"Act of God" is a nice way of saying (and a legal term of art). "due to random accidents beyond any human control". And it is true that various capabilities and possibilities are unevenly distributed among people, any capability you can think of. I myself lack several, obviously, you will say. This urge to be a perfected individual is understandable but not realistic. There are unloved children who lack parents in the world, so let the parents who lack children take them in.
Just my opinion, since you ask. Not telling anybody what to do, the kids will handle things in their own way, whatever it is, no doubt.
They're never thinking about real life consequences, it's all just performative religious nonsense. The data clearly shows that if you don't want abortions & you don't want teen pregnancies, then you should support proper sexual education in schools and make birth control FREE and easily accessible.
Instead, you have the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy after *decades* of abstinence only school programs continuing to insist that's the "only acceptable" solution. Well, no. If your solution only serves to make the problem just as bad as it's ever been, then it's not actually a solution, just a policy... and a shitty one that wastes taxpayer money at that.
They're not really aiming for any of those. They think that the possibility of getting pregnant will deter their children from having sex, and if it doesn't, they want their children to suffer the consequences. Because these parents are hateful pieces of shit.
Assuming the daughters know thing one about sex, the potential consequences of sex or about their right to (not) consent to sex, perhaps all that would be a deterrent.
If I was Deanda's daughters, I'd stock up on condoms and make it very clear to anyone I took a fancy to that it was the condom or an aspirin 'twixt the knees.
I wish we could hear from the daughters. I know that they must currently be minors, but Daddy is such an asshole, one would think these girls would be allowed to speak out.
Yoiks! I'm really gonna need brain bleach to get the image out of my mind of this guy's cellar with its stirrup table and speculum and medical lamp so the loving Dad can look inside his daughters' vajayjays once a month to play "hymen and seek!" 🤯🥺🤢
Dumbass! Your child's body is not your property! The bodies of other people's children are most especially not your property!
I told my daughter everything - including the workings of female pleasure (how interesting that pleasure is NEVER mentioned in any sex ed class). I taught her that sex is not to be treated as something "dirty" or "throwaway," but as an expression of love. I wanted her first experience to be healthy. And when the time came, she got that little arm implant (for which most of my ex-husband's very Catholic female relatives enthusiastically praised me!). She seems pretty well-adjusted. So yes, I was a better parent than Mr. Bible-Banger up there.
If hell does exist, it's going to be a pretty good time because we won't have to put up with people like him, right?
In a few more years it may not matter as states start banning contraceptives. Then no woman can get them. Except maybe if they are married and have their husband's permission, as God intended. But no IUDs. That's the same as an abortion.
But, Alabama's new IVF law says that the embryo isn't a person until it implants in the uterine wall, and all the contraceptives they want to ban prevent the embryo from implanting in the uterine wall.
Don't worry they'll just call all contraceptives "abortifacients" even that is a medical term with a very specific meaning.
From the fabulous Jessica Valenti:
An Abortion, Every Day reader flagged HB1426 for me—legislation that would increase long-acting reversible contraception for for Medicaid recipients.1 But before the bill hit a state Senate committee this week, any language referring to IUDs was removed.
That’s because Indiana anti-abortion activists successfully lobbied legislators, claiming that IUDs are abortifacients. Republican Rep. Cindy Ledbetter said that the bill was changed because “we are a strong pro-life state.”
This is something I’ve been banging the drum on for months: the anti-abortion movement is redefining certain kinds of birth control (like IUDs and emergency contraception) as abortions. This is how they’ll ban birth control—not with a single explicit law, but a slow chipping away process just like they did Roe. Republicans don’t need to make contraception illegal in order to ban it, they just need to make it impossible to obtain."
Easy peasy. They'll just update the law to say that the embryo is a person from the moment of conception, full stop. That's more in line with most "pro-life" rhetoric anyway.
Ha! Good question. It's "ok" for the boys to have sex just not with their virginal daughters which begs the question, just who in the hell do they thinks is having sex w/teenage aged boys? Mrs. Robinson?
The whole point of IVF is because some unfortuntate people are unable to otherwise have children that they can [believe they can] control the sex-having of, because biology is not destiny except when it is.
If God wanted them to have children they would not need IVF. If they use IVF they are violating the will of God if you want to get with the evangelical ideology on every other social issue.
"Act of God" is a nice way of saying (and a legal term of art). "due to random accidents beyond any human control". And it is true that various capabilities and possibilities are unevenly distributed among people, any capability you can think of. I myself lack several, obviously, you will say. This urge to be a perfected individual is understandable but not realistic. There are unloved children who lack parents in the world, so let the parents who lack children take them in.
Just my opinion, since you ask. Not telling anybody what to do, the kids will handle things in their own way, whatever it is, no doubt.
I'm trying to figure out how to firebomb the 5th circuit 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑠 but the best I can come up with is getting a super majority in congress to reform the court system. Pretty unlikely all the way around.
We could start with Dick Durbin doing away with “blue slips,” for one. Does anyone really think the Senators of TX, LA, and MS are going to okay any judge who isn’t a RWNJ?! This is why we can’t have nice things.
The 5th Circuit was always “conservative,” but the addition of various TFG appointees has completely stripped it of any respect for precedent, the rule of law, or common sense.
OTOH, Judge MattyK might not have so much power anymore at the district court level, thanks to new rules:
"As my sainted mother used to say … “It’s always the holy ones.”"
Yep, pretty much.
I think CPS needs to have a close look at his children. And Anonymous his browser history.
"Act of God" is a nice way of saying (and a legal term of art). "due to random accidents beyond any human control". And it is true that various capabilities and possibilities are unevenly distributed among people, any capability you can think of. I myself lack several, obviously, you will say. This urge to be a perfected individual is understandable but not realistic. There are unloved children who lack parents in the world, so let the parents who lack children take them in.
Just my opinion, since you ask. Not telling anybody what to do, the kids will handle things in their own way, whatever it is, no doubt.
Do they even THINK THESE THINGS THROUGH?!?
(a) Teenagers will have sex, and are potentially more likely to the more their parents try to repress them.
(ii) Unprotected sex can result in pregnancy, although of course it’s up to god.
(3) Pregnant teenagers means one of these:
(3.a) a lifechanging event for the teen, who has to raise a child as a child,
(3.ii) a lifechanging event for the parent, who has to raise the teen’s child as their own, or
(3.3) an abortion.
Which of this causal chain of shitty results are they aiming for?
They're never thinking about real life consequences, it's all just performative religious nonsense. The data clearly shows that if you don't want abortions & you don't want teen pregnancies, then you should support proper sexual education in schools and make birth control FREE and easily accessible.
Instead, you have the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy after *decades* of abstinence only school programs continuing to insist that's the "only acceptable" solution. Well, no. If your solution only serves to make the problem just as bad as it's ever been, then it's not actually a solution, just a policy... and a shitty one that wastes taxpayer money at that.
They're not really aiming for any of those. They think that the possibility of getting pregnant will deter their children from having sex, and if it doesn't, they want their children to suffer the consequences. Because these parents are hateful pieces of shit.
Assuming the daughters know thing one about sex, the potential consequences of sex or about their right to (not) consent to sex, perhaps all that would be a deterrent.
If I was Deanda's daughters, I'd stock up on condoms and make it very clear to anyone I took a fancy to that it was the condom or an aspirin 'twixt the knees.
I'm sure their dad regularly searches their rooms for condoms and other contraband.
what does the kids mother think about this?
(i just watched "Shiny Happy People" last night so i actually already know the answer.)
Let's ask her. I just can't get enough of fundie baby voice.
Good thing we don't kink-shame here!😉
I wish we could hear from the daughters. I know that they must currently be minors, but Daddy is such an asshole, one would think these girls would be allowed to speak out.
i can't even with these people
Yoiks! I'm really gonna need brain bleach to get the image out of my mind of this guy's cellar with its stirrup table and speculum and medical lamp so the loving Dad can look inside his daughters' vajayjays once a month to play "hymen and seek!" 🤯🥺🤢
You know he does, if he is that obsessed with their'purity'.
Dumbass!
Dumbass! Your child's body is not your property! The bodies of other people's children are most especially not your property!
I told my daughter everything - including the workings of female pleasure (how interesting that pleasure is NEVER mentioned in any sex ed class). I taught her that sex is not to be treated as something "dirty" or "throwaway," but as an expression of love. I wanted her first experience to be healthy. And when the time came, she got that little arm implant (for which most of my ex-husband's very Catholic female relatives enthusiastically praised me!). She seems pretty well-adjusted. So yes, I was a better parent than Mr. Bible-Banger up there.
If hell does exist, it's going to be a pretty good time because we won't have to put up with people like him, right?
And to you for throwing off the Controllers!
In a few more years it may not matter as states start banning contraceptives. Then no woman can get them. Except maybe if they are married and have their husband's permission, as God intended. But no IUDs. That's the same as an abortion.
But, Alabama's new IVF law says that the embryo isn't a person until it implants in the uterine wall, and all the contraceptives they want to ban prevent the embryo from implanting in the uterine wall.
I sense a conundrum.
Don't worry they'll just call all contraceptives "abortifacients" even that is a medical term with a very specific meaning.
From the fabulous Jessica Valenti:
An Abortion, Every Day reader flagged HB1426 for me—legislation that would increase long-acting reversible contraception for for Medicaid recipients.1 But before the bill hit a state Senate committee this week, any language referring to IUDs was removed.
That’s because Indiana anti-abortion activists successfully lobbied legislators, claiming that IUDs are abortifacients. Republican Rep. Cindy Ledbetter said that the bill was changed because “we are a strong pro-life state.”
This is something I’ve been banging the drum on for months: the anti-abortion movement is redefining certain kinds of birth control (like IUDs and emergency contraception) as abortions. This is how they’ll ban birth control—not with a single explicit law, but a slow chipping away process just like they did Roe. Republicans don’t need to make contraception illegal in order to ban it, they just need to make it impossible to obtain."
https://jessica.substack.com/p/abortion-every-day-22324
Easy peasy. They'll just update the law to say that the embryo is a person from the moment of conception, full stop. That's more in line with most "pro-life" rhetoric anyway.
Does this guy have sons? Gonna sue CVS for selling them condoms?
Ha! Good question. It's "ok" for the boys to have sex just not with their virginal daughters which begs the question, just who in the hell do they thinks is having sex w/teenage aged boys? Mrs. Robinson?
What about the loophole? Garfunkel and Oats
The whole point of IVF is because some unfortuntate people are unable to otherwise have children that they can [believe they can] control the sex-having of, because biology is not destiny except when it is.
If God wanted them to have children they would not need IVF. If they use IVF they are violating the will of God if you want to get with the evangelical ideology on every other social issue.
"Act of God" is a nice way of saying (and a legal term of art). "due to random accidents beyond any human control". And it is true that various capabilities and possibilities are unevenly distributed among people, any capability you can think of. I myself lack several, obviously, you will say. This urge to be a perfected individual is understandable but not realistic. There are unloved children who lack parents in the world, so let the parents who lack children take them in.
Just my opinion, since you ask. Not telling anybody what to do, the kids will handle things in their own way, whatever it is, no doubt.
Secretly goes to patent office and secures patent to hide birth control pills in aspirin
I'm trying to figure out how to firebomb the 5th circuit 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑠 but the best I can come up with is getting a super majority in congress to reform the court system. Pretty unlikely all the way around.
We could start with Dick Durbin doing away with “blue slips,” for one. Does anyone really think the Senators of TX, LA, and MS are going to okay any judge who isn’t a RWNJ?! This is why we can’t have nice things.
The 5th Circuit was always “conservative,” but the addition of various TFG appointees has completely stripped it of any respect for precedent, the rule of law, or common sense.
OTOH, Judge MattyK might not have so much power anymore at the district court level, thanks to new rules:
https://substack.com/@2cats2furious/note/c-51543094?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=2knok4
Why any senators still cling to comity is beyond me, and it's only those on the left that do. It's done irreparable harm.
Democrats - and especially those who have been in the Senate forever - need to stop bringing balloons to knife fights.
I think a bazooka would be appropriate.