DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus SC Rulings continued

You were the one not calling out both sides, again.

You asked why Obama's last nomination didn't get put through, it was a simple answer. You continue to want to fight and miss seeing you are fighting over what you are doing.

Go get professional help in conflict resolution. You truly need it.

For those who have brought up Vasectomies.

CLEVELAND, Ohio - The burden of family planning, appears to be shifting, at least slightly so, from women to men in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion rights overturning Roe v. Wade.

More men are scheduling appointments for vasectomies.

The Cleveland Clinic reports scheduling requests for vasectomies in the last week are about five times what they would normally see. Typically, the Clinic says they get three to four requests a day, but in the five days following the ruling they had recorded a total of 90.

At University Hospitals, requests are also up, and the hospital says it saw a surge following the leak of the court’s draft ruling in May.

Increases in calls and online queries are not just limited to the big hospitals.

Scheduling coordinators at SouthWest Urology in Middleburg Heights, Elyria and Medina and Central Ohio Urology Group in the Columbus area, confirmed they also observed a noticeable increase in interest in vasectomy procedures over the last several days.

A scheduling supervisor at Central Ohio Urology on Monday morning counted 25 new inquiries from the weekend. The clinic says over a typical weekend it might see two or three at most

“It didn’t dawn on me why at first, but now it makes sense,” a scheduler told cleveland.com.

It remains to be seen whether these numbers are merely transient fluctuations or will remain elevated for the long haul, but they are clearly part of a larger nationwide trend.

Multiple outlets, including Time.com, previously reported data showing increased google searches for vasectomies following last month’s leak of the draft opinion. Searches for tubal ligation and birth control were also reported to have increased they said.

Urology clinics around the country began reporting surges in both inquiries and scheduled vasectomies in the days that followed the court’s final decision - and not just in states like Ohio, Tennessee and Texas where abortion is banned or severely restricted.

Doctors in California - a state where abortions are expected to remain available - are also reporting increases. Los Angeles urologist Philip Werthman told the Daily Beast he saw a “300 to 400 percent” rise in vasectomy consultations.

Significant numbers of those men are citing the Supreme Court ruling as their reason to finally go under the knife, a Florida Urologist told The Washington Post.

“Many of the guys are saying that they have been thinking about a vasectomy for a while, and the Roe v. Wade decision was just that final factor that tipped them over the edge and made them submit the online registration,” Urologist David Stein told the Post.

After the Texas heartbeat law went into effect in September 2021, Dr. Koushik Shaw, of the Austin Urology Institute said that his practice saw about a 15%-20% increase in requests for vasectomies, but that was nothing compared to the day of the court ruling. Shaw said they received about 70 phone calls for vasectomies within an hour of the ruling, and their total call volume for the day doubled.

“When the decision hit, it was kind of wheels off. It was probably the busiest I have ever seen it,” Shaw recalled.

Shaw says his patients aren’t specifically giving the Supreme Court decision as a reason for their vasectomies, but he believes the lack of access to abortion is accelerating the decision making process for men who either don’t want children or have already completed their families.

“Women typically manage the birth control. Guys don’t usually talk about it or ask about. But, all of the sudden, everyone’s talking about it now. It’s bringing these conversations to the forefront and they are saying, hey, if there’s a failure - if the condom breaks - you’ve now just lost one of your options.”

And for the right patient, Shaw said, a vasectomy is a great option. It has a low failure rate, few side effects, and is often covered by insurance.

“There’s no sexual side effects, no erectile dysfunction, no orgasm related issues, no ejaculatory pain. ... So really there’s no long term side effects to getting a vasectomy. It’s done in the office in about 20 minutes, have it done on a Friday and you’re back to work on Monday,” he said.

The most important consideration? It’s permanence.

Vasectomies are reversible but they typically only have success rates of 90-95%, Shaw said, so it’s not a good choice for men who only want temporary birth control and think there’s a chance they may want children down the road.

“It’s not a ‘Hey we are not going to get pregnant for 5 years and then we’ll reverse it’,” Shaw said.. “Take it seriously.”

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022...n-wake-of-new-abortion-restrictions.html

Interesting Swish, you brought up Consciousness- I'm old school morality. In "most" cases, the woman was conscious when she "chose" to have sex with the potential father. With all the birth control options- women have a PLETHERA of options before becoming pregnant. The conscious outcome of normal sex can be a child. Be responsible enough to respect yourself before getting pregnant. Personally, I don't get women who "hook up" with males like Nick Cannon, who's been married once, yet has nine kids with five different women....must be MONEY- ain't love. Sorry, that's a different world problem.

They aren't.

A baby has a great chance of viability if left on the life support the womb provides until the time is right.

Life support on the back end of life leaves no viability once taken off once a medical professional makes that determination.

My wife, children, and I understand each others wishes and have the necessary documents in force to allow such decisions to be made.

On a side note, if any of you don't have such provisions in place, do so. It saves your family a lot of grief. Any attorney can draw those up, or you can even get what you need online. Some are free, or at least low cost that you can sign in front of a notary to be valid.

Have a will, have a living will. Avoid the whole probate system if possible. It's hard enough for survivors without having to sift through unfinished business.

that's fine. i'm more of the true conservative mindset. mind your business, and i'll mind mine. stay out of my personal life, i'll stay out of yours.

also, the one thing you forgot to mention with the women who got pregnant with nick cannon is that every last one of them were consenting adults who CHOSE their lifestyle. also, we have low birth rates, and these women are carrying out their pregnancies.

and so i need to point out the contradiction in your post, bro. you can't try to dictate when life begins, then try to dictate HOW life begins. because now it's not a pro-life/pro-choice argument anymore. you're just trying to dictate how people live their lives.

those women won't be on government assistance. the kids will be taken care of, and nick cannon the father is actually a really good dude.

and women have always been attracted to money, power, and influence. that's especially true for the guys who hit that trifecta AND also have decent looks.

and you're very one sided. it takes two to tango. there's a plethora of options for men, too. yet all the burdens of options seem to be placed on the woman to make.

sure, women can close their legs, but men can also keep their pants zipped. when can get contraception, but men can also get a vasectomy and have condoms on them.

but i'm a traditional man who believes that being a leader means taking responsibility and accountability over things i can control. i'm not the kind of the dude who will blame a woman for why i didn't pull out. especially since we as men know better than anyone that if the woman is fine as hell, we can't be trusted to pull out of a parking lot.

Another one of these posts.
Damn women and their getting pregnant magically from free range, house invading, bedroom raiding sperm. Sluts.

So an adult who is unconscious ceases to be a human? What about a person who otherwise can't articulate or even understand choices impacting their own health?

I think labeling a fetus based on consciousness introduces a whole slew of other issues. Just because something can't make decisions for itself doesn't mean it's not a life.

I don't think it like that.

I do get your point. Most women don't just sleep around without a thought process behind the deed.

There are ways to have sex without getting pregnant or getting a woman pregnant. No doubt it takes some planning and partners willing to make it work.

Actually I asked why Obama's wasn't given hearings while Trump's was given hearings. It's not up to McConnell to make that decision upon what he thinks the final vote will be. That wasn't part of his duties. So that BS won't fly. Trump had much less time in office yet the GOP used the excuse that Obama was in the last year of his term. There is no legitimate answer for that question unless you/re willing to admit that the GOP used it as a means for stacking the SCOTUS.


Not help needed grasshopper. It was actually you along with another poster who helped prove the very point I was trying to make to OCD. Reid circumvented the 60 vote requirement to appoint federal judges. The GOP revised that to include SCOTUS judges. As I explained to OCD, if you adopt a rule to help you get what you want, the other side will whine about it when you do it and say how wrong you are for doing so. Then later they will do the exact same thing and use it against you in order to get what they want.

This is the perfect example as to what I was talking about. So thanks for your help. Now go ahead and whine some more.

j/c

20 year old woman walks into a bar and orders a drink. Bartender, "I.D. please". Woman hands bartender I.D. Bartender, "Society says you're not old enough and responsible enough to buy alcohol." Woman leaves bar.

Conservative men, "Women need to be responsible in making the proper life choices regardless of age."

McConnel didn't give the nomination a go because it would have gone no where.

That is the simplest answer. Is that too hard to understand?

We can discuss the idea that the process is one of the nastiest job inteviews on the planet, with all the muck raking and it saved Garland that indignity, but the bottom line is he would have not made it out of committee, and even if he had there would not have been votes to confirm.

It was a dead process from go.

And shove your insults and arrogance.

Once again, it's not McConnell's job to decide how a vote will go. That's an excuse for him circumventing the process. And a great way for you to put the focus on Reid to ignore McConnell's actions like you've done all along. Thanks again.

Being in charge of the Senate it was his job.

This happens all the time. It is nothing new. I doubt you are complaining when the D's do it.

I see the issue. When I answered your question I didn't give the answer you were looking for. Next time ask a better question.

The D's didn't do it. Can you show me where the D's ever refused to give a Republican president's SCOTUS nomination a confirmation hearing? And you seem to neglect to recognize the reason McConnell actually gave in your zest to make an excuse.

Here's what McConnell actually said and his reasoning for not giving Garland a hearing....

February 13, statement on the day of Scalia's death: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."

Lindsey Graham on not giving Garland a hearing......

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, 'Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

Chuck Grassley on why Garland would not receive a hearing......

"Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."

February 22, press statement: "[W]hile finding the right person to take the seat [Scalia] occupied will clearly be a monumental task, it's one we think the American people are more than equipped to tackle. Some disagree and would rather the Senate simply push through yet another lifetime appointment from a president who's on his way out the door...I believe that it is today the American people who are best-positioned to help make this important decision."

February 23, Senate floor speech: "The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November the decision they've already started making today....[Mr. Obama] could let the people decide and make this an actual legacy-building moment, rather than just another campaign roadshow."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-vacancy-election-year-senate/

Now you can try to rewrite history all you like. But this is the reasoning they used at the time. Did they change their position after they realized how stupid that sounded? It would seem so. But stop pretending that's why they didn't give Garland a hearing. They said exactly why out of their own mouth. The problem is you can't admit the truth.

A politician said something and you take it at face value, must be the agenda talking.

He said what he said and yet it doesn't change the fact the nomination was going nowhere. Do you think there was enough votes to get it out of committee, much less to confirm with the Senate makeup at the time?

Both sides play politics, it is why they are horrible people. You seem to only notice when Rs do it, but it is pretty blatant all around.

So now you claim what they say isn't what we should hold them to. Now you wish to change the reason they gave as not being the reason they did it. Murica!

Nope. Not what I said. ThTs you trying, again, to put words in my mouth.

And again lobbing the insult. So shocked.

I'm done now. People can read and I'll let the previous posts stand on their own.

And they say there are no miracles left in the world.

For people who had (without any evidence) been questioning the veracity of this case:

I wonder who will spend more time in hell? The rapist or the girl?

Glad they got the guy who raped her. Hope they throw the book at him.

GOP Rep. Jim Jordan deletes tweet calling the story of a 10-year-old girl being raped 'another lie' after Ohio authorities charged a man in the case

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news...n/7788415001/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

Thank God the 10 year old had someone in her life that cared enough for her to get her to a sane state to get that demon’s seed taken out of her.
Sanity and compassion prevailed despite Ohio’s draconian laws.

Thank God all the adults are treating this child's traumatic tragedy w/compassion, grace, and understanding....rather than using her as a pawn on a political chessboard.

bro our state AG is trying to investigate the doctor in indiana now.

Republican AG says he'll investigate Indiana doctor who provided care to 10-year-old rape victim

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-ag-says-hell-investigate-025855686.html

these republicans and republican voters care more about this and the immigration status of the rapist than they do about the to-year old girl and the state trying to force a 10 YEAR OLD to have a rape baby.

republican voters swear up and down they despise broken homes, then turn around and support policies that lead to even more broken homes, but swear they're pro-life.

But isn't it great to know that "all the adults are treating this child's traumatic tragedy w/compassion, grace, and understanding....rather than using her as a pawn on a political chessboard."?

In many states rapists will get to chose the mother of their children. Some states force the mother to give visitation rights to the scumbag that raped her.
The GOP is filled with hateful, nasty people. Many hide behind the Bible.

Can you imagine living in Vers' ideal world? FFS kill me now...

Imagine being so pathetically tied to your attempt to create a Christo-Fascist state that you feel compelled to discredit or erase the fact a 10-year-old girl was raped and impregnated in a red state, while actively investigating and going after the doctor that helped her not be forced to give birth to a rape baby. The deplorable label has never fit a group of people better than this group. And the board's right-leaning posters, along with most other Trumpians, only have criticism for the left or formulating whatever other excuses they can for ushering this insanity into our country. Yet they have the gall to call me the radical extremist here, you can't make this crap up.

Didn't republicans say "Oh that will never happen" regarding prosecuting the doctors?
That lasted a whole month

Here's my take on all this: Abortion was legal. And still is, depending on the state.

Why did it come to the fed. gov't.? Liberals took it too far. 15 weeks, 20 weeks, heck, even 'live birth abortions." You know, where a mother gives birth til the baby is half out of the womb, then it gets killed.

The libs kept pushing and pushing the limits. Killing a baby that is half out of the womb? Too much, man.

I'm anti abortion in general. I am NOT anti abortion in cases of rape, incest, where the baby would be non functional. I guess I'm against abortion as a birth control measure. But, libs kept pushing and pushing and pushing..............killing a baby half way out of the birth canal???? Idiocy.

The right pushed back. Actually, gave the decision to the states when you get right down to it. There should not, in my opinion, be a question of whether a rape victim should have the right to an abortion. That may sound 2 faced on my part - if so, if that's what you think, so be it. That's how I feel.

Very few people advocate for even 3rd trimester let alone live birth abortions. The vast vast majority want to use viability as the cutoff.
To use live birth abortion in the argument is disingenuous.

No, it's not disingenuous. It's a fact. The left took abortion too far, right up to partial birth abortion.

Be careful what you wish for. Not you in particular.

It's the, "You went too far so now we're going too far" argument. You keep hearing 'Well we didn't want them to ban cases of incest and rape" but they did. You keep hearing, well it isn't illegal everywhere, and yet we now have states already trying to make it illegal to leave their state for an out of state abortion. The fact of the matter is less than 1% of abortions were late term abortions. And the reason most of them were carried out wasn't for some sinister, nefarious reasons. Yet some make that sound like the Democrats made this the norm. They believe what they want to believe.

Less than 1% of abortions take place in the third trimester – here’s why people get them

https://theconversation.com/less-th...imester-heres-why-people-get-them-182580

The argument type is one used often though.

"You don't need assault rifles for self, you have other guns that fulfill that can do that" This is a very popular argument from the Bloombergs and Giffords.

It is one of those "we can compromise by you giving up what you care about" type things. It is disingenuous and just wrong.

I agree that it's used by both sides. But in this case I don't think applies as much as many others. You see the example you used was guns. In that case you have many who are hard liners in both directions. It's an all or nothing scenario. Most people who look at the abortion issue don't see it that way.

Even most of those against abortion believe in exceptions for rape and incest. In other cases they care more about late term abortions than abortions at earlier stages. It's a multitude of beliefs to different extents. Even if you polled those who are against abortion and asked them how they felt about cases of children being forced to give birth, rape and incest victims being forced to give birth, you would quickly see that this isn't a cut and dry issue.

We see it on this very board where people who are anti abortion feel the way I described in many cases. The problem becomes where politicians go too far and yes, it happens in both directions. Those who are anti abortion also gave up things they disagree with happening. They too think legislatures have taken it too far. And it does seem odd that you have no problem speaking out against overreach when it comes to guns but not abortion.

And remember, I'm not a person who thinks assault rifles should be banned either. But in many states, abortion has been banned at six weeks. Often times before a woman even knows that she's pregnant. So in one case there is pretty much a ban. In the other case there isn't. That's not an actual comparison.

I think the curve from one extreme to the other is pretty similar for both issues and a lot of the arguments used mirror each other.

But more broadly thzt ype of argument is one I see used in many discussions. "Why do you need that when you have something less objectionable to use?"

A lot of people can't handle others having something they don't agree with.

In this case by and large both sides ended up with things they don't agree with.

And once again I'll point out that unless you're a convicted felon, we can still go out and purchase what they call an "assault rifle".