There's more to periods than bleeding... Even still it simply isn't true that there's "no withdrawal bleeding" in the overwhelming majority of women.
Oral contraception doesn't stop bleeding either it lessens it.
Have you ever met a woman?
I was speaking from personal experience. As a woman who suffers from severe PMS (that results in a clinical level of depression and anxiety) as well as painful, heavy periods, my gyno recommended that I go on a low dose birth control pill to mitigate (I am also generally interested in being on contraception because I don't want to have kids right now). This (for me, and for many women who go on this particular formulation) results in no period because it is so low dose that there is not enough endometrial lining to shed. Even if you do get bleeding on hormonal contraception, it is because you cease taking the hormones, not because your body is going through its regular hormonal fluctuations because birth control inhibits ovulation (which causes the hormonal cycle leading to periods). Hence it being termed "withdrawal bleeding" rather than a true period since no ovulation is involved. The formulation and several others (including the ones I listed in my previous post) have this common side effect: no bleeding from a period at all in many women who take it. Most hormonal contraception is lower dose these days because it tends to result in less side effects.
For some formulations and for some women, it merely lessens bleeding, but for me it actually completely removes bleeding and I am no outlier. I had an extended discussion with my gyno about this because as a woman runner it doesn't give me anything to monitor to make sure I am not running into issues with RED-S. My gyno was unconcerned because I have zero history of bone stress injury and because my period returns whenever I have gone off this pill for a couple months even though I typically run 70-80 mpw. She also pointed out that getting bleeding while on a typical hormonal birth control pill, since it is unconnected with ovulation, tells you nothing about whether you are maintaining hormonal health for the sake of monitoring RED-S. This particular formulation of contraception also works really well for me in that it stabilizes my mood and has no negative side effects like weight gain or lethargy which I have noticed when on other pills.
So TL;DR. I am a woman. I also am a woman who has tried several forms of contraception and know women on a myriad of different forms of contraception. I am pretty aware of how these different forms of contraception affect having a period because it's something women runners discuss since hormonal contraception and IUDs can mask stress fracture risk, whether you get bleeding or not.
I'm not buying your argument that embryos would require an attorney to advocate for their rights, due process, etc, while in utero - if deemed legally alive. We don't even do this for born children. I made medical decisions for all of my children while they were infants, heck, right up until age 18. Never was there an attorney present.
Now... children services would get involved if there were instances of abuse or neglect on the part of my wife or me. But not attorneys on the regular.
A better argument might be that if a mother is abusing or neglecting their unborn children (abortion would qualify), then Children Services should be involved in the protection of said children. Which, I suppose, is what the pro-life movement is seeking... protection from abuse and neglect.
Attorney ad litems are required when the parent's interest conflicts with the child's interest. If your kid gets in an accident, you have to have an attorney ad litem represent the child in any settlement because there is a conflict between the parent's financial (generally short term) interests and the child's (more long term). Same thing when you have a mother making decisions about her pregnancy. The mother may want to pursue treatment that will result in the best outcome for her health and may be willing to do so at the expense of the child. In fact, this happens all the time when mothers are confronted with the choice between a c-section and vaginal birth or having labor induced versus waiting until labor happens naturally. And there are a long list of complications that occur during pregnancy that have treatments that present a risk to the fetus. Even having a home birth would be subject to scrutiny because it raises risks for the fetus versus hospital birth. It is not at all a slippery slope to see a future where it is almost full on Gilead where women are subject to state intervention when a doctor, relative, clergy or anyone thinks that the mother is not taking care of herself (not eating well, working too many hours, etc.) and is putting the baby in jeopardy. Once the term "liberty" in the 14th amendment is held to not prevent the government from interfering with a woman's body, anything can be done to women in the name of protecting the legal person inside the womb.
I see your point, and thanks for taking the time to write a more reasoned (less sensationalized) response. I still contend that the line of demarcation, the one that prevents your slippery slope from descending into Gilead, is the one draw along the lines of abuse and neglect - the same lines that are drawn postpartum.
So if a parent is choosing TOO risky a procedure for convenience's sake (or financial, as in your example) so as to jeopardize the health of the child - which I could contend is a form of abuse - then certainly a legal representative or child advocate is appropriate. I imagine the doctor herself plays this role in most cases, much as the ER docs do when questioning parents about how that child's arm was broken, or how those bruises got there.
Regardless of the nuances of these cases, when looking at something as extreme as abortion (is there a worse example of abuse?), it's far from the slippery slope you describe and fear.
It does not. It makes it an offense to kill an "unborn child" (which is defined as a fetus or embryo) but never goes as far as recognizing a fetus or embryo as legally being a person with rights that are separate from the mother. And that is actually what is interesting about the draft opinion. It does not state that an embryo or fetus is legally a person. It just says that the constitution does not give women a right to an abortion. If you actually go as far as anti-abortion advocates want to go and recognize life as beginning at conception, then a fetus, embryo and even dividing cells the moment after the sperm penetrates the egg are legally people with all the rights to due process, etc. That would mean that whenever a woman went in for any sort of medical treatment or even just an examination, the doctor would have to have a court appoint an attorney ad litem to represent the interests of the child. The doctor could only proceed with the agreement of the attorney ad litem. At that point, you really may as well just make women wear the handmaid's tale costumes or burkas because any distinction between how women are treated in the US and Saudi Arabi or the fictional world of Gilead is no longer significant.
I'm not buying your argument that embryos would require an attorney to advocate for their rights, due process, etc, while in utero - if deemed legally alive. We don't even do this for born children. I made medical decisions for all of my children while they were infants, heck, right up until age 18. Never was there an attorney present.
Now... children services would get involved if there were instances of abuse or neglect on the part of my wife or me. But not attorneys on the regular.
A better argument might be that if a mother is abusing or neglecting their unborn children (abortion would qualify), then Children Services should be involved in the protection of said children. Which, I suppose, is what the pro-life movement is seeking... protection from abuse and neglect.
What should be most upsetting to ALL Americans is that this draft opinion got leaked at all. It is tantamount to undermining one of our highest institutions, unprecedented, and just as morally corrupt as what happened on 1/6.
But, it achieved its intended objective, which was to poison the well and get everyone distracted from the floundering Dems on massive inflation, the impending recession, the war that will very likely escalate out of Ukraine, the porous border with the, also unprecedented, massive influx of illegal aliens (many of who are dying) and drugs which are killing our children, and talking about abortion instead.
Most, not all, people are fairly reasonable when it comes to this issue. I, as a conservative, do not want to see Roe overturned as the far-reaching implications are consequential and unforeseen in many circumstances. Moreover, this issue is really about viability of the fetus, not conception, which is generally recognized to be around 18 weeks, but sometimes earlier. Then there is the concept of the fetus’s ability to process and feel pain, which is generally accepted as 23 weeks but might be earlier around 20 weeks. Surely there is neurological reflexivity much earlier, not to mention the heartbeat at six weeks.
So, for me, the question is what’s acceptable as a broad society? Perhaps it’s banning all third trimester abortions, and even second trimester, but allowing exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother. Irreversible birth defects too which could be proven to compromise the child for life.
In reality, if you had unprotected sex, you almost always know you had unprotected sex, have access to some kind of morning after pill or, at the very least, a pregnancy test through organizations like Planned Parenthood. Some accountability has to fall on the doer of the deed. If sexuality classes in high school and college are going to be discussing other than cis-gender, hetero norms, or STDs, or how to safely use contraception (condoms on a banana), then they should also include a trip to the abortion clinic where women can witness that fetus being sucked out, unanesthetized, because that will surely make it more real as it should be. It should also include a panel discussing all the ways a woman is harmed mentally and emotionally from terminating a pregnancy that also have far-reaching and consequential implications for mom.
There are many layers to peel. It’s not as easy as saying you are pro-choice or pro-life. Nuance allows for both. But what most people should be sick about is that a “draft” SCOTUS opinion got leaked at all. Certainly not a final opinion, nor one that has been debated and all dissent vigorously embraced. Ultimately, not enough people are upset about the leak, and that is how you really know we are dying as a nation.
There's more to periods than bleeding... Even still it simply isn't true that there's "no withdrawal bleeding" in the overwhelming majority of women.
Oral contraception doesn't stop bleeding either it lessens it.
Have you ever met a woman?
I was speaking from personal experience. As a woman who suffers from severe PMS (that results in a clinical level of depression and anxiety) as well as painful, heavy periods, my gyno recommended that I go on a low dose birth control pill to mitigate (I am also generally interested in being on contraception because I don't want to have kids right now). This (for me, and for many women who go on this particular formulation) results in no period because it is so low dose that there is not enough endometrial lining to shed. Even if you do get bleeding on hormonal contraception, it is because you cease taking the hormones, not because your body is going through its regular hormonal fluctuations because birth control inhibits ovulation (which causes the hormonal cycle leading to periods). Hence it being termed "withdrawal bleeding" rather than a true period since no ovulation is involved. The formulation and several others (including the ones I listed in my previous post) have this common side effect: no bleeding from a period at all in many women who take it. Most hormonal contraception is lower dose these days because it tends to result in less side effects.
For some formulations and for some women, it merely lessens bleeding, but for me it actually completely removes bleeding and I am no outlier. I had an extended discussion with my gyno about this because as a woman runner it doesn't give me anything to monitor to make sure I am not running into issues with RED-S. My gyno was unconcerned because I have zero history of bone stress injury and because my period returns whenever I have gone off this pill for a couple months even though I typically run 70-80 mpw. She also pointed out that getting bleeding while on a typical hormonal birth control pill, since it is unconnected with ovulation, tells you nothing about whether you are maintaining hormonal health for the sake of monitoring RED-S. This particular formulation of contraception also works really well for me in that it stabilizes my mood and has no negative side effects like weight gain or lethargy which I have noticed when on other pills.
So TL;DR. I am a woman. I also am a woman who has tried several forms of contraception and know women on a myriad of different forms of contraception. I am pretty aware of how these different forms of contraception affect having a period because it's something women runners discuss since hormonal contraception and IUDs can mask stress fracture risk, whether you get bleeding or not.
Sounds like you'd definitely notice if I didn't have your period for 3 months.
Only 38% support abortion for any reason in the 1st trimester. That drops to 15% in the second 2nd trimester and 8% in the 3rd.
Your correction isn't factual.
Does the article or study specify what the next level up, “legal in most cases”, entails? The article states that 49% of people support abortion for any reason and 50% against. That’s pretty much 50/50
The graphic says 38% I don't know where they are getting the 49% number from.
The problem with these polls is they never ask the right questions because they are trying to frame a narrative rather than find out what people actually think.
I was speaking from personal experience. As a woman who suffers from severe PMS (that results in a clinical level of depression and anxiety) as well as painful, heavy periods, my gyno recommended that I go on a low dose birth control pill to mitigate (I am also generally interested in being on contraception because I don't want to have kids right now). This (for me, and for many women who go on this particular formulation) results in no period because it is so low dose that there is not enough endometrial lining to shed. Even if you do get bleeding on hormonal contraception, it is because you cease taking the hormones, not because your body is going through its regular hormonal fluctuations because birth control inhibits ovulation (which causes the hormonal cycle leading to periods). Hence it being termed "withdrawal bleeding" rather than a true period since no ovulation is involved. The formulation and several others (including the ones I listed in my previous post) have this common side effect: no bleeding from a period at all in many women who take it. Most hormonal contraception is lower dose these days because it tends to result in less side effects.
For some formulations and for some women, it merely lessens bleeding, but for me it actually completely removes bleeding and I am no outlier. I had an extended discussion with my gyno about this because as a woman runner it doesn't give me anything to monitor to make sure I am not running into issues with RED-S. My gyno was unconcerned because I have zero history of bone stress injury and because my period returns whenever I have gone off this pill for a couple months even though I typically run 70-80 mpw. She also pointed out that getting bleeding while on a typical hormonal birth control pill, since it is unconnected with ovulation, tells you nothing about whether you are maintaining hormonal health for the sake of monitoring RED-S. This particular formulation of contraception also works really well for me in that it stabilizes my mood and has no negative side effects like weight gain or lethargy which I have noticed when on other pills.
So TL;DR. I am a woman. I also am a woman who has tried several forms of contraception and know women on a myriad of different forms of contraception. I am pretty aware of how these different forms of contraception affect having a period because it's something women runners discuss since hormonal contraception and IUDs can mask stress fracture risk, whether you get bleeding or not.
Sounds like you'd definitely notice if I didn't have your period for 3 months.
Did you read the part where she states she has no bleeding at all with her current contraception?
One problem is that too many of the pro-lifers don't have the same concern for preventing pregnancy in the first place nor in helping with the continued care of those embryos and fetuses once they make it outside the womb.
You don't give a s hit about babies before they are born or after they are born. Furthermore, you seem to have a great interest in murdering babies before they are born.
You don't give a s hit about babies before they are born or after they are born. Furthermore, you seem to have a great interest in murdering babies before they are born.
Did you read the part where she states she has no bleeding at all with her current contraception?
The bleeding is 1 part the period. You don't need to be bleeding to figure out you're on your period.
I’m certain you have no education or experience within this topic. To be telling anyone what is/what isn’t part of the menstrual cycle is both hilarious and terrifying.
The bleeding is 1 part the period. You don't need to be bleeding to figure out you're on your period.
I’m certain you have no education or experience within this topic. To be telling anyone what is/what isn’t part of the menstrual cycle is both hilarious and terrifying.
You're right. The bleeding happens spontaneously for no reason and nothing else is involved.
So whatever happened to the dogged search for the leaker? Republicans assured us that it must have been a liberal. Why haven't they been apprehended? It was an assault on the institutional legitimacy of the court, after all. Did we find out something inconvenient that caused us to end the search and completely stop talking about it?
It would be very bad if the public started to perceive the Supreme Court as being political...
Breaking news and analysis on politics, business, world, national news, entertainment and more. In-depth DC, Virginia, Maryland news coverage including traffic, weather, crime, education, restaurant reviews and more.
I'm not buying your argument that embryos would require an attorney to advocate for their rights, due process, etc, while in utero - if deemed legally alive. We don't even do this for born children. I made medical decisions for all of my children while they were infants, heck, right up until age 18. Never was there an attorney present.
Now... children services would get involved if there were instances of abuse or neglect on the part of my wife or me. But not attorneys on the regular.
A better argument might be that if a mother is abusing or neglecting their unborn children (abortion would qualify), then Children Services should be involved in the protection of said children. Which, I suppose, is what the pro-life movement is seeking... protection from abuse and neglect.
What should be most upsetting to ALL Americans is that this draft opinion got leaked at all. It is tantamount to undermining one of our highest institutions, unprecedented, and just as morally corrupt as what happened on 1/6.
But, it achieved its intended objective, which was to poison the well and get everyone distracted from the floundering Dems on massive inflation, the impending recession, the war that will very likely escalate out of Ukraine, the porous border with the, also unprecedented, massive influx of illegal aliens (many of who are dying) and drugs which are killing our children, and talking about abortion instead.
Most, not all, people are fairly reasonable when it comes to this issue. I, as a conservative, do not want to see Roe overturned as the far-reaching implications are consequential and unforeseen in many circumstances. Moreover, this issue is really about viability of the fetus, not conception, which is generally recognized to be around 18 weeks, but sometimes earlier. Then there is the concept of the fetus’s ability to process and feel pain, which is generally accepted as 23 weeks but might be earlier around 20 weeks. Surely there is neurological reflexivity much earlier, not to mention the heartbeat at six weeks.
So, for me, the question is what’s acceptable as a broad society? Perhaps it’s banning all third trimester abortions, and even second trimester, but allowing exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother. Irreversible birth defects too which could be proven to compromise the child for life.
In reality, if you had unprotected sex, you almost always know you had unprotected sex, have access to some kind of morning after pill or, at the very least, a pregnancy test through organizations like Planned Parenthood. Some accountability has to fall on the doer of the deed. If sexuality classes in high school and college are going to be discussing other than cis-gender, hetero norms, or STDs, or how to safely use contraception (condoms on a banana), then they should also include a trip to the abortion clinic where women can witness that fetus being sucked out, unanesthetized, because that will surely make it more real as it should be. It should also include a panel discussing all the ways a woman is harmed mentally and emotionally from terminating a pregnancy that also have far-reaching and consequential implications for mom.
There are many layers to peel. It’s not as easy as saying you are pro-choice or pro-life. Nuance allows for both. But what most people should be sick about is that a “draft” SCOTUS opinion got leaked at all. Certainly not a final opinion, nor one that has been debated and all dissent vigorously embraced. Ultimately, not enough people are upset about the leak, and that is how you really know we are dying as a nation.
It’s hard to imagine a stupider argument than saying leaking a draft opinion is equally as morally corrupt as committing an armed insurrection of the Nation’s Capitol. Talk about trying to distract! The leaker seems to have thought that demonstrating against the opinion might influence at least one judge to change his or her mind, which is exactly what Chief Judge Roberts is no doubt still trying to do. In any event, considering that three of the judges who joined the majority opinion recently assured Congress that they respected Roe v Wade as a precedent, exposing their personal moral corruption was in the nation’s interest.
What should be most upsetting to ALL Americans is that this draft opinion got leaked at all. It is tantamount to undermining one of our highest institutions, unprecedented, and just as morally corrupt as what happened on 1/6.
But, it achieved its intended objective, which was to poison the well and get everyone distracted from the floundering Dems on massive inflation, the impending recession, the war that will very likely escalate out of Ukraine, the porous border with the, also unprecedented, massive influx of illegal aliens (many of who are dying) and drugs which are killing our children, and talking about abortion instead.
Most, not all, people are fairly reasonable when it comes to this issue. I, as a conservative, do not want to see Roe overturned as the far-reaching implications are consequential and unforeseen in many circumstances. Moreover, this issue is really about viability of the fetus, not conception, which is generally recognized to be around 18 weeks, but sometimes earlier. Then there is the concept of the fetus’s ability to process and feel pain, which is generally accepted as 23 weeks but might be earlier around 20 weeks. Surely there is neurological reflexivity much earlier, not to mention the heartbeat at six weeks.
So, for me, the question is what’s acceptable as a broad society? Perhaps it’s banning all third trimester abortions, and even second trimester, but allowing exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother. Irreversible birth defects too which could be proven to compromise the child for life.
In reality, if you had unprotected sex, you almost always know you had unprotected sex, have access to some kind of morning after pill or, at the very least, a pregnancy test through organizations like Planned Parenthood. Some accountability has to fall on the doer of the deed. If sexuality classes in high school and college are going to be discussing other than cis-gender, hetero norms, or STDs, or how to safely use contraception (condoms on a banana), then they should also include a trip to the abortion clinic where women can witness that fetus being sucked out, unanesthetized, because that will surely make it more real as it should be. It should also include a panel discussing all the ways a woman is harmed mentally and emotionally from terminating a pregnancy that also have far-reaching and consequential implications for mom.
There are many layers to peel. It’s not as easy as saying you are pro-choice or pro-life. Nuance allows for both. But what most people should be sick about is that a “draft” SCOTUS opinion got leaked at all. Certainly not a final opinion, nor one that has been debated and all dissent vigorously embraced. Ultimately, not enough people are upset about the leak, and that is how you really know we are dying as a nation.
It’s hard to imagine a stupider argument than saying leaking a draft opinion is equally as morally corrupt as committing an armed insurrection of the Nation’s Capitol. Talk about trying to distract! The leaker seems to have thought that demonstrating against the opinion might influence at least one judge to change his or her mind, which is exactly what Chief Judge Roberts is no doubt still trying to do. In any event, considering that three of the judges who joined the majority opinion recently assured Congress that they respected Roe v Wade as a precedent, exposing their personal moral corruption was in the nation’s interest.
FBI has already said Trump and other republicans had nothing to do with the so-called "insurrection". At best you are comparing what random civilian losers did on Jan 6 to what a supreme court employee did.
Trying to influence a judge in that way is a FELONY. Arrest the trespassers, charge them with insurrection, I don't care. But if the leaker doesn't get thrown in jail too, then it's proof of UNQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW aka tyranny.
If you're ok with Biden being punished as a tyrant them I'm ok with the idiot Jan 6 shaman being charged with insurrection. Fair deal?
What should be most upsetting to ALL Americans is that this draft opinion got leaked at all. It is tantamount to undermining one of our highest institutions, unprecedented, and just as morally corrupt as what happened on 1/6.
But, it achieved its intended objective, which was to poison the well and get everyone distracted from the floundering Dems on massive inflation, the impending recession, the war that will very likely escalate out of Ukraine, the porous border with the, also unprecedented, massive influx of illegal aliens (many of who are dying) and drugs which are killing our children, and talking about abortion instead.
Most, not all, people are fairly reasonable when it comes to this issue. I, as a conservative, do not want to see Roe overturned as the far-reaching implications are consequential and unforeseen in many circumstances. Moreover, this issue is really about viability of the fetus, not conception, which is generally recognized to be around 18 weeks, but sometimes earlier. Then there is the concept of the fetus’s ability to process and feel pain, which is generally accepted as 23 weeks but might be earlier around 20 weeks. Surely there is neurological reflexivity much earlier, not to mention the heartbeat at six weeks.
So, for me, the question is what’s acceptable as a broad society? Perhaps it’s banning all third trimester abortions, and even second trimester, but allowing exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother. Irreversible birth defects too which could be proven to compromise the child for life.
In reality, if you had unprotected sex, you almost always know you had unprotected sex, have access to some kind of morning after pill or, at the very least, a pregnancy test through organizations like Planned Parenthood. Some accountability has to fall on the doer of the deed. If sexuality classes in high school and college are going to be discussing other than cis-gender, hetero norms, or STDs, or how to safely use contraception (condoms on a banana), then they should also include a trip to the abortion clinic where women can witness that fetus being sucked out, unanesthetized, because that will surely make it more real as it should be. It should also include a panel discussing all the ways a woman is harmed mentally and emotionally from terminating a pregnancy that also have far-reaching and consequential implications for mom.
There are many layers to peel. It’s not as easy as saying you are pro-choice or pro-life. Nuance allows for both. But what most people should be sick about is that a “draft” SCOTUS opinion got leaked at all. Certainly not a final opinion, nor one that has been debated and all dissent vigorously embraced. Ultimately, not enough people are upset about the leak, and that is how you really know we are dying as a nation.
It’s hard to imagine a stupider argument than saying leaking a draft opinion is equally as morally corrupt as committing an armed insurrection of the Nation’s Capitol. Talk about trying to distract! The leaker seems to have thought that demonstrating against the opinion might influence at least one judge to change his or her mind, which is exactly what Chief Judge Roberts is no doubt still trying to do. In any event, considering that three of the judges who joined the majority opinion recently assured Congress that they respected Roe v Wade as a precedent, exposing their personal moral corruption was in the nation’s interest.
So the leaker is good in your book because you are doing mental gymnastics to justify it? I’m not surprised, but at least be intellectually consistent. The leaker possibly broke the law and did so in an attempt to influence justices to change their mind. It also spurred protests which could possibly be seen as illegal depending on how broad a judge views the situation. It even led to an assassination attempt on one of the justices, but I guess that’s just a necessary evil to deal with his “moral corruption”.
You are as morally bankrupt as the people trying to justify the January 6th events as being in the “nations interest”. What a hypocrite.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
