What overturning Roe v. Wade could mean for birth control access, maternal care - by Dia
SD on 17/5/2022 at 00:41
The state absolutely should be focused on protecting individuals, and a foetus is demonstrably not an individual.
The woman bearing it, however, is an individual, and as such, should always have primacy.
Edit: just to add, it's at times like this that I really miss Monkeysee :(
Dia on 17/5/2022 at 16:11
Quote Posted by Draxil
And it's never just about the woman and her body, either.
Pure, utter bullshit. It
is ALL about controlling women and their rights to autonomy of their own bodies. Those same states that already have strict restrictions on abortions are also in the process of trying to ban forms of birth control, such as IUDs. Those same states are already attempting to make more common forms of birth control (the b.c. pill) more difficult for women to obtain, especially women in the low-income and poverty stricken categories. And what worsens the plight of women in those states is that those women are finding that it's more difficult to vote for politicians who would be in favor of removing those bans and restrictions, thanks to the misogynistic GOP's gerrymandering and their new voter restrictions that directly affect women of color as well as women who are in the low-income or poverty bracket. I don't see any bodily autonomy rights of men under fire here, do
you?? How about if those states that are waging war on women's rights started passing laws that make it mandatory for
all men who are anti-abortion to have vasectomies?? Or even start banning Viagra from being sold in those states? Boy, you'd see a
lot of men suddenly switch horses in mid-stream and become women's reproductive healthcare advocates. So spare me your sexist, bullshit rhetoric about how
'it's never just about the woman and her body', because that's exactly what it's all about and always has been. You sound like another clueless male who so values the 'life' of a clump of cells that he's willing to trash women's rights to make decisions for their own bodies. Yeah, men like you are predictably Republican misogynists who claim to be righteous and moral yet want to
force women to carry unwanted fetuses and at the same time, limit their access to maternity healthcare and childcare after the fetus has been born. And if you happen to be female, then I strongly suggest you seek psychiatric help to undo the misogynist brainwashing that's been done to you and learn to think for yourself. Btw, bomb any abortion clinics lately, have you?
Quote Posted by Draxil
In the overwhelmingly vast percentage of pregnancies, that life is there because she engaged in consensual sexual intercourse without using a method of birth control. So, you're claiming (falsely, I might add), that the majority of women finding themselves pregnant are promiscuous sluts?? Wow. Fragile male ego much? Show us on this Ken doll where she hurt you, honey. *smh*
Quote Posted by Draxil
That describes abortion in the United States, where roughly 85% of abortions are performed for reasons of timing, finance, or desire (convenience)
And of that 85%, do you have any idea how many of those unwanted pregnancies were caused by failure of the birth control methods the women or their partners involved were using? The only 'birth control' method that's 100% failsafe is a total hysterectomy; not even a tubal ligation is 100% foolproof and I speak from experience. Yes, if you're quoting statistics about how many unwanted pregnancies occur over a 10 year period due to failure of birth control methods, the percentage looks low, i.e., only 5% of women find themselves pregnant due to failure of condoms (over a 10 year period). But to get a realistic idea of how many women that 5% represents, do the math. There are over 331 million people in the U.S., so 5% of that comes out to over 16 million women over a 10 year period which means that over 160,000 women in this country will find themselves saddled with an unwanted pregnancy in any given year. But all those women are just promiscuous sluts in your opinion so they should be forced to bear an unwanted baby against their will, right? I guess it's a good thing then that
you'll never have to worry about finding out that you're pregnant with the very pregnancy you were trying to prevent by using birth control. But just go ahead and continue with your Pro-Forced Birth bullshit rhetoric and posting slanted statistics that don't take into account all the factors. And spare us more of your bullshit rhetoric about fetuses having 'rights' and being 'individuals, ffs. A fetus is a non-sentient parasite that cannot survive outside a woman's uterus before the average of 24 to 28 weeks into gestation (that's six to seven
months into pregnancy) and a high percentage of those premature babies will end up with mild to severe deficits. Yet Pro-Forced Birthers claim a fetus and even an embryo before 24 weeks (in some states, the ridiculous number is 15 to 20 weeks) is already a fully-formed human being, an 'individual' that should have rights. Omg. The majority of abortions are done before the end of the first trimester of pregnancy (3 months into gestation); very few late-term abortions are done and those are only done when the woman's life is in danger or if the fetus has died in utero or if it has been medically proven that the fetus is so deformed or has such severe deficits that it will not survive birth. Do more research and mind your own business. Our bodies, our choice. Get over your sexist self and stop spewing the ridiculous b.s. that anti-abortion is not about controlling women and their bodies. It's
exactly about that. *smh*
Draxil on 18/5/2022 at 06:24
Quote Posted by rachel
Of course, the slut-shaming. You know it takes two to tango, right? A guy can fuck around all he wants and never suffer consequences but god forbid a woman does the same, the audacity! The number one cause of pregnancy is guys, my dude, so here's a tip: if you're so concerned about the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy, how about getting a vasectomy?
As for other people, well consensual sex that doesn't involve you is none of your business. Why is it so hard for you to understand?
Also, a bunch of cells is not an individual, but that dead horse is well flogged, I know I'm not gonna change your mind there.
You're reading way to much into what I have said. I'm not slut shaming, I'm not into that. I'm into responsibility for one's actions, though. Men have a moral obligation to be fathers to their offspring; at a minimum, men should be held financially accountable for every child they've fathered, and have their wages garnished, if necessary, to provide for the care, education, and health of their children. Consensual sex between others doesn't bother me at all. It's society's business to protect those who can't protect themselves, though, and as a member of society I have a problem with the wholesale eradication of a generation's worth of children (roughly generation X, in the US, by the numbers).
Quote:
Originally posted by Phatose:
Eh, no. If genetic distinctness was sufficient to make it a fully human life, any time one of our cells mutates we'd be required to let it grow. Which is likely to be pretty terrible, since that's actually cancer.
Actually, that's a fair challenge. Please prove your reasoning does not also follow through to right-to-life for a tumor. Chances are, any person who's ever had a tumor has done at least one thing in their life that could lead to cancer, and the tumor is unlikely to be genetically identical to the rest of them.
I can only assume that's an argument made in bad faith. A tumor has never and will never develop the exquisite anatomy and physiology to be able to live independently. There's not a person on earth who didn't start off as a zygote, though.
Quote:
Originally posted by SD:
The state absolutely should be focused on protecting individuals, and a foetus is demonstrably not an individual.
At what point does a human being in early development become an individual? At what point, if any, would you consider abortion fair game to be regulated by the state? All the current lines are absolutely arbitrary. If it's ok at 15 weeks, why not 20? Does individuality magically occur at viability? Should a woman be able to abort her child all the way up to the moment of birth? If yes, why would a baby be considered an individual 8 inches outside of the uterus but not in the uterus? And why just infancy? Infants are essentially non-sentient, parasitic clumps of cells outside the body, after all, and awfully friggin' inconvenient at times.
I'm not playing slippery-slope games, I'm honestly interested in your answer and the answer of any others who support abortion rights. Very few people in the United States support unlimited access to abortion, and of those that say they do in polls, I doubt they'd support a woman's right to abort her baby at 39w6d.
Dia, you're a trip. A long, uncomfortable one where the air conditioning broke down, your brother won't stop teasing you, the Gameboy batteries died, you feel carsick, and dad got lost--but still a trip. Do you support any restrictions on abortion? Honestly curious.
I'm not misogynistic. I work in a female dominated profession--most of my friends are women. I'm not even Republican. I don't judge women who have had an abortion, I feel bad for them. I have provided ethical, non-judgemental, compassionate care for dozens of women who have lost a child (not a parasitic clump of non-sentient tissue, I think you called it) in my 17 years as a nurse. I have cared for a half dozen women who had to come into the hospital emergently after having a botched abortion. I've never seen the abortion provider follow up on or treat the woman he nearly killed. I have a very low opinion of the "providers" Planned Parenthood employs.
I don't think a woman makes the choice to have an abortion lightly, in most cases. The ones that "shout their abortion" are usually very damaged individuals in my experience. I remember when Democrats used to advocate for keeping abortion safe, legal, and rare. Sometime in the 90's that "rare" part disappeared. It is an abominable failure of our culture that women feel the need to resort to abortion due to lack of support, lack of finance, or pressure from a partner to terminate the pregnancy. I am in full support of fully funding the healthcare, child care, and general care of pregnant women and mothers that need it. It would be a much better use of our tax dollars. I find it disgusting that nearly 60% of abortions in this country (according to the Guttmacher Institute, which is proud of that number) are of minority pregnancies. That's roughly half a million minorities a year. Black lives matter? Please. Not to you, Planned Parenthood, or your cohorts in the white supremacy movement.
Quote:
And of that 85%, do you have any idea how many of those unwanted pregnancies were caused by failure of the birth control methods the women or their partners involved were using? The only 'birth control' method that's 100% failsafe is a total hysterectomy; not even a tubal ligation is 100% foolproof and I speak from experience. Yes, if you're quoting statistics about how many unwanted pregnancies occur over a 10 year period due to failure of birth control methods, the percentage looks low, i.e., only 5% of women find themselves pregnant due to failure of condoms (over a 10 year period). But to get a realistic idea of how many women that 5% represents, do the math. There are over 331 million people in the U.S., so 5% of that comes out to over 16 million women over a 10 year period which means that over 160,000 women in this country will find themselves saddled with an unwanted pregnancy in any given year. But all those women are just promiscuous sluts in your opinion so they should be forced to bear an unwanted baby against their will, right? I guess it's a good thing then that you'll never have to worry about finding out that you're pregnant with the very pregnancy you were trying to prevent by using birth control. But just go ahead and continue with your Pro-Forced Birth bullshit rhetoric and posting slanted statistics that don't take into account all the factors. And spare us more of your bullshit rhetoric about fetuses having 'rights' and being 'individuals, ffs. A fetus is a non-sentient parasite that cannot survive outside a woman's uterus before the average of 24 to 28 weeks into gestation (that's six to seven months into pregnancy) and a high percentage of those premature babies will end up with mild to severe deficits. Yet Pro-Forced Birthers claim a fetus and even an embryo before 24 weeks (in some states, the ridiculous number is 15 to 20 weeks) is already a fully-formed human being, an 'individual' that should have rights. Omg. The majority of abortions are done before the end of the first trimester of pregnancy (3 months into gestation); very few late-term abortions are done and those are only done when the woman's life is in danger or if the fetus has died in utero or if it has been medically proven that the fetus is so deformed or has such severe deficits that it will not survive birth. Do more research and mind your own business. Our bodies, our choice. Get over your sexist self and stop spewing the ridiculous b.s. that anti-abortion is not about controlling women and their bodies. It's exactly about that. *smh*
I'm really not sure where your numbers are coming from, but... stop *smh*ing, because it's messing with your ability to do even the simplest of math. I'll mansplain it to you: there are 331 million people in this country, roughly half are women. Of those women, about 70 million are of reproductive age (15-49). Your friends at (
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2008/08/abortion-and-women-color-bigger-picture) Guttmacher (2008) say the 1-year condom failure rate (typical use) is about 17%. In 2008 there were, again according to Guttmacher, about 1.2 million abortions. If every condom failure resulted in abortion, that would account for about 200,000 of that 1.2 million. Taking the typical failure rate for every form of birth control would account for ~700,000. To me, 500,000 abortions still seems like a very large number. About the same size as the populations of Sacramento, Tuscon, Fresno, Kansas City, or Atlanta.
As an aside, you are a very bitter person. Do your children know that you considered them parasites when you were pregnant with them? I have five children. I'm open to more, if they come. They are fantastic kids--musicians, dancers, artists, great grades in school, loving, frustrating, absolutely wonderful human beings that enjoy cooking, baking, video games, football. Friggin' good looking, too. I can't imagine life without any one of them, and I'm excited every day to see what they do, what they read, what they learn, and what they become as they mature. My oldest is determined to become an anesthesiologist, and, at 13, I'm already certain that he is more than capable of it. His younger sister wants to be a pharmacist and a ballerina that plays cello in a volunteer orchestra and owns 6 cats. We don't see eye to eye on the cat thing, at all.
It's trite, but children are our future. They are a gift--not a burden, not a punishment, and certainly not parasites. We lost a child at about 10 weeks of pregnancy back in 2013. We hadn't found out the sex, but my wife is certain it was a girl and named her Stella. She is frequently on my mind, especially when I see the gap between the 11 year old and the 6 year old. He wants to be a shepherd. Given the difficulties we're having getting him to read, it might not be a bad career choice.
Anyway, I'm tired and this is, I'm sure, as pointless as it is rambling. Summary: supporting some restrictions on abortion is arbitrary and illogical. Absolute opposition or support of abortion is logically consistent and more defensible than the lukewarm, capricious, wishy-washy attitude taken by the majority of this country. If you support unrestricted abortion, and even infanticide, you're a monster with the courage of his convictions. Moloch will welcome you with a very warm embrace.
mopgoblin on 18/5/2022 at 09:10
So, we've got misogyny, we've got a big wall of text with a tone that makes me feel like I need to take at least two showers, and we've got some weird stuff about infanticide, and this is still only the first page. It'd be nice if we could have just one of these threads without some weird guy showing up.
Also, abortions are good, we can't have a society where women are equal unless abortions are free and safe and readily available, 'cause if you don't have bodily autonomy then you don't have anything.
Dia on 18/5/2022 at 14:19
Quote Posted by Draxil
If you support unrestricted abortion, and even infanticide, you're a monster with the courage of his convictions. Moloch will welcome you with a very warm embrace.
/inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/
noun
1.
the crime of killing a child within a year of its birth (in some legal jurisdictions, specifically by the mother):
"cases of infanticide often involve extreme emotional disturbance"
2.
a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.''Infanticide'? Wow. Seriously, who the fuck is committing infanticide?? Ffs, there are NO babies or infants involved in abortions because an embryo or a fetus is
not a baby or infant until after it's been born, fool. Even says so in your precious Bible; Google it after you've finished thumping it. ('Moloch'. Lmao) Typical sexist Republican sensationalism and false propaganda, 'OMG THEY'RE KILLING BABIES!!!'. Relax moron, no one is coming for your kids (or guns, lol). How wonderful for you that you have so many children, though it's obvious you're sadly oblivious that one of the biggest pollution problems we have today is overpopulation. That fact aside, wtf gives
you the right to sit in judgement of or decide whether a woman a thousand miles away can or cannot exercise
her right to make decisions about her own body? How does her choice directly affect you? Does it actually, actively change your life in any way? Does
her choice affect
your mental or physical health? Or does it just offend your delicate sexist sensibilities and trigger that overwhelming urge to exert control women and their bodies because your fragile male ego feels threatened by intelligent, independent women who are capable of making their own decisions and choices without the interference of a man? You can throw all the talking points and slanted 'facts' you want at pro-choice people all day long, but in the end it just comes down to the very real fact that women's bodily autonomy is
none of your fucking business. You don't have a uterus so can't possibly understand, yet because you have a penis and have fathered a whole passel of kids, you believe that
your opinion and judgement matters more, to the point where you condemn and vilify any woman who makes a choice regarding her
own body? I lend no credibility to anyone who wants to send women's rights, especially our rights to safe reproductive healthcare, back to the Stone Age. Seriously dude, you really need to check yourself; your sexist, puritan opinions are ridiculous and offensive. 'Infanticide'. Omfg. *smh*
Quote Posted by Draxil
If you support unrestricted abortion ... you're a monster with the courage of his convictions
'
His'?? Abortion is a
woman's choice; she/they also has the choice to discuss her decision with her partner, but in the end it's still
her/their choice. And yeah, there are a lot of men who support a woman's right to choose but they're not monsters, just intelligent, forward-thinking people who happen to believe that female friends and relatives, their daughters, granddaughters, etc., should
not be forced to become broodmares (and handmaids) to men with fragile male egos who also have a seriously sexist, abusive obsession to control all aspects of women's lives and bodies. Those sexist control freaks are the real monsters; the same monsters who rape women because they feel it's their God-given right as a man, who believe that 'she was asking for it' because 'look at what she was wearing'. The same monsters who are nothing more than outright pro-life hypocrites who want to force a woman to give birth to an unwanted child even if it kills her and who will happily go out and shoot a doctor who performs abortions to death; the same monsters who want to put women to death for exercising their rights to bodily autonomy. But they're all pro-life so God is on their side, right?
Those are the real monsters. Next you'll be telling us that all forms of birth control are evil and are Satan's work; that a man's seed is sacred and should be cherished, right? Omg. Give me a break. I've grown weary of beating my head against your brick wall; afterall, I've been fighting against your brand of misogyny since the Women's Liberation marches back in the 60s, same fight my paternal grandmother marched against with the Women's Suffragette movement in the 20s (it wasn't all about women's right to vote, btw). Good luck with your kids; I'm sure you'll raise them to grow up to be overly-judgmental, sanctimonious sexists, just like dear old Dad. Blatant sexism really is an ugly, ugly thing, ya know. On the bright side, women make up 51.1% of the population in this country (since 2013). lol
Do have a nice day.
rachel on 18/5/2022 at 16:00
It doesn't seem to belong in Draxil's worldview, but trans men and enby folks can also get pregnant, so technically they/their would be the most correct pronouns. Apart from that I'm with you 100% Dia.
Dia on 18/5/2022 at 18:34
Sorry about that Rache. Started to fix it but ran out of time. I automatically encompassed woman/women/trans/enby in my head while typing but didn't think about pronouns. Will fix the rest later. Much love. ♥♥
Draxil on 18/5/2022 at 19:53
Thanks, Dia, I am having a very nice day. The rest of your post was mainly angry, straw-manning, stereotyping, misandrist drivel, but the finish was nice. I do note with amusement that you think women making up 51.1% of the population somehow upsets me, or will lead to your preferred abortion laws, or...something. I'm not quite sure what you thought that would convey. More women is a good thing, 'cuz they don't make handmaids like they used to in the good ol' days. On a more serious note, you do make one very good, valid argument that I hadn't considered before--we should repeal the 19th amendment.
Quote:
It doesn't seem to belong in Draxil's worldview, but trans men and enby folks can also get pregnant, so technically they/their would be the most correct pronouns. Apart from that I'm with you 100% Dia
I am working full time as a husband, father, nurse, and misogynist. My to-do list is full for the rest of my life, so the hexadecimal communities are going to have to find another boogeyman. My threshold is 5% of the population before I can justify the time necessary for hating, so the trans community is going to have to get in line behind Jews, Mormons, and Jehova Witnesses.
Nicker on 19/5/2022 at 12:22
Quote:
It's trite, but children are our future.
All ten billion of them? The arrogant myth of human exceptionalism is killing this planet.
But beyond that, even if we accept that a fetus is a person, when of comes down who has the greater right to control of their body, that must go to the person already born. The woman, not the fetus. Anything less is slavery.
Quote Posted by Draxil
My threshold is 5% of the population before I can justify the time necessary for hating, so the trans community is going to have to get in line behind Jews, Mormons, and Jehova Witnesses.
I must say, your statistical model for hate distribution is fresh yet still manages to stink. I must presume you are being sarcastic but frankly, it is unclear, given the rest of your justifications.
