Republican Steve King: if not for incest and rape 'would there be any population left?'

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

Of course it goes without saying that both men and women should behave responsibly. But I say again, it is not the men getting the abortions. If a man puts himself in a situation where he's having unprotected sex, worst case is an STD. If a woman puts herself in a situation where she is having unprotected sex, worst case is an abortion. So if a woman believes she may engage in unprotected sex, then it follows that she should just. stay. home. Drink some wine, catch up on the laundry, whatever. Obviously this does not apply to rape or incest.

 

    From a medical point of view, STD’s or abortions are far from being the worst outcome. I agree,  certainly  if 2 irresponsible people choose to have sex resulting in unwanted pregnancy, the woman has the more difficult outcome. That does not validate the rest of your argument however. I think you are using a rationale that would have fit in well 100 years ago. In the reality of the current world, it really looks awkward. 

[laylalex 7,245]

14 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

Of course it goes without saying that both men and women should behave responsibly. But I say again, it is not the men getting the abortions. If a man puts himself in a situation where he's having unprotected sex, worst case is an STD. If a woman puts herself in a situation where she is having unprotected sex, worst case is an abortion. So if a woman believes she may engage in unprotected sex, then it follows that she should just. stay. home. Drink some wine, catch up on the laundry, whatever. Obviously this does not apply to rape or incest.

Well, yes. But sometimes things go wrong -- a woman may be taking medication that interferes with her birth control pill, or she forgets to take a pill at the right time of the day (a real issue for some of the ultra low dose pills), or a condom breaks, or any number of things may happen. You might think you are protected, but it turns out you aren't. I've been taking ultra low dose pills for years, and timing is something I need to be careful about. I can't take a higher dose, so this is the reality for me. My fiance and I are not ready to have a child (immigration issues, etc.) so I set my alarm and take it at the same time every day. There have been days I've missed, and the reality is I just have to abstain until the window of opportunity has passed. Not ideal (especially when you don't live with your significant other, and you have set times every week you see each other) but I am trying to be responsible. 

 

However, if we were to get pregnant, I would want to know a termination would be a legal possibility for me. As I said, it's not time yet for us. I don't think I need to justify being able to have this choice, even if the conception happened in a stable, loving relationship between two consenting adults. It's the law. Even if I *hadn't* used birth control, I shouldn't be shamed, and I won't be shamed, if that has to happen. But I don't take medical procedures lightly, so being vigilant about birth control is the right thing to do. For me. 

[Boris Farage 353]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

    From a medical point of view, STD’s or abortions are far from being the worst outcome.

Let us not pick nits, shall we? Yes, the worst case could be that a pack of rabid dogs attacks mid coitus. But in the general case, it's probably just STDs or abortion.

 

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

I agree,  certainly  if 2 irresponsible people choose to have sex resulting in unwanted pregnancy, the woman has the more difficult outcome. That does not validate the rest of your argument however.

My argument is this: Men do not get abortions. I am sorry, but this puts the onus on women to do what they can to avoid abortions. (yes, rape and incest are outliers, can we all agree on this please so I don't have to continue caveating?) So yes, it certainly validates my argument omnino.

 

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

I think you are using a rationale that would have fit in well 100 years ago. In the reality of the current world, it really looks awkward. 

In the current world, over half of this country supports this argument. The other half are too busy trying to come up with ways to blame the men.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

50 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Your argument centered on behaving responsibility and yet you focused only on how that applies to a women. This is the folly when one chooses to focus on mere "grains" of truth. The biological fact is that a man and woman are both required for procreation. Unless consent was not given, both are responsible.

 

  

Don't mean to shoot your beliefs down, but a transgender man can be impregnated by a gay man and have a baby.

[Boris Farage 353]

3 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Well, yes. But sometimes things go wrong -- a woman may be taking medication that interferes with her birth control pill, or she forgets to take a pill at the right time of the day (a real issue for some of the ultra low dose pills), or a condom breaks, or any number of things may happen. You might think you are protected, but it turns out you aren't. I've been taking ultra low dose pills for years, and timing is something I need to be careful about. I can't take a higher dose, so this is the reality for me. My fiance and I are not ready to have a child (immigration issues, etc.) so I set my alarm and take it at the same time every day. There have been days I've missed, and the reality is I just have to abstain until the window of opportunity has passed. Not ideal (especially when you don't live with your significant other, and you have set times every week you see each other) but I am trying to be responsible. 

 

However, if we were to get pregnant, I would want to know a termination would be a legal possibility for me. As I said, it's not time yet for us. I don't think I need to justify being able to have this choice, even if the conception happened in a stable, loving relationship between two consenting adults. It's the law. Even if I *hadn't* used birth control, I shouldn't be shamed, and I won't be shamed, if that has to happen. But I don't take medical procedures lightly, so being vigilant about birth control is the right thing to do. For me. 

Interesting. I thought I'd read where you said your then-husband desperately wanted a child, but you were unable to conceive. But you were on birth control at the time? So am I to gather this was done without his knowledge or consent?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Don't mean to shoot your beliefs down, but a transgender man can be impregnated by a gay man and have a baby.

 

   No problem You actually reinforce my beliefs when you post stuff like this.

[laylalex 7,245]

1 minute ago, Boris Farage said:

Let us not pick nits, shall we? Yes, the worst case could be that a pack of rabid dogs attacks mid coitus. But in the general case, it's probably just STDs or abortion.

 

My argument is this: Men do not get abortions. I am sorry, but this puts the onus on women to do what they can to avoid abortions. (yes, rape and incest are outliers, can we all agree on this please so I don't have to continue caveating?) So yes, it certainly validates my argument omnino.

 

In the current world, over half of this country supports this argument. The other half are too busy trying to come up with ways to blame the men.

Lol at the rabid dogs! But really, it is NOT true that half of the country opposes abortion (and yes, that's discounting those who make an exception for rape and incest). A majority support abortion rights, with some restrictions on the time when they should no longer be available in a pregnancy. Also, this isn't about blaming men. Really. Men have to step up to the plate and understand that they are also responsible for their role in conception, and that includes having a talk with their partner about what she is doing in terms of BC. I am up front with my fiance about what I am doing. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

Let us not pick nits, shall we? Yes, the worst case could be that a pack of rabid dogs attacks mid coitus. But in the general case, it's probably just STDs or abortion.

 

 

    We had a case not long ago where a woman died as a result of labor complications. One of the things that came up in the case review was that she had been advised of the risk after a prior pregnancy and again in prenatal care. You can believe what you like, but what you call the worst outcome is certainly not what I have seen.

[Boris Farage 353]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    We had a case not long ago where a woman died as a result of labor complications. One of the things that came up in the case review was that she had been advised of the risk after a prior pregnancy and again in prenatal care. You can believe what you like, but what you call the worst outcome is certainly not what I have seen.

So that was one case, was it? Am I to caveat every single exception to the general statements I make? "The worst thing that can happen to a woman having unprotected sex is abortions. Oh yes, labor complications. And bed bugs. And meteors. And the estate agent popping 'round during tea. And Al Queda. And... are you still with me? Because we do have a lot of these to get through. And..."

[Boris Farage 353]

10 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I am up front with my fiance about what I am doing. 

Are you? (see my previous reply)

[laylalex 7,245]

4 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Don't mean to shoot your beliefs down, but a transgender man can be impregnated by a gay man and have a baby.

Yes, of course this is true. And a transgender man can be impregnated by a straight man too, so?

[laylalex 7,245]

14 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

Interesting. I thought I'd read where you said your then-husband desperately wanted a child, but you were unable to conceive. But you were on birth control at the time? So am I to gather this was done without his knowledge or consent?

I was taking BC for health reasons unrelated to fertility. 

 

Just now, Boris Farage said:

Are you? (see my previous reply)

Yes, I am! He doesn't want to have a child right now either. It would be terrible timing. And I am not sure I want to have children, just as I now realize I may never have wanted to have children, but that may have been related to who my first husband was.

[Boris Farage 353]

Just now, laylalex said:

I was taking BC for health reasons unrelated to fertility.

I guess I was just curious because you mentioned earlier that your husband really wanted a child, but that you were infertile. And now you have said you were taking birth control (if I understand correctly) during that time. So I just wondered if your husband was aware, and if he consented.

[laylalex 7,245]

Just now, Boris Farage said:

I guess I was just curious because you mentioned earlier that your husband really wanted a child, but that you were infertile. And now you have said you were taking birth control (if I understand correctly) during that time. So I just wondered if your husband was aware, and if he consented.

I never said I was infertile, so I don't know where you're getting that. And yes, he did really want a child. I planned my doses around that. I think your argument that a husband or boyfriend or whatever HAS to consent to birth control a woman takes is just silly. It is MY body, and if my doctor told me to take the pills, I took the pills. And even if he had paid attention when I told him what I was taking, what, I was supposed to NOT take it because he had this obsession with having a child? I mean, his desires overtake my needs?

 

Just wondering. 

[Boris Farage 353]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

I never said I was infertile, so I don't know where you're getting that. And yes, he did really want a child. I planned my doses around that. I think your argument that a husband or boyfriend or whatever HAS to consent to birth control a woman takes is just silly. It is MY body, and if my doctor told me to take the pills, I took the pills. And even if he had paid attention when I told him what I was taking, what, I was supposed to NOT take it because he had this obsession with having a child? I mean, his desires overtake my needs?

 

Just wondering. 

I didn't mean to upset you, I was just asking the questions so I understood better. So if I do understand correctly now, you were "desperately" trying to get pregnant because having a child was very important to him, and you were taking birth control around your cycle so as not to interfere with your ability to become pregnant? Is that actually how birth control medicine works?

 

I didn't mean to imply you required your husband's legal consent in any way. Call me old fashioned, but I feel like big decisions like this should be discussed. It sounds like you might have left him out of this discussion.