Actually, I believe that many states have laws prohibiting termination after viability except in the case of a threat to the mother’s life (which I think is part of Roe V. Wade), so no, I don’t think it happens all that often.
1 Like
I think claiming that I have a right to decide about my own body is not an extreme position, ever, at all.
5 Likes
I think that’s pretty reasonable. If you’re claiming that other people should have a right to decide about your own body, but only if those people have a uterus (not really sure if you’re claiming that, or just brought it up previously as a side point), then I would disagree with that. A diametrically opposed position would likely hold that the situation changes when inside your body is another body (not a sesame seed!).
Thanks again for engaging with me repeatedly. There are some critical experiences surrounding this issue that are biologically impossible for me to undertake, such as: being pregnant, wondering if I’m pregnant, getting an abortion, late termination of pregnancy, giving birth, or living in fear (or disgust) of the government having this specific dominion over my body. To broaden my view, I need to expose myself to the opinions of those who may have, or at least are capable of, sharing in those experiences.
2 Likes
If we’re going to pass laws on women’s health, why should men be involved? By what right do they get to claim they “know better” than someone who can bear a child.
And I argue it changes nothing, in terms of a bunch of lawmakers getting to decide what happens inside my body.
Exactly. When women are considered merely vessels for the next generation or property, bad things happen. You have no idea what any of these feels like, or what it might mean. And to be fair, I don’t know how other women who have gone through these things feel either. it’s just not the government’s place (especially one still run primarily by men) to make moral judgements about how women should experience these things. Because it’s really about control of women. If they cared about “pro-life”, they’d care a hell of a lot more about what happens to children after they come into this world and about the women who care for them, because it’s still disproportionately on women in our society to care for the family (children and the elderly), even as more and more men are stepping up and helping to shoulder the burden of family care more generally.
I don’t think the goal of having less abortions if a bad goal, but to do that, you need people informed about their bodies, sex, and a good social safety net that doesn’t make unexpected pregnancies a disaster. There is going to be abortions, no matter what, but if people know how to make sure they get pregnant only when they want, then the rates go way down…[edited to add] Laws banning abortion does the opposite and makes them more dangerous for women. If you want some sort of sense of what happens when you radically ban abortions, go watch this (very upsetting and disturbing) film:
5 Likes
This is a reasonable position on its face, but it opens the door to women not being able to vote on male-centric issues. I wouldn’t want women excluded from voting on rape laws, because they don’t have the necessary equipment to understand a man’s “urges”.
Men claim the right to be involved because it’s not just a woman’s body, it’s also a child’s body. To clarify, I am not referring to abortions. I am referring to late term pregnancy terminations, when the baby could survive on its own, and is thus, per Roe v. Wade, considered to have human rights. However, I also believe that claiming that the baby is viable, then insisting that the woman must carry it to term, is, IMO, unjust. If the baby is so viable, the state should offer to deliver the baby early and foot the enormous bill for taking care of the baby (because of the cost, this isn’t a pragmatic position, but a philosophical one).
I’m not thrilled that we have one gender dominating politics. I’m not sure why that occurs. Women have great voter registration and voter turnout rates. Perhaps something like the current initiatives to involve women in STEM careers could be extended to encourage careers in politics.
Thanks for posting that video. I watched the trailer, and have added it to my “Movies to Watch” bookmarks folder.
Can you name one comparable one? Why do men get to pass laws about women’s bodies. At all? Why are women’s bodies able to be legislated on?
Except that would only include rape of men, by men. Because, of course, men can rape women, women can rape men, and women can rape women. it’s not a crime that only men commit, but one that one individual commits against another. It’s not about “urges”, but about power dynamics.
Because patriarchy. There is probably a complex set of reasons why this still happens and why it has happened historically. But generally it comes down to things like women can carry children, which carry on the family line, and hence help to direct wealth, land, etc. The more wealth and power one had, the more important it would have been (historically speaking) to “secure” the blood line. So, again, it comes down to men controlling women’s bodies.
People have been doing that for decades. And for the record, a woman might not have women friendly policy initiatives either.
3 Likes
I think it does, but it’s more than just about patriarchy or controlling women. There aren’t really any comparable male-centric issues because reproduction is mainly done by women and men never host another human in their bodies. Nature is pretty sexist in that regard, and there’s nothing comparable that men do which is so invasive and centred around their body, yet necessary for all human life. Even in a matriarchy there would be no comparison between the demands placed specifically on women and those placed on men, if the authorities showed any interest in reproduction or considered foetuses to have any rights.
1 Like
[quote=“jsroberts, post:125, topic:51533”]
That’s a pretty arbitrary and convenient definition, which has very little to do with development.[/quote]
It’s about true, not relative, viability. The chance of survival for any premature baby has a lot to do with the medical facility it is born in, but breathing on one’s own is a clear indication of life.
[quote=“jsroberts, post:125, topic:51533”]
A newborn may have respiratory distress syndrome and be unable to breathe on its own, while a late term foetus only needs to be born to breathe.[/quote]
Hence my comment on the importance of medical facility for a distressed fetus or newborn.
The dad can physically remove the baby from the mother’s arms and feed it from a bottle. It is no longer reliant on the physical body of the mother to remain alive.
Nursing babies are just clingy suckers, that’s all.
1 Like
It’s one indication of life, as is a heartbeat. I’m calling it arbitrary because it creates a tautology - as long as you can stop a foetus from breathing, it’s not alive, so you’re not killing a person. The baby is born and starts breathing air at birth; it doesn’t come into existence.
That’s literally what parasites are.
1 Like
Agreed, but that doesn’t negate the fact that women are individuals and should have access to full rights that men enjoy. If nature really is sexist, then we should work hard to make sure that women don’t suffer from discrimination because of their gender.
3 Likes
I think there’s a subtle point here as well: a baby is not viable if it requires a major surgery on another person (the mother) to make it viable. It doesn’t matter if the state offers to deliver the baby early and foot the bills (although it’s certainly a generous offer and I’m sure SOME would be willing to take it), it’s STILL the mother’s right to not want that surgery or not to have it forced on her and instead take a different procedure that results in the fetus’s death. Even if it’s the abortion is significantly more dangerous (Which I have trouble believing it might be, at least in a legitimate medical clinic in the vast majority of cases), I still feel it’s her right, just like it’s any patient’s right to choose the more risky of two surgeries.
3 Likes
You’re right to be skeptical: at every stage, legal (not back-alley) abortion is the safer option than continuing a pregnancy.
1 Like
If I ever again get a winning number in this (honestly far too easy to win) lottery that is rape, I hope it will be done by the most handsome man so at least the child will be beautiful. Thank you for making me feel a little bit better about rape! Do I get to make an abortion if the rapist was too ugly, though? Because no, not all children are beautiful. And if we’re talking about how “precious” all babies are, well, it might not necessarily be so to a woman who is forced to give birth to a baby that is the result of a traumatic experience. But that’s still better than forcing the oh-so-terrible trauma of a chosen abortion on a woman, I’ve been told.
But what really all these abortion laws boil down to is “when does someone become a human being”, because we’ve agreed human beings are not okay to kill (except when they’re young black adults in hoodies). Perception of pain is apparently a big contender for humanhood (are people who feel no pain not people then?), but that is not felt until at least after 24 weeks, so what makes this 20 weeks so special? It’s a nice round number? I say we pick the time the fetus gets nipples. Or when it first chooses between a Bulbasaur, Charmander or Squirtle. Since we’re just throwing out numbers.
Me, I say the moment of birth sounds like the start, the beginning, you might even say the birth of something that is viably human. If the baby is technically viable before the natural birth but requires major surgery on the mother that she does not want, or similarly requires too much mentally from the mother that is a major health risk (like giving birth to a baby conceived by a rapist is for some mothers), it doesn’t sound viable to me.
3 Likes
Dafuq?! Men have “urges” that cause them to rape? Fuck right off with that bullshit.
9 Likes
I know, what the hell was that? Men know better about rape laws, because only men understand the “urges”? What, sexual urges? I’m pretty sure us women have those too. They just have nothing to do with why rape occurs.
5 Likes
Just read a powerful example of how dangerous the “pro-life” mindset is for women and their families:
ectopic pregnancy vs. anti-choice laws
If she had gone to the same or another Catholic hospital for this second pregnancy, she would probably be dead now. Because yes, the “pro-life” position is to go home to your husband and wait until you either lose the ability to ever give birth, or die.
5 Likes
I beg to differ with your statements. You lash out at me for “speaking on her behalf”. I did not. Yet, you openly speak on behalf of “every single person on this thread”. Gather yourself, chgoliz.
I strongly agree, up to the point that nature allows. However, saying that a viable foetus is a person is not discriminating against women (even though the weight of that claim overwhelmingly affects women). What I’m arguing is that discussions of abortion should take this into consideration. As other commenters have pointed out, the viability of a foetus is dependent on surgery or birth; until we have artificial wombs or teleportation, that will always be the case. However, the fact that someone’s life depends on another person does not make them less than human, although it definitely means that there are other important factors in the equation.
To make some kind of analogy, if I have to donate my kidney to save someone’s life, I have the choice not to do that. I do not have the freedom to deny that they are a person because their life depends on my choice. Those who do not have to make that decision are not free to judge me, because they have no stake in the argument (and they certainly don’t have the right to take my kidney for the greater good), but they don’t have to agree that that person’s humanity is not important.
I’d like to thank everyone for keeping the discussion so civil, especially as both Jonathan and I are speaking as men who could only be tangentially affected by these issues. While there are some terrible humans in the pro-life camp, I know from my own experience and from talking to others that for many it is not a position reached from hatred towards women or something that they accept comfortably without considering the effect that it has on women.
You know, I really would prefer it if limits on abortion had anything at all to do with the point at which life begins, preferably according to science. But it’s not. It’s about controlling women and punishing them for daring to have sex (whether that intercourse was wanted or not). The US is a patriarchal society, and the men holding the reins of power wouldn’t want us breeding chattel to forget our place by allowing us true bodily autonomy. They don’t really allow anyone full bodily autonomy (see: War on Some Drugs), but there’s an inequality in the law that there is even less autonomy afforded females.
3 Likes
It’s not unlike the sort of urge that causes someone to leave the largest share of the 139 comments, each of which admits someone elses failings or promotes a world where rights are voted on to see who gets them, and who doesn’t deserve them.
The road to hell is paved with slippery solepsisms.
If you can’t trust people to not lie about rape, I mean, really, can they be trusted with the choice of sexual partners? @JonathanR, your input??
1 Like
