Point taken. The impact missed me a little because I’ve seen the list before. Someone also came up with a list of Democrats for reference, and got up to six or seven, as opposed to hundreds of Republicans.
3 Likes
I think we also need comprehensive sex ed in America, because if you know what causes unwanted pregnancy, you can take steps to avoid it in the first place. Also, morning after pills for all.
7 Likes
Are you in possession of a uterus on your person? Then it’s really none of your business. It’s really not. Stop thinking that other people’s body parts should be legislated on by a bunch of people who don’t also have that body part.
10 Likes
I’m not sure what you mean. The legislation and adjudication of laws pertaining to reproductive rights have been handled by people with a variety of different body parts. Are you saying that male legislators and judges should be excluded from handling laws and cases involving reproductive rights? What about trans people?
FWIW, I identify as pro-choice (I’ve even attended a pro-choice rally). I just don’t have an extremist position on this matter. For example, I don’t think women should be allowed to show up in a hospital, in labor, but instead of delivering their child, terminate him/her. This isn’t exactly a common occurrence; I’m just using it to demonstrate the boundaries of my position so that perhaps we can better understand each other.
Preferably gestate them, as well.
There’s a science fiction book wherein some aliens show up to adjucate for Earth with some other aliens species. While they’re here representing us, they nab some vocally pro-life male characters and use them as incubators for their own young. The men in question take that about as well as you’d expect. A satisfying read, though.
7 Likes
Yes.
Do they have a uterus? Then yes, they can be part of the conversation. But given the number of transgendered people in congress or legislatures, I don’t think they are creating laws that control other people’s bodies. If any group of people have a major grasp of issues of bodily autonomy, I’d guess it would be the transgendered community.
Bodily autonomy is not extreme.
Yet, you bring it up. This isn’t even the topic at hand. Third trimester abortions, when they happen are rarely decisions made on the fly “oh, woops, looks like I’m about to birth a kid, I think I’ll kill it”, and are generally heart breaking decisions about the life and health of the mother, or the fetus in question. The point is that the discussion should not include some besuited congresscritter, but a woman and her doctor. Because its HER body. Not yours. Not men’s. It’s hers. You say you’re pro-choice, but you still seem to want a say in what half the population does with their body.
12 Likes
I’m not exactly certain how you would structure the exclusion on males from participating in reproductive rights legislation or adjudication. It would be an extraordinary precedent, and could allow similar exclusion of females from issues that involve men’s bodies. Also, what about women who have undergone a hysterectomy, and thus no longer have a uterus? I’m interested in hearing more of your viewpoint on that matter.
The argument on the other side is that the baby’s body is also a body.
No such thing as a third-trimester abortion. It’s not called an “abortion” after viability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion . I’m not criticizing you for failing to make the distinction, as I have made the same error myself, especially in casual conversation. It’s important to point out because it’s not just a semantic issue, and the concept of viability is at the heart of the Roe v. Wade decision. Many pro-choice people believe that the Roe v. Wade decision was correct to base the ruling upon whether a baby could survive on its own outside of a woman’s body.
I appreciate you engaging me on a matter in which some (but not all) of our viewpoints are not in alignment.
1 Like
Citation, please. Which hospital terminates a baby during delivery?
6 Likes
Citation please right back at ya. Where do I claim that a specific hospital terminates a baby during delivery? Here’s my exact statement on that matter:
“For example, I don’t think women should be allowed to show up in a hospital, in labor, but instead of delivering their child, terminate him/her. This isn’t exactly a common occurrence; I’m just using it to demonstrate the boundaries of my position so that perhaps we can better understand each other.”
When my wife was pregnant, one of our ob/gyns explained that, in our state, there is no limit on how late you can terminate a pregnancy. Not sure how or why it was brought up (it was a clearly planned textbook pregnancy with a healthy fetus/baby throughout). This was the first time in my life that my political position on this matter budged.
Are there numerous hospitals opening up drive-through late-term pregnancy termination facilities in our state? No. The fact is that it’s legal, and that if it occurs, there’s no reason that it would reach the public record.
I don’t think regulating women’s bodies should be on the legislative agenda, full stop. And what happens between a woman and the man she creates a baby with isn’t really much of our concern either - but unless you think that a man putting his penis into a woman’s vagina means he owns her, at the end of the day, it should be up to her. But in generally, family relationships around these tricky subjects are another place where the state should not intervene.
How is that part of this conversation? Much like your example of transgendered people, it doesn’t make sense to bring women who are not able to conceive because they don’t have that particular body part. It’s not that they are no longer women, but that they aren’t going to have a baby and aren’t really part of the discussion on reproductive rights on that level. Yet, if they are still women, and the extension of bodily rights to all women is a key issue at stake. If you say that women are not able to make decisions for themselves regarding reproductive rights, where exactly does that stop. And once again, why do YOU get to decide what happens inside of me.
Which, up until much later in the pregnancy, can’t exist as a fully autonomous human being. It’s still all happening inside someone else’s body. Why do you get to decide what happens there?
This stuff is important to hash out and I’m not sure perfect answers exist, but that doesn’t mean we can’t try.
5 Likes
Again, which hospital? I’ve never heard of accredited hospitals offering such late-term (meaning baby is viable in NICU) abortions as a matter of casual choice. I have heard of late-term abortions when the fetus is not viable or may be born with physical/mental disabilities, or the mother’s life in jeopardy. But walking into a hospital during labor and asking for a doctor to terminate the baby because the mother changed her mind seems far-fetched.
By the way, you’re the one making the claim on a discussion board, so I believe it’s not up to me to refute your claim. And when it comes to the highly-charged issue of a woman’s reproductive rights, you need to understand that clarity helps readers understand your perspective.
8 Likes
1 Like
It’s part of this conversation because your stated position is that people’s body parts shouldn’t be legislated on by people who don’t have a uterus. It’s important to point out that a position that excludes people from political participation based on their having a gender-specific bodily organ means that you also exclude not only men, but also trans people and, in this case, even women who have had a hysterectomy after having children. I think your position that your body is not open to legislation by anyone, regardless of gender, is a stronger one.
Regarding the argument that the baby is also a “body”, I should’ve specified that I was indeed referring to later in the pregnancy. I don’t hold the belief that something the size of a sesame seed is entitled to any legal or even human rights.
Again, where do I claim to know a specific hospital that offers such a procedure? Please read my post prior to falsely asserting that I have made a claim that I have not. Here’s my statement for the third time now:
“I don’t think women should be allowed to show up in a hospital, in labor, but instead of delivering their child, terminate him/her. This isn’t exactly a common occurrence; I’m just using it to demonstrate the boundaries of my position so that perhaps we can better understand each other.”
(not sure why this originally showed up as a response to my post; here it is again)
Again, where do I claim to know a specific hospital that offers such a procedure? Please read my post prior to falsely asserting that I have made a claim that I have not. Here’s my statement for the third time now:
“I don’t think women should be allowed to show up in a hospital, in labor, but instead of delivering their child, terminate him/her. This isn’t exactly a common occurrence; I’m just using it to demonstrate the boundaries of my position so that perhaps we can better understand each other.”
You state that people will probably lie if asked about rape, and cannot be trusted to not.
I think that says everything I wish to know about you. You can be as pro-choice as you claim to be. The way you get there seems to be because it would be that way were you king. And the examples you offer are extremely absurd.
Do you not see the contradiction between those two sentences, right there? Because, to me, that IS an extreme position. I only ask thay you accept that as someone elses valid POV on your words. An honest audience reaction, not the one you’ve decided the audience can have, else they’re against you and worthy of derision.
I am not against you, but there is a callous edge on your position which, perhaps, may abrade more than you wish to be responsible for?
Because that is the sort of thing you ought to be able to see if you want to responsibly legislate body parts that you do not have, or send people to war, or tax them. Plurality and empathy are relevant. Politics is about people. Not objects that vote.
FYI - i didn’t mean to say above that you treat women like objects. I did mean to say you seem to treat people like objects. And seem to think people are motivated to lie on government forms and gleefully do so to get free abortions. Seems to be that way. Very important word, seems. It means that is my opinion. Also it was not meant as an insult. Just an observation. My opinion, like yours, is valid to the end of my fingertips, and can be freely stated, like yours. I happen to think those two opinions are poorly informed, ungenerous, unkind, and are commonly used to justify indifference to suffering and are a pretext for moral crusading, usually, in my experience. But I’ll not accuse you of those.
8 Likes
Your claim is that women in labor show up to hospitals and choose to terminate in that moment instead. It’s not a false assertion to ask for a specific instance of this. If this occurs, as you claim it does, you should be able to produce proof of it. I, and I’m sure others, would like to see proof of this, as this hypothetical seems far-fetched enough to not be worth considering legislating.
7 Likes
“FWIW, I identify as pro-choice (I’ve even attended a pro-choice rally). I just don’t have an extremist position on this matter. For example, I don’t think women should be allowed to show up in a hospital, in labor, but instead of delivering their child, terminate him/her.”
“When my wife was pregnant, one of our ob/gyns explained that, in our state, there is no limit on how late you can terminate a pregnancy. Not sure how or why it was brought up (it was a clearly planned textbook pregnancy with a healthy fetus/baby throughout). This was the first time in my life that my political position on this matter budged.”
And I’m simply asking for you to give an example of a hospital that allows this. If you meant this to be a hypothetical, then you should have made that clear. When I asked for citation, your feathers got ruffled and cited a conversation you had with your wife’s OB/GYN, and you still weren’t exactly clear about the intent of the doctor’s comments.
FWIW, I’m unabashedly pro-choice no matter the circumstances. The reproductive choice of a woman should be that woman’s decision, made without coercion and with a medical expert of her choice. Period.
*Edited to add second quote.
4 Likes
I read it as establishing two ends of the spectrum. Where the foetus is the size of a sesame seed, its human rights shouldn’t come into the equation - this isn’t a philosophical argument based on the rights of entities with human DNA. Where it’s at full term and about to be born, it should be treated as a human being with rights. It’s inside the woman’s body in both cases, but there’s a difference in ethical considerations because it has gone from being microscopic to being a human being that’s capable of surviving on its own. The fact that all of this development goes on within the woman’s body is very significant, but it’s not the only issue to consider.
Considering all the false claims of this happening which never seem to go away, I would say it’s pretty much a guarantee that if it ever really did happen, the Republican party would be all over it in an instant.
5 Likes
