs work.  And the D&C procedure (which scrapes away the uterine lining) is sometimes considered a contraceptive procedure, though it's probably more accurate to call any of these an early abortion.

However there are other methods that prevent conception from ever occurring.  Barrier methods, including condoms and diaphragms, are intended to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg.  Then there are spermicidal substances (foams, creams, etc.), which as the name implies kill the sperm before it reaches the egg.  Then there's "the pill," which apparently works by preventing ovulation.  And there's surgical sterilization, which prevents either the sperm or the egg from reaching any area where they could meet.  Abstinence also prevents the sperm from meeting the egg.  None of these methods kill a living being, because they prevent such a being from ever existing.

[Fantasy Lover]

Except "abstinence only" is a lousy birth control method thought in the USA, along with the fact that some people over there believe that the pull out method is a good contraception method. Also do these conservatives approve of sterilisation? Or not? Because I can't shake the feeling that conservatives consider women nothing more than human incubators, welcome to Gilead everyone.

[Artemis]

4 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

That is indeed true of certain things that are called contraceptives.  For example, there's the morning-after pill, which (as Arcadia mentioned) prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine lining, meaning that it can't continue to develop and so it dies.  I believe that's also the way some types of IUDs work.  And the D&C procedure (which scrapes away the uterine lining) is sometimes considered a contraceptive procedure, though it's probably more accurate to call any of these an early abortion.

However there are other methods that prevent conception from ever occurring.  Barrier methods, including condoms and diaphragms, are intended to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg.  Then there are spermicidal substances (foams, creams, etc.), which as the name implies kill the sperm before it reaches the egg.  Then there's "the pill," which apparently works by preventing ovulation.  And there's surgical sterilization, which prevents either the sperm or the egg from reaching any area where they could meet.  Abstinence also prevents the sperm from meeting the egg.  None of these methods kill a living being, because they prevent such a being from ever existing.

^ Right, I know.    But try telling him that.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

7 hours ago, Fantasy Lover said:

"abstinence only" is a lousy birth control method

Well, it's a very effective method when used consistently -- but admittedly it's not a method that many people would care to use consistently.

7 hours ago, Fantasy Lover said:

... do these conservatives approve of sterilisation?

That presumably depends on which conservatives you're talking about.  It's not as though they're all alike, any more than all liberals are alike.  As far as I'm aware, most ethical objections relate to forced sterilization, which is another matter altogether.  The main obstacle to voluntary sterilization for women seems to be a rather condescending attitude by some doctors, relatives, etc. ("you'll regret it later"), but it's nevertheless available if one is persistent.

[Arcadia]

8 hours ago, Artemis said:

But try telling him that.

I suspect that's the biggest problem in a nutshell … a lot of people don't want to learn anything any more (did they ever? I used to think so.) They'd rather stick to what they already know. Sort of like me and computers … (stop "upgrading" them, fer cryin' out loud! I still haven't gotten used to the last version! ) It's understandable, but not very helpful, is it?

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

11 hours ago, Arcadia said:

... a lot of people don't want to learn anything any more (did they ever? I used to think so.) They'd rather stick to what they already know.

True!  But in this case, what Artemis's father believes never was true, as far as I know.  Pre-pill, I think most contraception was via condoms and diaphragms, which are simple barrier devices.  It's only some of the newer types (plus abortion of course) that work by killing a fertilized egg.

[Arcadia]

Wasn't the Catholic church (and others) against those, too? It's all so long ago and I haven't thought about it in years, but I seem to remember that the argument was that anything that prevented conception was considered … well, I actually don't know, now. What was the argument? I think it's all gotten mixed up in my head with abortion. Which I still see why they object to that, even if I don't agree with their position on it.

[Fantasy Lover]

If I remember correctly, the argument was that "pregnancy is God's will" which enrages me to no end. Imagine getting raped and discovering that you're pregnant of your rapist child or being sexually abused by your own father and end up pregnant and in neither situations you can go the abortion clinic because that would mean denying the will of God because "life begins at conception" or something. If that is the will of God, then I'm glad I'm Atheist because I can't imagine believing in such an asinine, offensive and ridiculous thing. If that is God's will, then I don't want it. God can keep it and shove it!

 

 

 

 

[Sheerluck]

The Tories elected? Boris is still PM? WTF?

[Fantasy Lover]

I heard it, I feel so sorry for the UK. I always felt that the brexit was a shot in the foot, but now it's just financial suicide.

 

 

 

[Artemis]

On the subject of contraceptives, I read about this in the local paper last weekend.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

While I can see why English people might want out of the EU (bit surprised that they joined in the first place, frankly, since I have the impression they don't particularly consider themselves European), I can also see why Scotland might therefore want out of the UK (and back into the EU).  In fact I just came across this article, where Scotland's first minister (who I take to be the top official there?) wants a popular referendum.

The timing puzzles me though -- didn't they just have such a referendum recently, after the Brexit referendum. and decide to stay in the UK?  Added:  Oops, I misremembered.  The prior Scottish referendum was in September of 2014, nearly two years before the Brexit referendum in June of 2016.  So I can now see the point of a followup in Scotland (assuming that Brexit actually does occur).

[J.P.]

https://twitter.com/rodjgrimmer/status/1205563367714365440

I think I'll make me a T-shirt with "IT'S TIME TO EXTINCT" on it.

[besleybean]

As I just said on Twitter, I lived in S****horpe for years.  My son was born there.

They are hillbillies.(I didn't say that on Twitter!)

[Fantasy Lover]

While I can see why English people might want out of the EU (bit surprised that they joined in the first place, frankly, since I have the impression they don't particularly consider themselves European), I can also see why Scotland might therefore want out of the UK (and back into the EU). In fact I just came across this article, where Scotland's first minister (who I take to be the top official there?) wants a popular referendum. The timing puzzles me though -- didn't they just have such a referendum recently, after the Brexit referendum. and decide to stay in the UK? Added:  Oops, I misremembered.  The prior Scottish referendum was in September of 2014, nearly two years before the Brexit referendum in June of 2016.  So I can now see the point of a followup in Scotland (assuming that Brexit actually does occur).

Yeah Scotland wants to have a second referendum to gain independence from Britain, I can't blame them.

 

 

   

https://twitter.com/rodjgrimmer/status/1205563367714365440 Geez, I wonder why? It's almost as if people are realising they are on a sinking ship and are leaving it . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[besleybean]

OMG, just realised...the censorship on the Lincolnshire town name!

[Carol the Dabbler]

Over here, it seems that regardless of who wins, the other side will say "we lost because the voters didn't understand the situation."

There will of course always be people on both sides who haven't much understanding.  There will also be people on both sides who understand all too well -- but they still won't agree with each other, simply because they have different ways of looking at things.

[besleybean]

But if people are not given the correct information or are blatantly lied to...

[Carol the Dabbler]

Then they might vote differently, yes.  But from what I've seen, that's true on both sides  Voters can't really be expected to have a complete understanding of the situation -- they do, after all, have lives of their own to tend to.  So they make an honest assessment based on what they do know.

It seems (at least in this country) that news outlets -- being headed and staffed by humans -- tend to have a bias toward one side or the other, and it's human nature for voters to pay more attention to outlets that they generally agree with.  Therefore, rather than having an overall better understanding of a given situation, voters on either side can be genuinely bewildered and/or indignant when their team loses.

But that's apparently just the way it is these days.  I do so miss the days of civil discourse, before everything became politicized and politics became so polarized.  Or maybe I was just naive back then.

[besleybean]

No, I think people are looking for simple answers these days and fall for hyperbole.

[Fantasy Lover]

Or maybe every newspaper Rupert Murdoch owns is biased and writes pro brexit propaganda, I heard the BBC is also owned by billionaires who use it for their own agenda, what's not helping anyone is the smear campaign against Jeremy Courbyn.

[Sheerluck]

4 hours ago, besleybean said:

OMG, just realised...the censorship on the Lincolnshire town name!

That is funny. I didn't even realise it, my mind just filled in the appropriate letters.