From Roe-Bots to Inflatable IUD in DC: Pro-Abortion Scare Tactics Hit a New Low

[Chrystal-J]

If they collect pubic funds with the expressed purpose of delivering universally accepted standard of care, yes, I would.

Like if a Muslim baker refuses to bake a gay-friendly cake because they take food stamps.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I'm not sure what that means. Children mature sexually just as they do in every other way. It happens gradually over a period of fifteen or so years and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Except maybe by giving puberty blockers, which I don't approve of either. But they do it themselves. All we can do is give (hopefully) useful guidance.

To sexualize a person is to see them in sexual terms or to make them sexually exciting.

I am claiming that it is never okay to apply any sexual quality to children.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I don’t think a teacher sharing what their sexuality is is a big deal, especially in the context of sex ed.

I figured that you wouldn't.

The main reason that it is inappropriate is because it invites children to discuss their own sexuality with the teacher.

That should not happen.

I think that is unrealistic and discriminatory.

No, it is not at all. I never knew anything about my teacher's personal lives growing up.

The point of education is for the students to study the curriculum and pass the tests.

Deciding that the answer is pretending none of these things exist is willful ignorance and sets everybody up for failure.

Wanting to keep private things private is not pretending that private things do not exist.

Every student should be ignorant of intimate personal details of their teachers.

Christianity doesn’t need to be taught in a public school, actually, but I have no issue with a teacher identifying as a Christian.

History of all world religions should be taught in all public schools. They are a big deal.

Much more so than whether your teacher is a homosexual and if the kids want to know more about it.

A teacher can be whatever religion they want - but the moment they start trying to share why they chose whatever religion and encourage their students to learn more about it - that's the line.

What on earth are you talking about? If you think that’s what’s going on in schools or in sex ed, you are grossly misinformed.

It has. The one case I am referencing was a P.E. teacher and he got in big trouble - yet cases like this continue to happen and activists continue to support it.

First off, that’s not what you asked.

This is what I asked, "You think it is appropriate for schoolteachers to be discussing their sexuality with their students? Keeping secrets from their parents?"

You then replied with, "Depends on the secret." - which as I said is completely inappropriate. No adult should share a secret with my children that I don't know about.

Secondly, your kids teachers are going to be talking about things with them about topics that won’t be shared with you.

There is a reason that the curriculum is posted publicly. Teachers are supposed to stick to the curriculum. The only topics they should be discussing with my children are subject listed on the curriculum.

If that’s a problem for you, you need to homeschool.

Or teachers should just follow the posted curriculum?

Children being forced to Zoom Call classes during the lockdowns exposed teachers nation-wide to parents for not following their curriculums and discussing inappropriate things with their students.

It is unrealistic to expect that every thought, idea, opinion, and conversation a teacher has with your kid will be shared with you.

That is not what a secret is. Stop being disingenuous.

It’s not, actually.

I think your responses are something that controlling and abusive person would say when the threat to their iron grip on their victims is threatened.

Every parent or guardian bears 100% responsibility for their children - so they also hold 100% authority over them.

If I green-light a curriculum - agree to what the teacher is going to be teaching my children - and they start teaching something that I did not agree to - I am not the one who violated an agreement or anyone's trust.

And your response that my wanting to make sure my children are educated properly - without being politicized or sexualized - means that I am somehow controlling and abusive - shows just how desperate you must be to politicize and sexualize children.

I think people who can’t get abortions because they don’t have uteruses can’t weigh in on abortions.

How many children do you have?

I think people confuse parenting a child with owning a child and forget that the child’s needs are more important than the wants of their parents.

If I can be punished for what my child decides to do - then I have all authority over them.

If you believe that any child "needs" to be politicized or sexualized - then you have a reckoning coming.

I think people who aren’t dealing with the issues related to gender ideology and their own children have no business telling me what I need to do.

You need to mind your business and stop bringing your personal business into my life and the lives of my children.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Children should be taught about life in an age appropriate manner. It really is as simple as that

I agree with this very vague and unhelpful statement.

Maybe if you cut out using words like 'indoctrinate' you might get people paying more attention to any genuine grievances that you have.

Aw, the old - "It's not what you said, but how you said it" - defense.

Would you prefer the word "grooming"? I typically don't use that term.

If it needs to be explained, in an age appropriate and manner, then it's not a problem.

It is a problem because it is not true.

It would not need to be explained if we focused the curriculum on only facts.

My 10 year old grandson is aware of gender differences because we have a family member who transgendered.

My children are aware of the differences between the two sexes, and I never had to talk about transgenderism at all.

As a matter of fact - I've read a number of old books - and it seems like all people everywhere since the beginning of people have always been aware of the differences between the sexes - without meeting any transgender people!

How did they do it?

There was some initial surprise then an easy acceptance. It really was no big deal.

That is horrifying.

You don't think it is a big deal that your grandson easily accepted delusion?

I really think you should stop jumping to conclusions.

The more you speak the less convinced I am of that.

You've been given a lot of information. Maybe it came as a surprise to you. It might be a good idea to deal with it rather than looking for escape clauses.

I have been information that I already know - and even if I didn't - I would know that it was bogus simply based on the fact that it includes adults in a stat about children.

You do realise that even in places like Texas abortions are allowed when it's absolutely necessary?

'Following many reports of patients facing denials or delays for medical emergencies in which an abortion is needed, state lawmakers have affirmed protections for medical professionals who exercise “reasonable judgment” to treat ectopic pregnancies and when a patient’s water breaks too early for the fetus to survive outside of the womb.' How new regulations impact abortion and birth control access in Texas

Delivering a child is not an abortion.

 

[Bradskii]

As a matter of fact - I've read a number of old books - and it seems like all people everywhere since the beginning of people have always been aware of the differences between the sexes - without meeting any transgender people!

Indeed. I never met a gay person either when I was growing up. But I met plenty of people who used the most derogatory language about them. Do you think those two facts are connected?

You don't think it is a big deal that your grandson easily accepted delusion?

I'd be worried if he thought gender was a delusion.

Delivering a child is not an abortion.

How did you miss the very first sentence? I even bolded it so it would be easy to see: 'Following many reports of patients facing denials or delays for medical emergencies in which an abortion is needed...'

 

[BCP1928]

To sexualize a person is to see them in sexual terms or to make them sexually exciting.

I am claiming that it is never okay to apply any sexual quality to children.

Then informing them in an age-appropriate way about human sexuality is not sexualizing them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Exactly. Catholicism is an easy target. I don't see anyone advocating a Muslim to go against their faith. Catholic hospitals should not have to have anything to do with birth control.

From this outsider's POV, it would seem that part of the problem here is having religious hospitals (is that the right way to say it? Religiously affiliated?), because hospitals don't have beliefs, people have beliefs. In the UK, hospitals are a national service, and staff members can choose not to be involved in medical procedures that they feel are against their morals or beliefs.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Maybe look things up before declaring them false. They provide the data. Have fun.

Your claim is still false.

You claimed that the number one cause of death among children in the US was "gun violence" - and that claim is not supported by the links you have provided.


The real issues that we are seeing are gang-violence and mental health issues.

You are not a medical doctor, so maybe stay in your lane.

And you are?

Explain exactly which one of these examples is a "medically necessary abortion".

I don't even know how to respond to such an asinine comment.

How about you start by trying to explain why you consider it to be asinine.

Given the above, apparently not.

I speak out against the State replacing the father in the home - which has led to more gang-violence - and I also encourage that people with mental health issues get the necessary help they need - including transgender people.

I know you likely won't bother to read any of the links because you don't care about facts or expert opinion, but if anyone else is interested there ya go.

You are just trying to distract from the actual issues while pushing that we politicize and sexualize more and more children.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Then informing them in an age-appropriate way about human sexuality is not sexualizing them.

You and others have been erecting the same strawman over and over.

I have been saying that gender activists pushing their agenda onto children by encouraging them to engage in LGBT politics and activities is not appropriate.

Teachers should not be revealing private sexual information about themselves or soliciting discussions about student's private sexual information.

Teachers should only be teaching what is outlined in the curriculum - not teaching falsehoods about biological sex - and especially not keeping secrets with students that parents are unaware of.

I keep focusing this discussion on all these inappropriate behaviors that we keep seeing across the country - while you and others keep trying to claim that I am advocating no sex-ed at all.

It is a strawman. It is purposefully misrepresenting my position.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As a matter of fact - I've read a number of old books - and it seems like all people everywhere since the beginning of people have always been aware of the differences between the sexes - without meeting any transgender people!

Maybe you've been reading too narrow a range. Transgender people have always been around (as have people on the LGBTQ+ spectra in general); different cultures have treated them in different ways, some being more accepting, sometimes giving them distinct cultural roles, and some being less accepting, sometimes to the extent of suppressing their public expression through intimidation & violence.

A relatively small proportion of the population worldwide (around 9%) admits having LGBTQ+ orientations, and of those, only a minority are prepared to seek public acknowledgement, especially in less accepting cultures. Many Western cultures have, until relatively recently, been loathe to allow public acknowledgement of such orientations, while treating its private expression as immoral but often letting it pass as relatively harmless peccadillos or eccentricity among the elite.

I was raised and educated Catholic and indoctrinated to think of such people as transgressive, immoral, and (sometimes) unfortunate. It wasn't until I went to university and had my eyes opened to the wonderful diversity of human cultures and views, that I realised they were just people who felt differently about that part of their lives - and also realised that some of the people I'd grown up with were probably LGBTQ, particularly the monks in my abbey school (some of whom, it later emerged, had sexually abused pupils).

 

[BCP1928]

You and others have been erecting the same strawman over and over.

I have been saying that gender activists pushing their agenda onto children by encouraging them to engage in LGBT politics and activities is not appropriate.

Teachers should not be revealing private sexual information about themselves or soliciting discussions about student's private sexual information.

Teachers should only be teaching what is outlined in the curriculum - not teaching falsehoods about biological sex - and especially not keeping secrets with students that parents are unaware of.

I keep focusing this discussion on all these inappropriate behaviors that we keep seeing across the country - while you and others keep trying to claim that I am advocating no sex-ed at all.

It is a strawman. It is purposefully misrepresenting my position.

Then the only way I could accurately represent your position would be to say it was a self-serving fantasy

 

[Zaha Torte]

Indeed. I never met a gay person either when I was growing up.

I know homosexuals when I was growing up.

You realize that sexual orientation has nothing to do with this discussion, right?

We were just discussing the difference in "gender" - not in sexual attraction.

Well - you used the word "gender" while I used the appropriate term "sex"

But I met plenty of people who used the most derogatory language about them.

Sure - and whether or not that is appropriate is a different discussion - completely unrelated to the one we were having.

Although I do feel the need to point out that homosexuality is sinful and should be avoided.

Do you think those two facts are connected?

I don't know. I knew homosexuals while growing up and I also knew a lot of people that used derogatory language about them - including many of the homosexuals.

I tend to only make friends with people who have a sense of humor and know how to take a joke - so that is how those two facts were connected.

I'd be worried if he thought gender was a delusion.

He accepted the delusion that a person could change their "gender" or sex.

And the concept of "gender" does not exist in reality.

There are only two sexes - zero genders - and infinite personalities.

How did you miss the very first sentence? I even bolded it so it would be easy to see: 'Following many reports of patients facing denials or delays for medical emergencies in which an abortion is needed...'

The term "abortion" has changed and refers to the intentional killing of the not-yet-born.

Removing an unviable pregnancy or any unborn child (without the intent to murder) is not an abortion.

 

[BCP1928]

I know homosexuals when I was growing up.

You realize that sexual orientation has nothing to do with this discussion, right?

We were just discussing the difference in "gender" - not in sexual attraction.

Well - you used the word "gender" while I used the appropriate term "sex"

Sure - and whether or not that is appropriate is a different discussion - completely unrelated to the one we were having.

Although I do feel the need to point out that homosexuality is sinful and should be avoided.

I don't know. I knew homosexuals while growing up and I also knew a lot of people that used derogatory language about them - including many of the homosexuals.

I tend to only make friends with people who have a sense of humor and know how to take a joke - so that is how those two facts were connected.

He accepted the delusion that a person could change their "gender" or sex.

And the concept of "gender" does not exist in reality.

There are only two sexes - zero genders - and infinite personalities.

The term "abortion" has changed and refers to the intentional killing of the not-yet-born.

Removing an unviable pregnancy or any unborn child (without the intent to murder) is not an abortion.

So you say, but laws are being written and enforced as if it were. Never mind, it's just virtue signalling. The destruction of a viable fetus was already illegal in 42 states and against medical ethics in all of them--a situation the courts found to be consistent with Roe v. Wade.

 

[essentialsaltes]

[Roe overturned]

Next, Democrats warned that Republicans were after IVF. “Absurd!”Well, Republicans in Congress voted against protection for IVF. Alabama effectively banned it before a backlash forced a reversal.

By now, you would think Democrats’ warnings that Republicans are coming after reproductive rights, including contraception, would be heeded. But, predictably, Republicans cry foul and deny any thought of snatching away contraception access. Ah, but along came felon and former president Donald Trump who let slip he was “looking at” contraception restrictions; then he backpedaled once he realized too much candor was politically disastrous.

And — no surprise — Republicans again showed their stripes last week.

The bill was straightforward. “The Democratic bill — intended to put Republicans on the spot in an election year on their unpopular positions on reproductive rights — would have prevented states from passing laws that limit access to contraception, including hormonal birth control and intrauterine devices,” The Post reported. Nine Republicans ducked the vote; all other male Republicans voted against it. Two female Republicans and all Democrats present voted for it.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Maybe you've been reading too narrow a range. Transgender people have always been around (as have people on the LGBTQ+ spectra in general); different cultures have treated them in different ways, some being more accepting, sometimes giving them distinct cultural roles, and some being less accepting, sometimes to the extent of suppressing their public expression through intimidation & violence.

No - this is revisionist nonsense.

And even if it were true - that does not make it any truer or any less delusional - nor does it mean that they are necessary for people to know the difference between the sexes.

We would still be aware of the differences between the two sexes if none of these mental illnesses never existed.

A relatively small proportion of the population worldwide (around 9%) admits having LGBTQ+ orientations, and of those, only a minority are prepared to seek public acknowledgement, especially in less accepting cultures. Many Western cultures have, until relatively recently, been loathe to allow public acknowledgement of such orientations, while treating its private expression as immoral but often letting it pass as relatively harmless peccadillos or eccentricity among the elite.

Transgenderism is not a sexual orientation and I never understood why anyone would want to lump it in as such.

This idea that sexual sin and mental illness always existing does not make them morally good or any less a mental illness.

We should avoid sin and help those suffering from delusions - not point to the existence of sin and delusion in history as a means to justify them.

I was raised and educated Catholic and indoctrinated to think of such people as transgressive, immoral, and (sometimes) unfortunate. It wasn't until I went to university and had my eyes opened to the wonderful diversity of human cultures and views, that I realised they were just people who felt differently about that part of their lives - and also realised that some of the people I'd grown up with were probably LGBTQ, particularly the monks in my abbey school (some of whom, it later emerged, had sexually abused pupils).

Who would have guessed that going to university would have indoctrinated you so?

As if I needed further testimony to support my decision to not encourage my children to go there.

Allowing space in our hearts and minds for inappropriate thoughts often leads us to abuse other.

Homosexuality and other sexual sins should be avoided.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Then the only way I could accurately represent your position would be to say it was a self-serving fantasy

You deny that these things are happening?

 

[NxNW]

And when the justices were confirmed, the right to access abortions was established legal precedent and they wouldn't infringe on that, or so they said.

It should be abundantly clear now that there is no such thing as settled law.

 

[Zaha Torte]

So you say, but laws are being written and enforced as if it were. Never mind, it's just virtue signalling. The destruction of a viable fetus was already illegal in 42 states and against medical ethics in all of them--a situation the courts found to be consistent with Roe v. Wade.

What?

 

[NxNW]

I see them sexualizing children while trying to convince them to remove their sexual organs.

No you don't.

Conservatives want to protect children and women.

No they don't.

 

[BCP1928]

What?

I thought I was being quite clear.