holeswideopen

Well said. I don't hate Donald Trump either. He brought a business mentality to the federal government, which helped break the long running complacency and set a few very ambitious, possibly positive goals. But, his lack of artfulness and experience caused disorganization and allowed a fairly small, controversial minority to gain an outsized platform in American politics. In either case Donald Trump is just a man like the rest of us and deifying or vilifying him is pointless as he already came, saw and conquered. A better idea is learning from the situation and applying it towards creating a better future.

Reading this conversation, I realize I know almost nothing about the history of abortion. So, I read up on it, most notably reading an article from a 1997 edition of the The Atlantic, which had the following interesting passages: Until the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). The American Medical Association's crusade against abortion was partly a professional move, to establish the supremacy of "regular" physicians over midwives and homeopaths. More broadly, anti-abortion sentiment was connected to nativism, anti-Catholicism, and, as it is today, anti-feminism. Immigration, especially by Catholics and nonwhites, was increasing, while birth rates among white native-born Protestants were declining. (Unlike the typical abortion patient of today, that of the nineteenth century was a middle- or upper-class white married woman.) Nonetheless, having achieved their legal goal, many doctors—including prominent members of the AMA—went right on providing abortions. Some late-nineteenth-century observers estimated that two million were performed annually (which would mean that in Victorian America the number of abortions per capita was seven or eight times as high as it is today). The conventional wisdom today considers Roe v. Wade to be an avant-garde decision, "judicial activism" at either its enlightened best or its high-handed worst. Reagan places the decision in its historical context, showing that it was a logical response to the times.Far from foisting a radical departure on an unready nation, the Supreme Court was responding to a decade-long buildup of popular sentiment for change. The movement was spearheaded by doctors who saw firsthand the carnage created by illegal abortion (more than 5,000 deaths a year, mostly of black and Hispanic women), and whose hands were now firmly tied by the hospital committees they themselves had created. They were joined by civil-liberties lawyers, who brought to their briefs a keen understanding of criminalization's discriminatory effects; and by grassroots activists in the reborn women's movement. [think before following links] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/05/abortion-in-american-history/376851/ While I recommend the entire article, the summary is a chilling echo of the debate we’re living through. A relatively small, homogeneous minority is trying to dictate policy for advantage, power and control. As others here have said, it’s so important to vote and for people who are willing and enthusiastic about our goals (barebacking included) as we are a minority and just as at risk as women are with the possible Roe decision. Worse, we don’t have varied interests willing to rush to our defense.

I couldn’t have said it better. For my own piece I’ll add communication too. Especially with an open relationship communicating each step can’t be undervalued.

I once had a guy role play his way to bareback. Started with a condom but he just couldn’t get it in. Magically he slid right in after taking the condom off. It was hot.