A very seldom mentioned topic.

[oldswinger64 113]

Yes, sex is fun, which is why we are all in swinging.  But we also all know that sex makes babies.  As swingers, we all know the many ways to try to avoid that result.  We have been involved with swinging since the 1980's.  As a result, we have known many fellow swingers, and continue to be friends with many.  Twice in all those years, a couple suddenly disappeared from the scene, and my wife talked to the wife of the couple about the reason.  Both times it was an unplanned pregnancy after all precautions were taken.  

 

It happens.

 

As I think of our current culture, I think of how much harder it would have been on these two couples if abortion was not available, and they had to raise a child from a father that they barely knew.  

 

I am just thinking that suddenly swinging is becoming much more dangerous.

 

 

[MrMrsswinger 205]

This is a political discussion and not really appropriate for this board.

[enhancer 1,586]

We live in Canada where the laws are not all going backwards so not to concerned.

[njbm 2,901]

1 hour ago, MrMrsswinger said:

This is a political discussion and not really appropriate for this board.

The OP did not argue in favor of or against abortion. He simply raised the issue that accidental pregnancies arise in swinging and if abortion is illegal, that is a risk in swinging that is more hazardous than it was in the last 49 years. 

[njbm 2,901]

Some of the same opponents of legal abortion also oppose the use of contraceptives. If the US Supreme Court bans the use of contraceptives, we are all seeking asylum at Enhancer’s house. 

[ROCKlandCpl 452]

The plus side of menopause is not having to worry about pregnancy. 
What the Justices said about Roe vs Wade 

Thomas also said it would be inappropriate for any judge, including himself, to take a case on an issue "in which he or she has such strong views that he or she cannot be impartial. 
 

Gorsuch 

I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."

Kavanaugh

"It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times."

 

[GoldCoCouple 4,068]

Sure, accidents can happen, but then most swingers use 'protection' to minimize the chances. Even if an accident does happen, I believe that most swingers would accept the baby as their own and probably not ever check for a genetic match. The odds still are much more likely you will be killed going somewhere to swing than you get your swinging partner pregnant. As for us, we are too old to even have that possibility happen and we STILL take precautions to prevent it, but if Ms. Gold would have ended up pregnant during the time we were swinging, I don't think either of us would check to make sure that the baby is biologically 'mine'...the baby would be mine because it was ours. Love can trump genetics.

[PeterJ 960]

5 hours ago, MrMrsswinger said:

This is a political discussion and not really appropriate for this board.

Wow! 🙄 Politics, at its most basic, affects how members of a polity in a fundamental sense live their lives. Regardless of one’s views on the subject of abortion, yes, this is a political subject; and one that has huge prospective impact on how Americans conduct their sexual lives. As this is a group organized around that very subject, the upcoming Supreme Court decision is totally germane.

 

But Justice Alito’s draft, if it does indeed represent the essence of the forthcoming decision, will have impact on subjects of importance potentially to all Americans whose sexuality and sexual behavior is outside narrowly-defined limits. The core of Alito’s draft is that there is no "penumbra" in the Constitution. That notion of implied rather than specifically enumerated rights in the Constitution what, provided for the idea of a guaranteed individual right to privacy that ensured that people enjoyed within fairly broad limits the ability to conduct their personal lives as they see fit. All of us here on the Swingersboard count on that Constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy.
 

In the mid’60s, when I was in college in Massachusetts, it was a felony, punishable my several years in prison, to provide birth-control information. Not birth-control devices or medications, just advice. In “Griswold" the Supreme Court, under the theory that the Constitution’s penumbra guaranteed privacy, invalidated that Massachusetts law and all other similar ones in any of the 49 other states. 
 

Do you enjoy performing or receiving oral sex? That was against the law in a number of states, even when practiced by straight people within a marital relationship. The same with anal sex. Fuck your wife in the ass and if a vice cop was peering in your window you could go to prison for years. Sure, these laws were mostly enforced against gay people, but sometimes against others. "Griswold" led to the end of those laws that severely regulated people’s sexual lives. The current Mississippi case, if Alito’s opinion is the Court’s, will permit states and localities to enact laws that will criminalize the behavior that most of us on this board highly value.

 

(We don’t even need to get into anti-miscegenation laws, which the Supreme Court forbid under the apparently soon to be extinct theory of Constitutionally guarantee of privacy.) 

[lcmim 1,086]

This clearly is an important question for our society.

It does need more , and difficult discussion.

Our Constitution does provide  venues for that discussion.

The previous decisions removed the discussions from their rightful place.

 

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by lcmim

[discreetplay 235]

1 hour ago, lcmim said:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is where the discussion will go off the rails (not here, in general). Is this something the states should decide or settled at the federal level. In the 50 years since Roe v Wade was decided, why wasn't it codified by the federal government if it was so important? It is no secret that politicians on one side wanted the decision overturned. 

 

 

1 hour ago, PeterJ said:

if Alito’s opinion is the Court’s, will permit states and localities to enact laws that will criminalize the behavior that most of us on this board highly value.

  Maybe, maybe not. I have a hard time believing that states will enact laws so far outside the norm like you suggested (e.g. criminalizing sexual acts). This doesn't mean the Supreme Court should expand their rulings beyond what the Constitution says. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to ensure the Constitution is followed. I do have a concern if Roe v Wade is reversed and how exponentially more fractured America will become.

[njbm 2,901]

In the 60s and 70s, there were state laws against homosexuality, interracial marriage, contraception and, as stated above, contraception education. A series of Supreme Court cases that recognized a constitutional right to privacy made these state laws unconstitutional. 

If the leaked Alito decision is issued, there will no longer be a federally recognized right to privacy. I think Americans can name the states that will reinstitute the laws mentioned above. Sad to say, in my opinion, this country is regressing in terms of freedom, self-determination and self actualization. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by njbm

[travelingprofessional 48]

4 hours ago, njbm said:

If the leaked Alito decision is issued, there will no longer be a federally recognized right to privacy

I disagree with this assertion. Have you read the leaked opinion? The court goes through, in excruciating detail, how flawed the Roe v Wade decision was. It was based on absolutely nothing - no legal precedent, no historical text, nothing. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, the Roe decision was a joke. 

[Billygoat 445]

Well…….so much for keeping politics off the board.

 

More to the point…..what we now call swinging……has been in existence in one form or another since the beginning of time and human existence.

 

At any given time as humans progressed over thousands of years there has been practices, rituals and plain human behaviors that not only where just sexual but also necessary to keep clans, tribes and villages from having singular trunk or branch of family trees.  Keep in mind most populated areas of the planet were relatively isolated from each other and given time, limited availability sooner or later generationally all would be related…..by blood line…to each other.

 

Sex for non procreation…..pleasure, entertainment or just something to do has been available in many forms since forever.  From require, traded, shared, bought, sold….expected.

 

modern day protection from unwanted pregnancy is safe….the safest….and for the most part highly reliable and the choice of each person individually.   And yet there are “accidents”.  Most of these accidents can be traced to heat of the moment non use or mis practice.  Some from just plain ignorance.  I am sure there is the occasional oops but extremely rare these days.  We know of women, young and more mature, married and single that choose to not use the pill or any other prescribed BC.  They are known within our circle and different groups.  They choose how and who they play with and when.  And an added plus more often with us older guys who have had a confirmed vasectomy.

 

Personally I celebrate the modern day woman’s choices available and her individual right to decide and find joy in her life.  She is no longer is…..finally…consider chattel.

 

I have always considered the lifestyle is primarily for women…to choose, explore and experience.  It should be positive.  After all without woman choosing to explore what would we have…..just a room full of naked hairy men with nothing to do.

 

We have been in the lifestyle for many years, 20 plus.  We have seen and experienced a lot, 98% all positive.  And in our opinion 85% chosen by the women involved.  Free will. But yes there are a few only there to appease their SO…..but really all of those never really last long.

 

Now to something we personally have experienced and have heard of from time to time that is not surprising and very positive.  It is not commonly practiced but does exist. 
 

Women and couples in the lifestyle using selected males for natural impregnation when they do not have a male partner or he has a fertility issue.  Again this is not commonly practiced.  Fertility clinics, sperm banks and IVF/IVC are very costly and no more guaranteed then the old fashion way…a la natural.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[njbm 2,901]

9 hours ago, travelingprofessional said:

I disagree with this assertion. Have you read the leaked opinion? The court goes through, in excruciating detail, how flawed the Roe v Wade decision was. It was based on absolutely nothing - no legal precedent, no historical text, nothing. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, the Roe decision was a joke. 

Roe stood as precedent for 49 years. It was affirmed in the Casey case in 1992. The right to privacy theory arose from several cases like Griswold and Loving and it was supported by a majority of the court since the 1960s. You and Judge Alito may disparage it, but I think that the majority of Americans enjoy their right to privacy. 

[njbm 2,901]

2 hours ago, Billygoat said:

 

 

Women and couples in the lifestyle using selected males for natural impregnation when they do not have a male partner or he has a fertility issue.  Again this is not commonly practiced.  Fertility clinics, sperm banks and IVF/IVC are very costly and no more guaranteed then the old fashion way…a la natural.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the “sperm donor” on the hook for child support?

 

[lovefest04 701]

I agree with Gold sorta, keeping the child would not be a question of whose it was, but rather if we were capable and ready to rasie a child. If not abortion would be considered. 

 

No where does the constitution say that "women" are created equal - run that up the flag pole.

 

I wonder if the bigger issue here is that we, as citizens, don't feel like the system is representative of us. We don't trust states to be fair, impartial and representative. We don't trust the government to be fair and representative. We now are questioning whether the Supreme Court is fair, non-political-impartial and representative.

 

The system is built upon the idea of majority rule, yet after decades of politicians and lawyers screwing around many do not feel it's so.

 

Add to that, folks working to use the constitution and the legal system to legislate moral and ethical behavior and we have a problem. There will NEVER be an answer to whether abortion is right or wrong. There can only be opinions and preferences based on our personal feelings. What the courts can do is to look at the constitution to determine if one person moral code violates another's rights under the constitution. But that is no longer how this works. 

 

the law has become a game of words and dancing around. I actually think these issues are much easier to adjudicate, but due to politics, etc have become mired in legal mumbo jumbo. The courts and the politicians have gotten what they have created. An electorate that believes their wishes, moral codes, ethics should be hoisted upon others.

 

I actually think these issues are a lot simpler. The constitution is the foundation, everything comes off of that. Are all men and women created equal. The court says yes. and that is pretty well spelled out in the constitution. so, any law that violates that, needs to be one that improves upon that and benefits the greater good.

[Fitlakecouple 451]

Let this sink in ladies…

Whether you believe in abortion or not; you do not have autonomy over your own bodies. And, you will not have autonomy over your own bodies until you stand up. Many men will stand with you, but you must stand up. Shut this fucked-up country down if you need to; but be heard. You have the power to fix this.

[barefoot_so_goo 46]

8 hours ago, njbm said:

Is the “sperm donor” on the hook for child support?

 

Legally, yes. But whether that happens very much depends on the situation.

[MrMrsswinger 205]

9 hours ago, Fitlakecouple said:

Shut this fucked-up country down if you need to

Wow. This is so over the top I can't grasp the concept.

 

 

[Fitlakecouple 451]

8 hours ago, MrMrsswinger said:

Wow. This is so over the top I can't grasp the concept.

 

 

Over the top? In 1975, the women of Iceland went on strike for equal rights. 90% of women walked off their jobs and homes, shutting down the entire country. The men could barely cope. Five years later, Iceland elected their first female president. Now Iceland has the highest gender equality in the world.

In the USA, 80% of Americans support the woman’s right to choose. It’s fair to say that at least 80% (if not more) of women feel this way as well. They could easily be heard just like the women of Iceland nearly 50 years ago. The clergy, politicians and judges think they hold all the power when in fact the people do if they choose to use it.

[oldswinger64 113]

Combination pill	hormonal	prescription-only	about 9 in 100 users become pregnant
Progestin-only pill	hormonal	prescription-only	about 9 in 100 users become pregnant
Hormonal IUD	hormonal	prescription-only	fewer than 1 in 100 users become pregnant
Copper IUD	nonhormonal	prescription-only	fewer than 1 in 100 users become pregnant
Implant	hormonal	prescription-only	fewer than 1 in 100 users become pregnant
Depo-Provera shot	hormonal	prescription-only	about 6 in 100 users become pregnant
Patch	hormonal	prescription-only	about 9 in 100 users become pregnant
NuvaRing	hormonal	prescription-only	about 9 in 100 users become pregnant
External condom	nonhormonal barrier method	over the counter (OTC)	about 18 in 100 users become pregnant
Internal condom	nonhormonal barrier method	OTC	about 21 in 100 users become pregnant
Diaphram	nonhormonal barrier method	prescription-only	roughly 12–29 in 100 users become pregnant
Cervical cap	nonhormonal barrier method	prescription-only	roughly 12–29 in 100 users become pregnant
Sponge	nonhormonal barrier method	OTC	about 9 in 100 users become pregnant
Spermicide	nonhormonal barrier method	OTC	about 28 in 100 users become pregnant
Fertility awareness methods	nonhormonal	need an OTC basal body temperature thermometer	around 24 in 100 users become pregnant
Pull out method/withdrawal	nonhormonal	N/A	around 22 in 100 users become pregnant
Breastfeeding or chestfeeding	hormonal	N/A	around 74 in 100 users become pregnant
Tubal ligation	sterilization	surgical procedure	fewer than 1 in 200 users become pregnant
Tubal occlusion	sterilization	surgical procedure	fewer than 1 in 200 users become pregnant
Vasectomy	sterilization	surgical procedure	fewer than 1 in 100 users become pregnant

[njbm 2,901]

41 minutes ago, Fitlakecouple said:

Over the top? In 1975, the women of Iceland went on strike for equal rights. 90% of women walked off their jobs and homes, shutting down the entire country. The men could barely cope. Five years later, Iceland elected their first female president. Now Iceland has the highest gender equality in the world.

 

In the USA, 80% of Americans support the woman’s right to choose. It’s fair to say that at least 80% (if not more) of women feel this way as well. They could easily be heard just like the women of Iceland nearly 50 years ago. The clergy, politicians and judges think they hold all the power when in fact the people do if they choose to use it.

 

One solid sex strike might resolve the issue. Could lead to equal rights for LGBTQ, also. 

[njbm 2,901]

You don’t think ignoring a pandemic, shooting at BLM protesters, shooting missiles at Mexico and trying to overturn an election are good ideas?

[Fitlakecouple 451]

42 minutes ago, njbm said:

You don’t think ignoring a pandemic, shooting at BLM protesters, shooting missiles at Mexico and trying to overturn an election are good ideas?

...blocking the legitimate appointment of a supreme court justice, legalizing that corpor­a­tions can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advert­ising, gerrymandering, restrictive election laws... It will not stop until we demand it.

 

And, for one moment you don't think they'd come after our pass time??? There are no clubs in Michigan any longer for that reason.

[njbm 2,901]

American Taliban. Your right to swing is on the chopping block. 

Edited May 8, 2022 by njbm

[Billygoat 445]

To answer if the sperm donor/participants are legally bound:

 

not sure if all do this but I know a few who did this had those chosen sign legal documents waving all parental rights to include contact prior to 18th birthday of the child.  Other than health no contact and no required financial obligations by the participant.  The health exception was contact if health history or donor inquiries.  I was told it was standard stuff and completely legal.

 

for those we know personally a young m/f couple no papers and three children over 6 - 8 years same group, different participants, several participants over a week each time no test as to who the sire could be.

 

two lesbian couples using male friends in a swinger group.  Again several participants over short period of time no paternal tests done. 2 -3 children each.

 

one f/f couple (lesbian/bi) had several chosen males from their group at one time, twice over a weeks time period.  

 

for those we know all is well.  Except for a very few no one know who else participated each time.

[AndrewandAnn 360]

My only surprise?

 

The Lunatic Fringe has yet to declare Justice Alito a Russian spy... lol 😉 

 

Yet.

 

 

[cplnuswing 4,713]

On 5/7/2022 at 10:56 AM, lovefest04 said:

An electorate that believes their wishes, moral codes, ethics should be hoisted upon others.

And there is the heart of our problems. Take about any issue, and you can boil it down to that.  Until people once again learn to mind their own business and not everyone else's too, things will continue down the road they are on.

 

I also agree with Fitlakecouple that if you think they aren't coming for us eventually, then in my opinion you are mistaken.  For a certain element of these folks, there is no stopping point of trying to impose themselves on everyone until they are stopped. If they do get a victory, then they just move on to the next phase of their righteous crusade. It's what they live for.

 

A note on the politics - like a few other rare times, there are some subjects that are very germane to our community here and that simply can't be discussed without politics being an aspect of the conversation. It's like a mayor and city council trying to shut down a club somewhere. The subject is impossible to discuss without a political slant since it is politicians doing it.  Those have been allowed unless they started to get out of hand.  It's generally been a good discussion so far.  Let's please keep it as narrowly focused as possible on the subject at hand without any rooting for your personal team/teammates or criticizing others for their team/teammates.

[AndrewandAnn 360]

12 hours ago, cplnuswing said:

And there is the heart of our problems. Take about any issue, and you can boil it down to that.  Until people once again learn to mind their own business and not everyone else's too, things will continue down the road they are on.

 

I also agree with Fitlakecouple that if you think they aren't coming for us eventually, then in my opinion you are mistaken.  For a certain element of these folks, there is no stopping point of trying to impose themselves on everyone until they are stopped. If they do get a victory, then they just move on to the next phase of their righteous crusade. It's what they live for.

 

A note on the politics - like a few other rare times, there are some subjects that are very germane to our community here and that simply can't be discussed without politics being an aspect of the conversation. It's like a mayor and city council trying to shut down a club somewhere. The subject is impossible to discuss without a political slant since it is politicians doing it.  Those have been allowed unless they started to get out of hand.  It's generally been a good discussion so far.  Let's please keep it as narrowly focused as possible on the subject at hand without any rooting for your personal team/teammates or criticizing others for their team/teammates.

I'll begin by saying that I am a dyed-in-the-wool social libertarian (not to be confused with a being member of the political Libertarian Party, completely unrelated) and wholeheartedly agree people should be free to do as they please with as little government interference as possible.

 

Yet, no freedom is absolute. There are limits to every freedom we have, up to and including what happens to our own bodies. For example, we are not free to smoke crack. We are not free to have sex in public. We are not free to operate our car without wearing a seatbelt. We are not free to go on a cruise without proving we are vaccinated. We are not free to board a plane without being subjected to both search and seizure. And so on. In most instances, we accept these limitations without so much as raising an eyebrow.

 

The exact limits of our personal freedoms become particularly thorny issues whenever we reach an intersection where our own freedoms start to interfere with, or infringe upon, the freedoms of other people. Like it or not, abortion is one such example. Abortion is, by definition, the cessation of life. People can argue about what "stage" of life the unborn may be at any particular moment during pregnancy. But, the underlying fact that a life is being snuffed out cannot be denied. And, therein lies the crux of the issue: At what point does a person's individual freedom to terminate a pregnancy become subservient (take a back seat) to the right of the unborn to be unmolested? Many argue, Is there any more basic right than the Right to Life? 

 

As far as the issue of morality is concerned, What are morals? Morals are socially agreed upon limits--guideposts, if you will--that help to explain acceptable versus unacceptable behaviors and norms that allow society to (more or less) function. We all agree an adult having sex with a child is immoral (and, thus, illegal.) Why? It is because we understand a child is incapable of having the ability to consent. The child is "at the mercy" of the adult and, thus, powerless. The adult has both a moral and legal obligation regarding the "standard of care" that is automatically afforded the child. 

 

In the eyes of many Americans, perhaps even a majority (?), abortion takes on a similar hue: The unborn is entirely powerless and "at the mercy" of the adult. At what point does the adult have both a moral and legal obligation regarding the standard of care afforded the unborn? It's a very thorny thing, not so easy to define.

 

While polls show most Americans support a woman's right to have an abortion, those same polls show Americans overwhelmingly believe that right is not absolute. Most people polled see a great distinction between terminating a pregnancy at, say, eight weeks versus eight months. Roe vs. Wade created far more problems than it solved and left unresolved the most difficult issues. It was a heavy-handed, poorly-reasoned decision that used a cudgel to treat a societal wound that required a scalpel. That should be obvious to even a casual observer. Otherwise, we wouldn't still be debating the issue nearly a half-century later.

 

Lastly, I take issue with the notion that swinging and abortion share any linkage. They are entirely unrelated issues. The presumption that an unplanned pregnancy automatically equates to an unwanted pregnancy, one that can only be resolved by having an abortion, fails to pass even the most basic examination of the facts. In the US, according to the CDC, more than 40% of all births are to unwed mothers (a statistic believed to be significantly under-reported thanks to California, the most populous state in the union, no longer recording the marital status of mothers.) Billions of people are walking the earth right now thanks to "unplanned" pregnancies.

[AndrewandAnn 360]

One additional point:

 

Should Roe vs. Wade be overturned by the US Supreme Court, the freedom to have an abortion doesn't, as some have hyperbolically declared, simply "disappear". The issue simply returns to the legal domain of the states. Each state will regulate abortion more or less consistent with the will of it respective citizens.

 

Some have denounced this is as "un-American" (whatever that means) and insist the freedom to have an abortion must be absolute (unrestricted; so-called abortion-on-demand, and federally funded by US taxpayers) and codified into federal, universal law; law that supersedes the authorities of all 50 states to regulate abortion as they see fit.

 

This line of reasoning is very easy to poke holes through.

 

Some rights were so important to the Founders--rights deemed so essential they literally define what it means to be an American citizen--as to be expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. One such right is the Second Amendment, the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. Note, in spite of the right to keep and bear arms being expressly guaranteed by the Second Amendment, its limits are largely defined and regulated by each state. The laws pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms in, say, California or New York, are extremely more restrictive than those in, say, Florida or Missouri.

 

This phenomenon is not limited to the Second Amendment. Most of our rights and freedoms are subject to the individual interpretations of the states and localities in which we reside. Consider the use of marijuana, for instance. In spite of marijuana still being an illegal substance at the federal level under the Controlled Substances Act, more than 29 states have passed various laws making the use of marijuana for medical and/or personal use, legal.

 

I don't see many so-called "pro-choice" supporters decrying the state regulation of the Second Amendment (or marijuana.) Why? Can the freedom to have an abortion be anymore important, more essential than a right expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? Certainly the Founders didn't think so. I believe many, if not most, pro-choice supporters are more than happy to have the Second Amendment (not to mention marijuana) regulated by the states. I am certain they believe it is perfectly rational the people of California and New York should have the freedom to regulate firearms far more onerously than the people of Florida and Missouri.

 

And this is exactly what the Founders intended. The United States is not a democracy; a one-size-fits-all federal government monolith where the tyranny of the many decides the fates of the few. Rather it is a constitutional representative republic consisting of a federation of states. The Founders intended each state be allowed to govern itself within a particular federal framework; each state to interpret laws and freedoms and govern consistently with the will of their respective populations. In concrete terms, it means Florida and Missouri have different interpretations of the Second Amendment than California and New York. And it means they will have different interpretations of other freedoms, including abortion.

 

Should Roe vs. Wade be overturned and the issue of abortion returned to the states, rather than this being "un-American", our system of government is functioning exactly as intended. Should one eventually be unhappy with her state's regulation of abortion (or any other freedom), one has many remedies available--up to and including voting with her feet. More than 2,400 people EVERY DAY move to Florida and Texas, many of whom are relocating from states like California and New York. Why? Obviously, they've grown dissatisfied with the governance (i.e., policing, taxes, school choice, so-called social justice 'priorities', cost of living, and so on) of their former home states and decided to pick up stakes and move. Again, this means our system of government is functioning exactly as intended.

 

There is a reason you do not need a domestic passport to move freely from one state to another. It is an amazing privilege to live in a country that gives us the freedom to decide not just where we live, but largely how we are governed.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by AndrewandAnn

[lovefest04 701]

4 hours ago, AndrewandAnn said:

It is an amazing privilege to live in a country that gives us the freedom to decide not just where we live, but largely how we are governed.

 

AndrewandAnn - always appreciate your views and clear communication.

 

This last statement is part of the bigger problem. So, this is a clarification not an argument.

 

No one can 'give us the freedom to decide". We GIVE elected officials the right to carry out the business of the people, to manage the assets for the people, collect taxes, manage the communal lands (National parks for example), to ensure the citizenry has clean air, clean power, clean water as the sates cannot do this individually. This precludes corporations and lobbyists. The elected officials are there to ensure our rights as spelled out in the constitution and bill of rights are maintained. It is the citizenry that has the POWER to give or take.

 

There are many areas of overlap between state. Clean water is a good example. We shouldn't leave it up to each state to determine water rights, usage and pollution as their decisions may negatively affect other states. Yes, there is a legal system for dealing with concerns between states, but it does make sense to have a federal standard that all states must meet for the good of the greater whole.

 

I tend to agree with your assessment of abortion rights, although I do support Roe v Wade. The problem I have is that there are states that are passing laws that make it a crime for a person to leave their state in pursuit of an abortion. They are asking neighbors to turn other neighbors in, for profit, so that the state can mandate it's elected officials wishes without responsibility creating and feeding on the difference of opinions of its citizens. These are very bad standards to set. Look to China for the challenges this creates. So, if Roe is overturned, states can outlaw abortion within their state, but they should not be allowed or encouraged to then mandate the activities of its citizens outside of that state.

 

We are, as a county, allowing the powerful, the 'elected' and elite to chip away at our rights on so many fronts. There is a power grab afoot, just look to the WHO and it's wish to be overlords of medical treatment and response WORLDWIDE and we are arguing about whether to wear useless masks.

 

American's are fighting the wrong battle.

[lovefest04 701]

I was thinking about the thread last evening as I dozed off to sleep.

 

What stuck with me is how respectful (I try to be) the group is in terms of the communication and what and how things are said.

 

There have to be people on this board on both 'sides' of the abortion issue and certainly there are many many different opinions in the gray area as well. Here we have ahighly charged multifaceted issue and yet, the discussion is almost always respectful.

 

I wonder if that is due to the fact that as individuals and couples enjoying this activity, we are very clear about respecting ourselves, our significant others and those we 'rub elbows' with. I often hear people new to nudity and swinging mention how wonderful it is to be with others in these lifestyles. People are real, honest, open, fun and inclusive.

 

I guess I'm not surprised, but I am grateful.

 

Thank you all. Love all, love well and keep it real.

[AndrewandAnn 360]

Thank you.

 

Concerning the source of our freedoms, we are on the same page. I was multitasking and hurriedly used a poor choice of words in that last sentence. I should have written, "It is an amazing privilege to live in a country that recognizes our freedom not just to decide where we live, but largely how we are governed." I am in lockstep with the belief our fundamental freedoms are "... endowed by our Creator", as was so eloquently stated by the Founders in our Declaration of Independence, and not "given" to us by our government. It is we who consent to being governed, not the other way around.

 

And I, too, recognize there are certain governmental issues that are better suited to be regulated at the federal level rather than a hodgepodge of overlapping state regulations. But, they are few. And I do not believe abortion to be one of them.

 

True, returning abortion to the states will create some byzantine state-by-state rules that will, on occasion, make it difficult for an individual citizen to negotiate. But, I repeat the question I asked earlier: Why is this any different than, for example, the byzantine state-by-state rules that make it difficult for an individual citizen to negotiate his/her rights under the Second Amendment? Or the byzantine state-by-state voting laws pertaining to the Fourteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments? I've never read or heard a compelling argument to the contrary. 

 

Frankly, it is immensely telling that, rather than articulating the actual Constitutional merits in favor of Roe vs. Wade, the so-called "pro-choice" folks have decided to engage in the attempted political intimidation and bullying of US Supreme Court Justices, a sure sign their arguments do not possess the Constitutional, intellectual, or moral high ground. Then there is the not-so-minor legal issue that these actions are expressly prohibited by federal law. Honestly, I do not think it possible for the "pro-choice" folks to follow a path that is more destructive to their cause. 

 

Worse in my eyes, the president of the United States has both a Constitutional and moral duty to preserve the institution of the US Supreme Court, and defend its impartiality and independence, most especially during instances when the court is rendering decisions dealing with the most thorny Constitutional issues. That he and his wobbly-kneed political lackeys have willfully shirked this responsibility in pursuit of scoring some fleeting, short-term political points with the most extreme elements of their voter base is unconscionable. The entire point of the US Supreme Court is to be above and immune from politics. The Constitutional responsibility of the president of the United States, and the entire executive branch at his disposal, is to protect and preserve what little remaining dignity and faith the American citizenry affords its most essential institutions, even when it comes at his, or his affiliated political party's, short-term political cost.

 

Can any country survive when its citizens no longer have faith in its institutions? No. That marks the beginning of The End. We are dangerously close to reaching that point. Nearly three years of heavy-handed, unintelligible, contradictory, legally unsupported, arbitrary picking "winners and losers", and outright lies, in response to the pandemic ("Never let a crisis go to waste!") has done immeasurable harm to the average American's trust in his/her government. That the current administration is doubling-down at this time says it all: The lust for political power and its ability to corrupt absolutely cannot be overstated. But, thankfully, we have the administration's newest political weapon pulled right from the pages of George Orwell's 1984, the aptly named "Disinformation Governance Board", to gaslight us all into believing fiction is fact and fact is fiction. "Today's runaway inflation? Oh, that's Putin's fault, of course. Russia! Russia! Russia! It has *nothing* to do with the $7.3 Trillion expansion of the US money supply in the last 29 months." (source: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_m2_money_supply) Gee, all those economics classes at Wharton, right down the drain.

 

Concerning the Constitutional merits (or lack thereof) of Roe vs. Wade, my personal view, and it is a view shared by many legal scholars on both the left and right, liberal and conservatives alike, is that Roe vs. Wade was a poorly reasoned decision that created more problems than it solved. As I wrote earlier, no freedom is absolute. Yet, with Roe vs. Wade, the Court inexplicably created a Constitutional irregularity that appears to say there exists an absolute freedom for a mother to take the life of her unborn baby without any reasonable limitations. This decision is, to say the least, not supported by a cleareyed reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, nor by earlier legal precedent. The far more reasonable, and Constitutionally supported opinion is the right of a mother to have an abortion, like every other freedom, has obvious limits. For example, plucking a nearly fully formed, eight-month old unborn baby from the womb is a vastly different thing than, say, taking an emergency uh-oh "morning after" pill. That an absolutist's interpretation of Roe vs. Wade attempts to treat these two vastly differing abortion events as if they are versions of "the same thing" is both Constitutionally and morally absurd.

 

Is there a Constitutionally perfect solution among the vast gray landscape of abortion? I'm sure there is not. However, I am certain there is a more perfect solution than Roe vs. Wade. We should applaud the Court for acknowledging the obvious Constitutional short-comings of Roe vs. Wade and being willing to take on this issue. I do not envy them.

 

 

 

[AndrewandAnn 360]

1 hour ago, lovefest04 said:

I was thinking about the thread last evening as I dozed off to sleep.

 

What stuck with me is how respectful (I try to be) the group is in terms of the communication and what and how things are said.

 

There have to be people on this board on both 'sides' of the abortion issue and certainly there are many many different opinions in the gray area as well. Here we have ahighly charged multifaceted issue and yet, the discussion is almost always respectful.

 

I wonder if that is due to the fact that as individuals and couples enjoying this activity, we are very clear about respecting ourselves, our significant others and those we 'rub elbows' with. I often hear people new to nudity and swinging mention how wonderful it is to be with others in these lifestyles. People are real, honest, open, fun and inclusive.

 

I guess I'm not surprised, but I am grateful.

 

Thank you all. Love all, love well and keep it real.

At our best, we critique the politics and policies without launching ad hominem attacks. "American Taliban" notwithstanding lol 😉

 

However, politics is a blood sport that assigns no value to truth, fairness, or pleasantries. Politics is concerned with the acquisition and consolidation of power, and at any cost. The truth is always the first casualty.

 

Often, this makes it difficult to take the high road. But, we do what we can.

 

Enjoy the weekend.

 

 

 

 

[couplers 4,717]

I suspect that most members here have the resources to travel to another safe country if necessary.  For those lacking the resources, however, it could be a real tragedy.

[AndrewandAnn 360]

18 hours ago, couplers said:

I suspect that most members here have the resources to travel to another safe country if necessary.  For those lacking the resources, however, it could be a real tragedy.

Another country?

 

I think you mean another state.

 

Should Roe vs. Wade be overturned, abortion is not outlawed nationwide. The regulation of abortion simply returns to the domain of the states. No serious person believes, for example, California, New York or Illinois, are going to outlaw abortion. If anything, they will probably expand abortion services.

 

Other states, of course, will implement far more restrictive policies. Oklahoma, for instance, has already passed some legislation (in anticipation of the overturning of Roe vs. Wade) that makes getting an abortion very difficult.

 

Ultimately, residents of said states will have to make a determination about where they want to live and how important, or unimportant, is the issue of abortion to them personally--just like they have to do with other regulated freedoms.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by AndrewandAnn

[couplers 4,717]

11 hours ago, AndrewandAnn said:

Another country?

 

I think you mean another state.

Just as Congress could preserve Roe in an overriding federal statute, Congress could implement a nationwide ban.

Edited May 28, 2022 by couplers

[AndrewandAnn 360]

11 hours ago, couplers said:

Just as Congress could preserve Roe in an overriding federal statute, Congress could implement a nationwide ban.

Respectfully, your statement demonstrates a misunderstanding about the roles of Congress, the US Supreme Court, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Congress can pass any law. The role of the US Supreme Court is to review said law and determine if it is consistent with the rights and freedoms expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The mechanism for this review is when a Constitutionally controversial case involving said law is brought before the US Supreme Court and the Court agrees to review it. This process is known as "judicial review".

 

Historically, through the process of judicial review, US Supreme Court has determined laws passed by Congress to be un-Constitutional more than 174 times. When the US Supreme Court rules on a Constitutional issue (not to be confused with an statutory issue), the matter can only be changed by two mechanisms: First, a Constitutional Amendment (rarely used); Second, by the US Supreme Court over-turning its own decision (far more common.)

 

The US Supreme Court has both the ability, and duty, to review questionable/controversial prior US Supreme Court decisions to ensure they were correctly ruled upon. If a prior decision is found to be incorrectly ruled upon, the US Supreme Court is obligated to over-turn its prior decision(s). In more than 230 years, this has happened 233 times, or roughly once every year. So, while it is certainly not a common occurrence, it is not rare, either.

 

On the subject of abortion, as a practical matter, no serious person believes Congress has the appetite or political ability to enact any nationwide law, in favor of, or against, abortion (or any other particularly controversial subject.) This is due to the fact that we have a politically divided Congress that correctly represents our politically divided population on such subjects and issues. How Oklahomans view abortion is substantially different than how Californians view abortion, and it make sense they would have different laws regulating it. This is how the system is supposed to work. 

 

 

[AndrewandAnn 360]

By the way, here's a link to a comprehensive table of laws determined by the US Supreme Court to be un-Constitutional, in whole or in part, since 1798, and includes the term year, case, authors of the main opinion, subject matter, state or federal provision, description of un-Constitutional provisions, Constitutional provisions invoked, and Constitutional clauses invoked :

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/

[AndrewandAnn 360]

Likewise, here's a link to a comprehensive table of US Supreme Court decisions later over-ruled by subsequent US Supreme Court decisions, since 1798, including the over-ruling decision, year of the over-ruling decision, over-ruled decisions, and year of the over-ruled decision:

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

 

 

[Lavendercuple 0]

The bigger problem here is that insurance companies use abortion as a term for natural and assisted miscarriage. That dnc a women gets to clean out a unsuccessful pregnancy, considered illegal. That life saving early term labor for pre-E, Illegal. The mom how wants to hold that living baby be for its fragile body gives up, Considers murder. That ten year old that papa did thing to, She now has to carry baby to term but she wont make it. So no matter your stance on abortion, ever signal person should be pissed. The AARP army is taking away life savaging procedures right and left. They tried to implement a law for an ectopic pregnancy re-implementation. Its a complete joke. Idaho wants to let grape victims get sued for not carrying a pregnancy to term. 20,000 pre family member. Half these law makers cant find a clit, why do we trust them to understand complicated medical issues. After all there also the ones that wont subsidize formula. let that sink in. Have the babies but you cant feed them. No boobie juice dose not always cut it. I do not care if they think its not there place, they have no compassion or understanding of how this will impact our country. They did this with out a safety net or push to re establish protection. There foresight and care of the people is joke.

[AndrewandAnn 360]

12 hours ago, Lavendercuple said:

The bigger problem here is that insurance companies use abortion as a term for natural and assisted miscarriage. That dnc a women gets to clean out a unsuccessful pregnancy, considered illegal. That life saving early term labor for pre-E, Illegal. The mom how wants to hold that living baby be for its fragile body gives up, Considers murder. That ten year old that papa did thing to, She now has to carry baby to term but she wont make it. So no matter your stance on abortion, ever signal person should be pissed. The AARP army is taking away life savaging procedures right and left. They tried to implement a law for an ectopic pregnancy re-implementation. Its a complete joke. Idaho wants to let grape victims get sued for not carrying a pregnancy to term. 20,000 pre family member. Half these law makers cant find a clit, why do we trust them to understand complicated medical issues. After all there also the ones that wont subsidize formula. let that sink in. Have the babies but you cant feed them. No boobie juice dose not always cut it. I do not care if they think its not there place, they have no compassion or understanding of how this will impact our country. They did this with out a safety net or push to re establish protection. There foresight and care of the people is joke.

I wanted to reply to your entire post but, honestly, I am having a difficult time trying to follow your train of thought or rationale on the various topics you raise?

 

However, on the subject of health insurance and dilation and curettage (d & c) procedure, it appears you are confusing a number of things. The d & c is a routine medical procedure offered by an OB/GYN, often administered right in the office. Health insurance companies almost always cover this procedure when it is deemed medically necessary. The procedure is used for a variety of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with miscarriage.

 

In the event it is not considered medically necessary, it is classified as elective surgery, and it may, or may not, be covered by your carrier's policy, depending upon the particular terms and conditions. This is the case with many, if not most, elective surgeries.

 

Regardless of whether or not your insurance carrier covers the d & c procedure, is not illegal. And will not be illegal should Roe vs. Wade be tossed.

 

As far as the "AARP army" trying to "take away life saving procedures..." um, AARP is the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons... so, I literally have no idea to what you are referring. AARP has no public position on abortion. And they don't enact laws. And, using common sense, they wouldn't be particularly interested with reproductive issues since one has to be age 50 or over to join their organization.

 

Unfortunately, this is the kind of hyperbole and misinformation that surrounds the issue of abortion that makes its way into the heads of people who are not prepared to carefully examine the arguments. We have to be careful to separate fact from fiction. 

[barefoot_so_goo 46]

On 5/8/2022 at 4:39 AM, oldswinger64 said:

Combination pill	hormonal	prescription-only	about 9 in 100 users become pregnant
Progestin-only pill	hormonal	prescription-only	about 9 in 100 users become pregnant
Hormonal IUD	hormonal	prescription-only	fewer than 1 in 100 users become pregnant
Copper IUD	nonhormonal	prescription-only	fewer than 1 in 100 users become pregnant
Implant	hormonal	prescription-only	fewer than 1 in 100 users become pregnant
Depo-Provera shot	hormonal	prescription-only	about 6 in 100 users become pregnant
Patch	hormonal	prescription-only	about 9 in 100 users become pregnant
NuvaRing	hormonal	prescription-only	about 9 in 100 users become pregnant
External condom	nonhormonal barrier method	over the counter (OTC)	about 18 in 100 users become pregnant
Internal condom	nonhormonal barrier method	OTC	about 21 in 100 users become pregnant
Diaphram	nonhormonal barrier method	prescription-only	roughly 12–29 in 100 users become pregnant
Cervical cap	nonhormonal barrier method	prescription-only	roughly 12–29 in 100 users become pregnant
Sponge	nonhormonal barrier method	OTC	about 9 in 100 users become pregnant
Spermicide	nonhormonal barrier method	OTC	about 28 in 100 users become pregnant
Fertility awareness methods	nonhormonal	need an OTC basal body temperature thermometer	around 24 in 100 users become pregnant
Pull out method/withdrawal	nonhormonal	N/A	around 22 in 100 users become pregnant
Breastfeeding or chestfeeding	hormonal	N/A	around 74 in 100 users become pregnant
Tubal ligation	sterilization	surgical procedure	fewer than 1 in 200 users become pregnant
Tubal occlusion	sterilization	surgical procedure	fewer than 1 in 200 users become pregnant
Vasectomy	sterilization	surgical procedure	fewer than 1 in 100 users become pregnant

 

I've always wondered about these figures. From the law of large numbers perspective, I'm sure they're close. But in my own experience, I've never had any unintended pregnancies with spermicides, and I would've guessed I would've made at least a couple if the effectiveness was as advertised. The nuvaring hasn't seemed to work at all in my experience, though that could be how it's used.

[barefoot_so_goo 46]

On 5/8/2022 at 12:46 PM, Billygoat said:

To answer if the sperm donor/participants are legally bound:

 

not sure if all do this but I know a few who did this had those chosen sign legal documents waving all parental rights to include contact prior to 18th birthday of the child.  Other than health no contact and no required financial obligations by the participant.  The health exception was contact if health history or donor inquiries.  I was told it was standard stuff and completely legal.

 

for those we know personally a young m/f couple no papers and three children over 6 - 8 years same group, different participants, several participants over a week each time no test as to who the sire could be.

 

two lesbian couples using male friends in a swinger group.  Again several participants over short period of time no paternal tests done. 2 -3 children each.

 

one f/f couple (lesbian/bi) had several chosen males from their group at one time, twice over a weeks time period.  

 

for those we know all is well.  Except for a very few no one know who else participated each time.

 

Everything I've ever read, or been told by legal counsel, is that whatever you and the prospective parents sign doesn't mean anything from the child's perspective. You can't give up someone else's rights. Anything you sign would be found null and void, and you could be liable for child support if the parents change their minds, or events happen that the kid needs support and someone finds out you're the father.

 

But, everything else you describe holds. I think there are a lot of kids made like this, but it's just kept quiet. I've made two that I know of. I just trusted the couples/women were sincere about wanting kids, and there were no red flags, at least to me.