Military Nesties
MrsOjoButtons
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
WTF, GA?
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/122141.pdf
"Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies;"
This is as ridiculous as the proposed personhood laws. Where do you draw the line and start prosecuting? Is charting/rhythm method to avoid conception going to be illegal because that prevents a life too? Fighting off a rapist also has the potential to "deprive a child of birth," so where would that line be drawn? As my coworker mentioned, every time a woman declines his advances, she's potentially depriving a child of birth. So ladies, spread 'em every time a man asks you to, since anything else apparently deprives a child of birth.
Twin boys due 7/25/12
Re: WTF, GA?
I believe this bill was introduced by a Democratic woman in the House (or Senate, I can't remember) as a response to legislating against women's reproductive rights. It is not intended to be passed and will most likely be revoked but was introduced to show how ridiculous states have gotten in regard to legislating one genders reproductive rights.
ETA: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/georgia-vasectomy-ban_n_1293369.html
well. I guess I have to support this, given I need to have job security
4) Fewer unwanted pregnancies result in fewer children living in poverty and a lower prison population, and this is job killing in a time when social workers, police officers, and prison guards need the employment to feed their families;
/sarcasm- incaseyouwerentsure
I changed my name
?If we legislate women?s bodies, it?s only fair that we legislate men?s,? said Neal, who said she wanted to write bill that would generate emotion and conversation the way anti-abortion bills do. ?There are too many problems in the state. Why are you under the skirts of women? I?m sure there are other places to be."
Personally, Neal said, she has no qualms with vasectomies.
?But even if it were proposed as a serious issue,? she said, ?it?s still not my place as a woman to tell a man what to do with his body."
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21/georgia-democrats-to-propose-limitations-on-vasectomies-for-men/?hpt=us_t3
Sounds like a totally legit use of time and money, drafting bills that aren't meant to be taken seriously.
I agree. My boss and I were just discussing this(it's on the news) and think it's a good way to get a point across(acrost?).
Agreed.
It's tongue and cheek. Parody to point out how ridiculous laws regulating reproductive rights are.
My little angel RIP August 12, 2010 - September 5, 2010
So an anti-abortion opinion can't be based on logic? Really?
You seem to be using anti-abortion and pro-life interchangeably.
Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. People who are pro-choice want people to be able to choose their reproductive paths. They're not handing out vouchers to everyone to go abort their fetuses. Fertility procedures are a choice. Abstaining until one can afford children is a choice. Having more than two children per family is a choice. Things like this tongue in cheek bill being taken seriously is a slippery slope to eugenics, if you ask me.
When pro-life is taken to extremes such as personhood bills, no, there's no way someone can say that is entirely based on logic.
It is not logical to define life as beginning at conception; that comes from a religious belief, one developed in the last 30 years. It is not logical to legislate a medical procedure that has no basis in actual medicine (like forced ultrasound). It is not logical to oppose greater access to contraception while simultaneously wanting to reduce abortions. It is not logical to create legislation to attempt to manipulate a woman away from her choice.
I'm especially angered by the "right to know" bs, as though a woman doesnt realize it's a pregnancy she's terminating. Do they think women go to PP to remove the chicken from their uterus?
Ojo, I'm going to disagree that these things don't make an impact. In some cases, they're attached as riders to bills, and that rider is essentially what gets them shot down. That has value. And just like the bills floated to protest the anti-gay marriage crowd that would require divorce if a couple does not have a child in 5 years, I think this is a way of fighting fire with fire. If they're going to keep wasting everyone's time by proposing all these anti-choice measures, then fighting back to expose the waste is appropriate IMO. It's not like ignoring them will make them go away.
I go to Planned Parenthood to get tested for the HIV.
Point taken. I was using them interchangeably. I appreciate the correction.
I also don't think that a pro-life choice is necessarily illogical.
Sibil - I disagree that the belief that life begins at conception is illogical. There are two reasons that "life begins at conception" is a recent thought process. We've only had reliable scientific information on how conception occurs in recent years, though I'd say more than 30. Probably about 70. Also, this was never in the dialogue before because it only came into question with the widespread growth in the use of birth control in the mid-twentieth century. Before that, almost no one tried to prevent pregnancy by artificial means so there was no need for a public discussion on the politics on conception.
To me, (even before I became "religious" halfway through college) the only logical assumption is that life begins at conception. There's no other place to draw the line. If someone came on here and announced an early miscarriage, you would offer condolences. But by your definition, is that a life? The definition of a blastocyst/embryo/fetus can't be contingent upon whether or not it is wanted.