Legislating the Uterus

[Gerard]

This days it seems like every week a new state is trying to pull off a law regarding woman and if it's their decision or not what should happen on their body, even if you're Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, I think all can agree nothing good can come from people legislating that Mala Praxis is ok, or having them introduce a 8-10 inches object inside their uterus

I really think this is starting to get ridiculous, do these people honestly think woman are not aware about what they're doing, that they are doing it because they're kids who need to be guided by the morally saint white middle-aged man into becoming mothers instead of, you know, adults who might be going trough the most difficult time of their lives

This along of the fact that they're also fighting against contraception being easily a able for woman (so they don't have to have an unplanned pregnantcy and resort to abortion) reminds me of the stupid duality of how society almost mandates woman to look hot, yet when something happens (like being abused or harassed) it's their fault for being too attractive, do they really want woman to have to leave everything just for a broken condom? Or worst because of being raped?, cause some think that's just an excuse

Is this the correct way to handle everything, to pass laws that make it harder and harder to have the control on when to have a child?, Or is it ok in order to preserve the life of her unborn child and to encourage the production of children?, should woman have to pay for contraception themselves as a private matter or is this something the state should take care off because of their benefits (economic and social)? And why is this so important right now?, with so many new laws is this such an important issue or one that should have been left alone in the 70's?

 

[ck49]

I can't see any argument against contraception other than "god", and the US is supposed to be a secular country, so I'm fairly certain if someone wanted to they could take any law against it to the supreme court. Abortion is more of a controversial topic, and although I am pro-abortion I can see the arguments against it.

I think the system is fine as it is, since free contraceptives and no tax hike would decrease govt spending in other places, which need it more.

 

[Tortferngatr]

Pro-contraception, anti-abortion (except if it can be shown that either A. the fetus will be unable to survive to term or B. should the fetus be carried to term, it would put the life of the mother in grave risk). I also support more stringent punishments on rapists, especially if a fetus results, as a sort of compensation to the mother.

 

[mattj]

Concerning abortion, I realize how ridiculous and offensive the idea of "legislating a woman's uterus" seems to those who place a high value on a woman's right to control what happens to her body. But if you take but a moment to look at the issue from our perspective, if that unborn child really is what we think it is, a living human with the same right to life as you and me, I think you'll see that most (though not all) of these abortion requirement laws are not crazy, control freak, attacks on the rights of women. They're attempts to do everything possible to save a life, at least from our perspective.

I doubt any legislator anywhere is sitting in a big comfy chair by the fireplace, wringing his hands with a devious grin, thinking, "How can I legislate a woman's uterus TODAY!?"

 

[Shiny_Tyranitar]

I think God plays into the debate quite a bit, and I find it ironic that it is a group of middle aged, celibate, men (The Catholic Bishop Lobby) with no knowledge of law or medicine somehow know what is best for women. What most people do not realize is that the Catholic church is more draconian than the current hot topic debates (abortion, birth control, same-sex relations). The Catholic bishops are against vasectomies, condoms, sex for non-procreation (which Oklahoma with Catholic support tried to make law), and masturbation. The Catholic Lobby is also the group behind all the major legislation (pushing for and even writing many laws in many states) dealing with abortion or women's reproductive rights. Lord knows these Bishops would be for abortion tomorrow if alter boys could get pregnant.

The other side of the coin is that we are still a patriarchal society. We have these notions that a man that sleeps with 3 different partners a week is a stud while a woman who does the same is a slut. Society expects women to be chaste and to not have sex lives, never realizing that it is an impossible ideal and women must have sex for men to have sex (unless we get into teh sodumie, which they hate more). Society thinks that if a woman gets pregnant it is her fault, for being pretty enough to be raped or sexually active, and a baby is some how a fair punishment. These laws dealing with things like spousal consent and vaginal probing just reflect the paradigms of the law makers that women are some how lesser beings and it is A-OK to shame women, or legally rape women with a 12 inch wand, because women just aren't people. Laws dealing with things like banning contraception garner more public support because of these patriarchal views that if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have sex.

So, in summary, the church goes after contraception and heavily influences law makers while the public is apathetic and because of patriarchy more likely to support laws infringing on a woman's sex life.

 

[ChildDaemon]

I agree with mattj that I doubt legislators or really anyone anyone pro-life or anti-contraception (with perhaps a few exceptions since you're not supposed to say "never" or "always") are really conspiring against women. The impact on women just an unfortunate side effect that I think (unfortunately) those too focused on other motivations may overlook.

And while trying as much as possible not to get into the issue of whether or not a fetus is a person (since, as popemobile so eloquently stated, that road will likely lead to messiness), I have to state that I disagree with Tortferngatr's implication that any sort of punishment for a rapist could compensate a rape victim. Also, you seem to imply that a rape victim should not be able to abort. While both the fetus and the mother might be able to survive in such a case, forcing the mother to carry to term and thus live with a constant reminder of her trauma for months and months could (and most likely would), I feel, cause lasting psychological damage to her. And I'm not convinced that makes it worth it to force her to keep the fetus.

To Shiny Tyranitar: I thought there were some genuinely interesting thoughts in the polygamy thread, though I may be biased by my own interest in the subject and ensuing attempts to add seriousness to the topic.


Why do I keep letting myself be drawn in to all these serious Big Issue threads?

 

[Gerard]

I do think there's a complex background in here not just legislators trying to punch woman (it would be to simple to think this people are just trying to screw woman), but when you let a doctor get away with lying to their patients just because they may get an abortion if the fetus is coming in a bad way it simply stupid, you're forcing your position on woman then, I don't think nobody is gonna concent that anyone has the right to push their decision over another person's body, yet a doctor might under religious reasons, does that means if the fetus is gonna kill the mother and the person who sees this thinks, aw, she's lived enough, and holds this from her it's ok?

The same goes for contraception, if you are not ok with it being avaible trough health care then that's fine, but calling a person slut for defending it just shows that you're pushing your view upon them, by that point is not about convincing the woman to keep her baby, it's about ways to make her have the baby no matter what

Also, if you attack the pill yet leave Viagra totally unaddressed then it kind of shows that, yes, you're mostly pushing on things that affect on woman, not just a side effect

 

[jc104]

This anti-contraception thing does not go far enough. Clearly, we need to start mandating sex on a massive scale. Think of the unconcieved babies!

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I can't see any argument against contraception other than "god",

The argument isn't about contraception. The argument is about who should pay for contraception*. I don't want to pay money out of my pocket because some kids who have no job think that they are entitled to fuck. It's a matter of accepting consequences for your actions and taking basic preventative measures for your own health, things that should be expected from everyone. But it's cool, they don't have to look out for themselves, because the government/an insurance company will gladly take my money and give some of it to them. I'm sure that will fix everything.

I am absolutely 100% in support of the ultrasound requirement. If I'm paying for your abortion, I want it done right, and I want you to understand the consequences of your decision. It SHOULD be a difficult process.

 

[ck49]

If we are arguing about if the fetus is a person, you have to realize that it isn't conscious yet. Instead of comparing it to me and you, compare it to a person in a vegetative state. Who gets to decide what happens to a person in such a state? (I don't really know but as far as I know its family). I would think the same should be thought of a fetus.

 

[DM]

As someone who has been involved in an abortion and knows how difficult and painful the whole process is, I say this: FUCK the people introducing these bills, fuck them in their fucking asses. Preferably with a long, cold, uncomfortable metal wand.

There is no reason for this legislation other than to shame and guilt women into keeping pregnancies they don't want. The Supreme Court has rejected numerous attempts at abortion shaming in the ~40 years since Roe v. Wade, so there is no way these are even close to constitutional.*






*Of course, considering the bullshit Supreme Court sitting right now, I'm not so sure these wouldn't pass muster.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

There is no reason for this legislation other than to shame and guilt women into keeping pregnancies they don't want.

That's the whole point. People who see the pregnancy as a person being brought into the world are more concerned with the baby than the woman's feelings. The feelings can be healed, a dead fetus can not. I certainly understand your point of view, though

 

[icepick]

Concerning abortion, I realize how ridiculous and offensive the idea of "legislating a woman's uterus" seems to those who place a high value on a woman's right to control what happens to her body. But if you take but a moment to look at the issue from our perspective, if that unborn child really is what we think it is, a living human with the same right to life as you and me, I think you'll see that most (though not all) of these abortion requirement laws are not crazy, control freak, attacks on the rights of women. They're attempts to do everything possible to save a life, at least from our perspective.

I doubt any legislator anywhere is sitting in a big comfy chair by the fireplace, wringing his hands with a devious grin, thinking, "How can I legislate a woman's uterus TODAY!?"

I sympathize with your position, but I disagree with your last point. It seems like a lot of conservatives/religious people want to demonize sex, and hide behind the "sanctity of life" argument to push their true ideology, which is a self righteous crusade of Christian morality (e.g. Santorum).

 

[Atlas]

That's the whole point. People who see the pregnancy as a person being brought into the world are more concerned with the baby than the woman's feelings. The feelings can be healed, a dead fetus can not. I certainly understand your point of view, though

so you would rather you taxes pay for the womans counseling, the mans, the parents, and anyone else who is affected with the arrival of an unplanned/unwanted baby?

 

[Myzozoa]

I doubt any legislator anywhere is sitting in a big comfy chair by the fireplace, wringing his hands with a devious grin, thinking, "How can I legislate a woman's uterus TODAY!?"

No, but I would argue that they are sitting there on their chair grinning and wondering how they can perpetuate their own misogynistic values.

This whole issue just makes America look like shit to the rest of the world. Not just because of the religious fundamentalism, but because of the fact that we are rehashing Roe v. Wade every 4 years, it shows some sort of disconnect politicians have with the law, imo.

Santorum is a very scary figure for me, because if wins the nomination or even has a close race in the republican primaries it will cause republican candidates to harden their stances on women's healthcare. What will Obama do when it comes time to debate them? Likely his own position will be shifted to the right as well, that's why it bothers me when I see all the Santorum jokes, it is a very serious matter that such a wacko is a prominent candidate.

 

[andysensei]

Concerning abortion, I realize how ridiculous and offensive the idea of "legislating a woman's uterus" seems to those who place a high value on a woman's right to control what happens to her body. But if you take but a moment to look at the issue from our perspective, if that unborn child really is what we think it is, a living human with the same right to life as you and me, I think you'll see that most (though not all) of these abortion requirement laws are not crazy, control freak, attacks on the rights of women. They're attempts to do everything possible to save a life, at least from our perspective.

No they're not. The vast majority of people who're anti-abortion are pro-guns.

It's all good that we allow people to have guns that kill children after they're born, but, preventing the birth of a fetus is evil... If they wanted to protect lives, they'd want to protect the lives of the born and the unborn alike.

 

[FlareBlitz]

The argument isn't about contraception. The argument is about who should pay for contraception*. I don't want to pay money out of my pocket because some kids who have no job think that they are entitled to fuck.

They're going to fuck regardless. You can either pay for their contraception or pay for their babies - government subsidized contraception can save around $1.32 billion a year.

I am absolutely 100% in support of the ultrasound requirement. If I'm paying for your abortion, I want it done right, and I want you to understand the consequences of your decision. It SHOULD be a difficult process.

I don't think emotionally guilting a woman into keeping a fetus she practically or logistically cannot or does not want is a good idea. Most abortion clinics offer counseling, family planning services, and a run-down of a woman's options in the case of pregnancy. That is about as "difficult" as the process should be.

 

[Myzozoa]

I almost suspect that anyone who thinks that abortion is ever an easy process has never actually been close to someone who has had an abortion.

 

[mattj]

With all due respect to both of you, Icepick and Myzozoa, I don't think any legislator anywhere purposes to quote-unquote "demonize sex" or "perpetuate misogynistic values". Feel free to provide any evidence to the contrary, but the majority of pro-life legislators probably do have the baby's interest and human rights in mind. They really are not conspiracists out to get women, as the title of this thread and posts like yours seem to imply.

@DM and anyone else inclined to comment:

I don't see why Roe V Wade (nor any of the Supreme Court's decisions since then) should prohibit any of these laws (that either limit abortions or make them more difficult to obtain) from being introduced. Obviously, I understand how those decisions will be important as soon as litigation involving those laws reaches our current Supreme Court, but I don't see why they should prohibit legislators from enacting any law they want concerning abortion.

The Supreme Court is a dynamic and changing institution. Several times before 1865, the Supreme Court ruled that slavery was legal, and that blacks were not US citizens and therefore had no rights in this country (Dred Scott for one). If the Supreme Court could make such a drastic turn around since then, whats to say that in 5, 10, or 20 years they couldn't make such a turn around concerning abortion?

Personally, because the Supreme Court has proven to be anything but consistent, I don't see Roe V Wade nor any of their decisions since then as valid reasons to not enact these laws. If the Supreme Court, whoever they may be at the time they actually hear the case, decides to shoot that law down, so be it. Give it another 5 years. There were failed attempts to make slavery illegal before and after Dred Scott with the Supreme Court siding with slave owners, and there were even court rulings here and there in favor of slavery after 1865.

If any arbitrary Supreme Court ruling is a valid reason to forever cease any group's efforts to further their unique cause, all efforts to make slavery illegal should have stopped after Dred Scott or thereabout. But they didn't, because most people, especially those who are passionate about a given cause, realize that the Supreme Court's decisions are never really the final decision. Roe V Wade has not ended the abortion debate.

 

[Ace Emerald]

With all due respect to both of you, Icepick and Myzozoa, I don't think any legislator anywhere purposes to quote-unquote "demonize sex" or "perpetuate misogynistic values". Feel free to provide any evidence to the contrary, but the majority of pro-life legislators probably do have the baby's interest and human rights in mind. They really are not conspiracists out to get women, as the title of this thread and posts like yours seem to imply.

While its nice that they might have good interests at heart, it doesn't mean it's right. I mean, just because I think the something is in the best interest of a person or group doesn't mean we should enact it. Civilized society tends to let mature adult groups decide for themselves what is in their best interest.
Edit: That wasn't ment to be nearly as snarky as it sounds.

 

[mattj]

Oh, I definitely didn't take it as snarky. No worries.

And I'm definitely not arguing that good intentions always make good legislation. But, unless I'm really off base here, it seems the OP, and several other posters are trying to make the claim that Legislators, and plain old everyday people who support abortion support it for devious reasons (anti-women, chauvinism, anti-medicine, etc). For as far as I've ever seen, this is definitely not the case. These people, by and large, really are doing it for the unborn children.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

With all due respect to both of you, Icepick and Myzozoa, I don't think any legislator anywhere purposes to quote-unquote "demonize sex" or "perpetuate misogynistic values". Feel free to provide any evidence to the contrary, but the majority of pro-life legislators probably do have the baby's interest and human rights in mind. They really are not conspiracists out to get women, as the title of this thread and posts like yours seem to imply.

This is a good point. The thread could easily be called "Legislating the Fetus" and pasted into a conservative forum to get the exact opposite response (siding with the baby instead of the mother). Minus the part where he rants about the "morally saint white middle-aged man" stereotype while simultaneously condemning them for being misogynists.

so you would rather you taxes pay for the womans counseling, the mans, the parents, and anyone else who is affected with the arrival of an unplanned/unwanted baby?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Maybe I'm not reading this right, but I think it can be answered by saying that I'd rather not be forced to pay out of pocket for anything regarding someone else's pregnancy.

I don't think emotionally guilting a woman into keeping a fetus she practically or logistically cannot or does not want is a good idea. Most abortion clinics offer counseling, family planning services, and a run-down of a woman's options in the case of pregnancy. That is about as "difficult" as the process should be.

I just want to be clear: I have no problem with any of this stuff. I have a problem with going to jail if I don't pay for it. Pregnancy is literally the most preventable problem in the entire world, why should it be my responsibility unless your life is seriously in danger or some otherwise extreme case?

 

[FlareBlitz]

With all due respect to both of you, Icepick and Myzozoa, I don't think any legislator anywhere purposes to quote-unquote "demonize sex" or "perpetuate misogynistic values".

I would absolutely argue that they propose to demonize sex. The perpetuation of misogyny is more an unintended side effect, but the demonization of sex is really really really blatant. Abstinence-only education, the implicit idea that anyone who needs birth control is slutty or irresponsible...these all contribute to a climate where sexuality cannot be openly discussed in society, leading to shit like teenagers not knowing how to use condoms and using ineffective birth control methods if they use any at all.

For the record, I have sex, and I haven't actually exploded yet, so it's probably not that bad. I think we as a society should stop treating it like a taboo thing and instead treat it as what it is - something that the majority of us do past a certain age.

I just want to be clear: I have no problem with any of this stuff. I have a problem with going to jail if I don't pay for it. Pregnancy is literally the most preventable problem in the entire world, why should it be my responsibility unless your life is seriously in danger or some otherwise extreme case?

You're going to go to jail if you don't pay taxes, yes. That's not something you can avoid if you want to live in a civilized society with a governing legal body.

Realistically speaking, pregnancy is only preventable with access to birth control. A couple who is practically or financially unable to access the most effective mechanisms of birth control are not going to stop having sex - they are simply going to use ineffective birth control methods (like pulling out) and probably end up with an unwanted pregnancy. An unwanted pregnancy costs society far more money than subsidized birth control - so if your goal is to pay as little tax as possible, you would be all for the propogation of free birth control options for women.

 

[az]

No they're not. The vast majority of people who're anti-abortion are pro-guns.

It's all good that we allow people to have guns that kill children after they're born, but, preventing the birth of a fetus is evil... If they wanted to protect lives, they'd want to protect the lives of the born and the unborn alike.

this is a really ignorant post

i think you'll find that the arguments made by people that are pro-guns cite protection as their reasoning, not a desire to charge around shooting people

 

[Gerard]

And I'm definitely not arguing that good intentions always make good legislation. But, unless I'm really off base here, it seems the OP, and several other posters are trying to make the claim that Legislators, and plain old everyday people who support abortion support it for devious reasons (anti-women, chauvinism, anti-medicine, etc). For as far as I've ever seen, this is definitely not the case. These people, by and large, really are doing it for the unborn children.

I don't think all the legislators/pro-lifers do it because of some sort of evil plan against woman (I know most of them do it to save a potential life, even trough sadly this might not be in the best interest of the kid due to the conditions it will be born in), but when you call a woman a slut because of her daring to stand in front of the congress in favor of the pill, saying she should show herself having sex, it only creates an enviroment were doing something to prevent yourself getting in that position will make people judge you like a prostitute

Also, how do you expect those kids to avoid having other kids when they don't know any better, sex-ed is immoral, contraception in for sluts and prostitutes and abortions is murder, what are they supposed to do?