• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#310]Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty'

Fledermaus said:
You would be wrong.

As usual.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's entirely fair.... Rich has been VERY selective about his sources. ;)

I also note, for the record, that he hasn't addressed the substance at all.
 
Rich2018 said:
As have you :)
Click to expand...
Not at all, and you know that. That is what is known in the vernacular as "a bald-faced lie". Better luck next time.

Why have you ignored the substance of the thread entirely? Why have you never answered any questions posed to you, say for example about IUDs and Plan B? Why are you on the outside sniping rather than discussing the substance of the thread? It is a very bad look for you, you know, and gives all kinds of ammunition to your critics. You have been here long enough to know better.
 
I'm going to start this post with an assertion: contraception is intended to stop pregnancy. Some people seem to be a bit unclear on this point, so I thought it worth emphasizing.

9 types of contraception you can use to prevent pregnancy (with pictures!) (Queensland)​

1668101640529.png

There is an effort, as noted earlier, to confuse this issue by making assertions about certain types of contraception, just as there had been an effort to stigmatize certain types of abortion before the Supreme Court stepped in. As with that effort, the current effort to confuse the subject and manipulate the language is merely a tactic to accomplish the end goal, and that is the banning of contraception entirely, or at least limit is severely.

This thread started with the Connecticut law that prohibited contraceptives as discussed in Griswold v. Connecticut. I think it worth considering how that law came into being to begin with, to consider how such a law might now be imposed (although not likely in Connecticut). At the same time, I think it also worth noting the results of the abortion measures on the ballots in several States this year. Limitations on bodily autonomy are not politically popular.

Prior to the late 19th Century contraception was so common in the United States that the use of contraceptives led to a 50 percent drop in the fertility rate in the United States between 1800 and 1900, particularly in urban regions. The record of common techniques for contraception go back to antiquity, even though the actual mechanisms of pregnancy were not well-understood, although well enough to be effective. Longstanding techniques included the rhythm method, withdrawal, diaphragms, contraceptive sponges, condoms, prolonged breastfeeding, and spermicides.

Contraception was not restricted by law in the United States throughout most of the 19th century, but in the 1870s a social purity movement grew in strength, aimed at outlawing vice in general, and prostitution and obscenity in particular. (Wikipedia) Anthony Comstock, a grocery clerk and leader in the purity movement, successfully lobbied for the passage of the 1873 Comstock Act, a federal law prohibiting mailing of "any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of abortion" as well as any form of contraceptive information. Thus, "Many states also passed similar state laws (collectively known as the Comstock laws), sometimes extending the federal law by additionally restricting contraceptives, including information about them and their distribution." Connecticut was one of them.

In opposition to this movement, and in promotion of contraception, arose the Malthusian League in the 1870s and then more generalized movements in the early 20th Century promoted by luminaries such as Emma Goldman, Mary Dennett (who co-founded the National Birth Control League in 1915 together with Jessie Ashley and Clara Gruening Stillman, and the Voluntary Parenthood League), and Margaret Sanger, the last of these establishing the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Sanger's efforts contributed to several judicial cases that helped legalize contraception in the United States, see United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries.
 
Last edited:
Are conception and fertilization the same? Conception and fertilization are two different parts (or steps) of the same process. Conception is the first step, where an egg and sperm join. Fertilization is another step, where the joined sperm and egg plant like a seed into your uterine lining.
 
Rich2018 said:
Are conception and fertilization the same? Conception and fertilization are two different parts (or steps) of the same process. Conception is the first step, where an egg and sperm join. Fertilization is another step, where the joined sperm and egg plant like a seed into your uterine lining.
Click to expand...
Your posts remain irrelevant to the discussion. Move along...

"Those who don't understand are easily fooled."
 
Rich2018 said:
Are conception and fertilization the same? Conception and fertilization are two different parts (or steps) of the same process. Conception is the first step, where an egg and sperm join. Fertilization is another step, where the joined sperm and egg plant like a seed into your uterine lining.
Click to expand...

Source?
 
Fledermaus said:
Source?
Click to expand...
He can't post that without risking suspension... ;)

His last post is biologically backwards.

I'm going to contact the Cleveland Clinic to address this nonsense.
 
Last edited:
NWRatCon said:
Your Are conception and fertilization the same? Conception and fertilization are two different parts (or steps) of the same process. Conception is the first step, where an egg and sperm join. Fertilization is another step, where the joined sperm and egg plant like a seed into your uterine lining.Move along...

"Those who don't understand are easily fooled."
Click to expand...

I think your posts remain irrelevant to the discussion.

Fertilization and conception are one and the same.
 
NWRatCon said:
He can't post that without risking suspension... ;)

His last post is biologically backwards.

I'm going to contact the Cleveland Clinic to address this nonsense.
Click to expand...
I went to the Cleveland Clinic website and found this disclaimer:

"ALTHOUGH OUR HEALTH INFORMATION CONTENT IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS, CLEVELAND CLINIC DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY, ADEQUACY, OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS OR FOR THE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF SUCH INFORMATION." (and yes, the all-caps is in the original)

I also found a reason for it:

Troubling examples of ‘pseudoscience’ at the Cleveland Clinic (WaPo)​

It seems there have been several controversies regarding their website and inaccurate information.
 
Fledermaus said:
According to whom?

You gave no source.
Click to expand...
He still can't remain germane to the discussion. I'm not sure if it is pure stubbornness, or just an extremely fragile ego. Maybe both. Even his own source explicitly refutes his assertion. "Conception and fertilization are two different parts (or steps) of the same process". Except his source explains it exactly backwards, as I noted earlier. "Fertilization is the first step, where an egg and sperm join. Conception is another step, where the joined sperm and egg plant like a seed into your uterine lining." It's Biology 101.

I don't really understand the pig-headedness on this point. It just makes him look stupid.
 
Last edited:
NWRatCon said:
He still can't remain germane to the discussion. I'm not sure if it is pure stubbornness, or just an extremely fragile ego. Maybe both. Even his own source explicitly refutes his assertion. "Conception and fertilization are two different parts (or steps) of the same process". Except his source explains it exactly backwards, as I noted earlier. "Fertilization is the first step, where an egg and sperm join. Conception is another step, where the joined sperm and egg plant like a seed into your uterine lining." It's Biology 101.

I don't really understand the pig-headedness on this point. It just makes him look stupid.
Click to expand...

You've still not shown any Republican who's proposed making contraception illegal.
 
I have to admit that I'm disturbed by these errors on the Cleveland Clinic website. I've often used them as a resource when posting, as their articles are usually well-structured and informative, like the Mayo Clinic's. This is an aberration, but as noted, not an isolated one.

Dr. Google is usually pretty helpful.
 
Rich2018 said:
You've still not shown any Republican who's proposed making contraception illegal.
Click to expand...
Did you just skip over all those parts of the thread? I'm coming around to Fledermaus' view that you're just trolling the thread.

Be well, but do better. Buh-bye.
 
NWRatCon said:
Did you just skip over all those parts of the thread? I'm coming around to Fledermaus' view that you're just trolling the thread.

Be well, but do better. Buh-bye.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't listen to him

Now back to what I said:
You've still not shown any Republican who's proposed making contraception illegal.
 
Rich2018 said:
I think your posts remain irrelevant to the discussion.

Fertilization and conception are one and the same.
Click to expand...
They are by definition, and biological fact, not the same.
 
Rich2018 said:
It remains to be seen if there's a public backlash against SCOTUS overturning the Wade Vs Roe ruling, in this months mid-terms.
Click to expand...
Not anymore…

Anyway, the answer you fellas were waiting for, that “prominent progressive” was something I never said. Who the **** cares what some “prominent progressive” thinks or says? I offered a solution to a problem which could shape and change government policy for a long time. Here was the sentence;

“The progressives I know are for legalizing most recreational drugs”—brianpatrick

Why the AOC hater turned that into “prominent progressive” is obvious. He couldn’t answer my real assertion because that would poke a hole in his argument, so he turned the question/assertion into what he did.

And Rich darling? Relax… read the whole thread in context before you mouth off with some half baked comment. Have an open heart and love everyone. Because if you can’t love everyone, you can’t really love anyone. And that makes you bitter. None of us here want to talk to a bitter person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom