• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

Jimmy Higgins

Well-known member
SCOTUS has agreed to hear an abortion case from Mississippi, a post 15-week abortion ban with virtually no exceptions.

The law is currently grossly unconstitutional, but this will be a test to see what SCOTUS wants to do regarding Roe v Wade and Griswold v Connecticut. The current law as passed and blocked by Federal Courts, ignores the existing SCOTUS rulings, as have dozens (hundreds?) of other state laws trying to impede abortions. It would seem unlikely that this court has picked up this case to spank Mississippi in the ass. So the question is, what direction will they go in (if any)?

Could SCOTUS do a rope-a-dope? Uphold the lower courts, but set a standard for blocking abortions? Simply overrule the lower courts, and themselves, and allow for any restrictions if they find it in the 'best interests of the patient'? Could they Plessy v Ferguson it up and pretend restrictions this tight don't actually inhibit access to abortion? Or just overthrow Roe v Wade altogether?

article said:
"This will be, by far, the most important abortion case the Court will have heard since the Casey decision in 1992," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "If states are allowed to effectively ban abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, as the Mississippi law in this case does, then pregnant women would have a far shorter window in which they could lawfully obtain an abortion than what Roe and Casey currently require."
The other question would become, just how much nuance is needed in such an opinion to shave/overturn Roe v Wade, without destroying the concept of precedence.
 

ideologyhunter

Well-known member
Catholics are about 20% of the U.S. population. Our Supreme Court, which of course is ostensibly representative of the citizens, now has 6 practicing Catholics and a seventh (Gorsuch) who was raised Catholic but is now reportedly Episcopalian. Seven justices who grew up on the teaching that abortion is murder and is a deep moral stain on the republic. Any doubt that they could give full citizenship rights to the fetus?
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Remember when the “centrists” said that progressives were being hysterical about the “unfounded fear” that the right to abortion would ever be at risk?
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
Ahh, the ole Roe v Wade challenge has reignited the Kettle Corn VS Popcorn challange. I'm not sure which way to go for this show but either way, it's gonna be good.
 

Politesse

Sapere aude
Catholics are about 20% of the U.S. population. Our Supreme Court, which of course is ostensibly representative of the citizens, now has 6 practicing Catholics and a seventh (Gorsuch) who was raised Catholic but is now reportedly Episcopalian. Seven justices who grew up on the teaching that abortion is murder and is a deep moral stain on the republic. Any doubt that they could give full citizenship rights to the fetus?

A lot of these folks place considerable importance on precedent, though. They aren't just going to write new law because of religious sympathies. At least, I hope not.
 

ideologyhunter

Well-known member
Comey-Barrett deliberately excluded Roe from the list of bedrock prededents that should be respected and not nullified. The Right has been bitching about what they describe as the illegitimacy of Roe since '73.
 

TomC

Well-known member
Some said it did not matter that Hillary lost.

She was just as bad.

In this particular issue she was not.

I remember this being a common opinion among "leftists" like the ones who regularly posted on Daily Kos.

Oh well. The sanderistas got what they wanted.
Tom
 

Gun Nut

Well-known member
Any doubt that they could give full citizenship rights to the fetus?

That would be interesting. In Colorado, one can use deadly force to stop a kidnapping. Does that mean I can use a knife to cut pregnant people open to free their hostages?
Can I get a social security number with a positive pregnancy test? Why should I have to wait for the test - I should just get a new dependent and SSN every time I have sex. I have some loans to take out and IDs to sell.
 

ideologyhunter

Well-known member
Clearly I haven't thought this through. If fetus = full citizen, then sperm cells are less than full citizens -- say, guest workers? Documented sex workers? There is a path to citizenship; you probably saw it in seventh grade in a filmstrip. I don't know what this makes the ovum. A ward of the court, in protective custody? A stay-at-womb mom? I'm sure the RNC platform will sort this all out. I now feel guilty for all the guest workers I've abused over the years.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Some said it did not matter that Hillary lost.

She was just as bad.

In this particular issue she was not.

I remember this being a common opinion among "leftists" like the ones who regularly posted on Daily Kos.

Oh well. The sanderistas got what they wanted.
Tom

Yes. Let's blame Bernie for Hillary being a terrible wooden candidate with a bunch of war mongering baggage.

Just remembering how we were all told they were “both just as bad” and we were hysterical for saying Roe v. Wade was at risk.
No amount of “Hilary was wooden” addresses that…. Unless you’re saying “she was wooden” is “just as bad” as Trump being president? Are you saying that? If not, that’s a distraction, a red herring.

Moreover - What TomC wrote doesn’t blame Bernie, it merely quotes some of his followers, who said these things loudly and publicly. It’s possible Bernie did not support that. He said he was against Trump. So please don’t pretend it says what it did not say.

The complaint is against the people who did not vote to stop trump because of the stated reason that “they are both just as bad,” and “you’re hysterical if you think Roe v Wade is at risk.”

If the shoe doesn’t fit, stop cramming it on your foot and complaining about the pain.
 

untermensche

Well-known member
I am saying she could not attract independent voters as well as Bernie would have because she was not charming or charismatic and had a lot of war mongering baggage.

She had some areas where she was better than Trump and people on the left like Chomsky urged people to vote for Clinton.

The claim that Bernie Boys decided anything is laughable.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
I am saying she could not attract independent voters as well as Bernie would have because she was not charming or charismatic and had a lot of war mongering baggage.

Still does not address in any way the “They are both just as bad” and “nothing’s going to happen to Roe v. Wade” point that was being discussed.
We don’t need a derail about how you didn’t like Clinton.
 

untermensche

Well-known member
I am saying she could not attract independent voters as well as Bernie would have because she was not charming or charismatic and had a lot of war mongering baggage.

Still does not address in any way the “They are both just as bad” and “nothing’s going to happen to Roe v. Wade” point that was being discussed.
We don’t need a derail about how you didn’t like Clinton.

She won the nomination through corruption.

The idea that Bernie Boys were the problem is nonsense.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
Detritus and rubbish littering this thread under the guise of cynicism & lyrically waxed academics. Yup, I'll fit right in with my high school level education. Don't get it twisted, if it were not for your thoughtfulness the world would be in utter chaos. Thanks for your service.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
(Getting abck to the point)
It sucks that more people didn’t care about stopping Trump. His Supreme court picks are putting Roe v. Wade at risk, to the detriment of humanity.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
Who is to say what is rubbish?

My opinion on that matter may differ from yours.

It differs yes, however, the only difference is my conscious recognition of the dissimilarity between the public's and my personal opinion. Through what eyes did/do you see Hilary. I know neither she nor trump was a threat to Roe V Wade and I know this current case won't do away with abortion. At worse it may lower the amount of time a woman/teen has the option (that's my prediction) but it won't take away the choice entirely and the industry will adjust accordingly while conservatives are pussified (I did not intend to write pacified) by the perceived win.

Hillary wouldn't have been any worse for America than any president in History or Bernie for the matter. I mean what does that even mean in a government with three equally powerful branches? Shit, we had Ronald Reagan, James Polk (Mexico loves him) two Bush's, and a Trump.

Ok I think I had enough drinking while posting. There should be a law against that. Love you bro, go easy on me.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
At worse it may lower the amount of time a woman/teen has the option (that's my prediction) but it won't take away the choice

For women of means. I.e. the wealthy. It won’t take away the choice from them.

It will take away he choice for women without means and for ALL women under 18 whose movement across state lines would now constitute an interstate crime.

entirely and the industry will adjust accordingly while conservatives are pussified (I did not intend to write pacified) by the perceived win.

The industry will adjust for those who are wealthy.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
It’s my opinion that if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned, stating that a woman’s body can be coerced to have her organs operate for the sake of another being, that it is now legal for ANY human to have the use of thier body coerced for any other human who needs it.

If someone needs a kidney, and Newt Gingrich s a match, he **MUST** donate his kidney.
If someone needs bone marrow to live and Marjorie Taylor Greene is a match, she MUST donate, whether the timing is conveninet or not, and as many times as is necessary.

It doesn’t matter if it leaves the donor in a compromised physical state, it does not matter if it will harm your career or your family, or your education. You MUST ALWAYS be a donor whenever another person’s life rides on your donation. Or you are charged with murder.
 

untermensche

Well-known member
Who is to say what is rubbish?

My opinion on that matter may differ from yours.

It differs yes, however, the only difference is my conscious recognition of the dissimilarity between the public's and my personal opinion. Through what eyes did/do you see Hilary. I know neither she nor trump was a threat to Roe V Wade and I know this current case won't do away with abortion. At worse it may lower the amount of time a woman/teen has the option (that's my prediction) but it won't take away the choice entirely and the industry will adjust accordingly while conservatives are pussified (I did not intend to write pacified) by the perceived win.

Hillary wouldn't have been any worse for America than any president in History or Bernie for the matter. I mean what does that even mean in a government with three equally powerful branches? Shit, we had Ronald Reagan, James Polk (Mexico loves him) two Bush's, and a Trump.

Ok I think I had enough drinking while posting. There should be a law against that. Love you bro, go easy on me.

She was no threat to Roe.

Trump paved the way to eliminate it.

Perhaps not with this case entirely.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
At worse it may lower the amount of time a woman/teen has the option (that's my prediction) but it won't take away the choice

For women of means. I.e. the wealthy. It won’t take away the choice from them.

It will take away he choice for women without means and for ALL women under 18 whose movement across state lines would now constitute an interstate crime.

entirely and the industry will adjust accordingly while conservatives are pussified (I did not intend to write pacified) by the perceived win.

The industry will adjust for those who are wealthy.

I feel you on that. I have a question. Why do women do abortions? I'm admittedly ignorant of this choice and why it matters. In my opinion, the reasons are for rape (an unwanted pregnancy) or medical reasons like the doctor found that you may die in the process and they can save you with an abortion.

When I said limit the amount of time I actually meant for anyone outside of the above situations (and similar). I personally disagree with abortions being used for leisure, like a movie ticket for a consumer's consumption.

Edit: And I left off the wealth disparity you mentioned purposefully for now.
Edit2: And I do not mean to accuse all women of using it at leisure. I took my sister to an abortion, and her reason was none of what I mentioned above (which drives my question).
 

Toni

Well-known member
At worse it may lower the amount of time a woman/teen has the option (that's my prediction) but it won't take away the choice

For women of means. I.e. the wealthy. It won’t take away the choice from them.

It will take away he choice for women without means and for ALL women under 18 whose movement across state lines would now constitute an interstate crime.

entirely and the industry will adjust accordingly while conservatives are pussified (I did not intend to write pacified) by the perceived win.

The industry will adjust for those who are wealthy.

My mother in law used to tell me about when she was a young mom in NYC (upper east side, of course) that more than one of her similarly situated young wives made use of the services of an underground abortion provider--who often turned out to be her own ob, moonlighting. Or they simply went to France or elsewhere in Europe.

But poor women or working class women or just middle class women did not easily have such options and so for them, abortion was dangerous and expensive, if it were even possible at all. And too many women died from complications of self induced or quack induced abortions or infections resulting from such attempts.

But what do the lives of women matter?
 

SLD

Well-known member
They will vote to overthrow the entire Roe precedent. It’s over. Women: men now own your uterus.
 

Harry Bosch

Well-known member
It’s my opinion that if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned, stating that a woman’s body can be coerced to have her organs operate for the sake of another being, that it is now legal for ANY human to have the use of thier body coerced for any other human who needs it.

If someone needs a kidney, and Newt Gingrich s a match, he **MUST** donate his kidney.
If someone needs bone marrow to live and Marjorie Taylor Greene is a match, she MUST donate, whether the timing is conveninet or not, and as many times as is necessary.

It doesn’t matter if it leaves the donor in a compromised physical state, it does not matter if it will harm your career or your family, or your education. You MUST ALWAYS be a donor whenever another person’s life rides on your donation. Or you are charged with murder.

Yes. To me, abortion rights has always been about bodily control. A fetus demands a woman's resources. If a woman has no right to control these resources, then men shouldn't have the right to control their resources either. If I need your kidney to live, I should have it whether you agree or not.
 

Harry Bosch

Well-known member
They will vote to overthrow the entire Roe precedent. It’s over. Women: men now own your uterus.

Agreed. It is over. It was over the moment that Trump was elected. It was stunning to see Trump get elected and the fact that a majority of white women voted for him. I do think that this will motivate women to vote the other way more. But our votes count. Hopefully losing bodily control will motivate everyone into voting.
 

untermensche

Well-known member
A strong response from the Supreme Court here, a Court filled with religious fundamentalists, would kill Trumpism.

Just a little too late.
 

Jarhyn

Well-known member
At worse it may lower the amount of time a woman/teen has the option (that's my prediction) but it won't take away the choice

For women of means. I.e. the wealthy. It won’t take away the choice from them.

It will take away he choice for women without means and for ALL women under 18 whose movement across state lines would now constitute an interstate crime.

entirely and the industry will adjust accordingly while conservatives are pussified (I did not intend to write pacified) by the perceived win.

The industry will adjust for those who are wealthy.

Yeah, something tells me that what needs to happen here is that an unreasonably wealthy white girl under the age of 18 needs to have a friend in law enforcement who will testify with her that her family got her an out of state abortion.

That law cannot survive a wealthy white lawsuit
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
I feel you on that. I have a question. Why do women do abortions? I'm admittedly ignorant of this choice and why it matters. In my opinion, the reasons are for rape (an unwanted pregnancy) or medical reasons like the doctor found that you may die in the process and they can save you with an abortion.

I’ll answer this in two parts:
Part 1: why it is none of our business why she does it, and
Part 2: why some women do it.

Part 1: In no other case does society allow the cooption of your body medically for the use of others.

In the case of prison slavery (forced work) people argue strongly that those people’s bodies should not be legally coopted against their will for the benefit of others. They (we) want to end that. In the medical cases, it is ILLEGAL to force a person to use their body to keep another alive. Even a dead person may not have their organ harvested to save the lives of others unless they had given permission. So a dead body has more rights than a woman?

We do not require anyone to donate blood. We do not require anyone to donate a piece of their liver, or a lung, even when the potential donor is directly responsible for the need of the recipient, such as in a car accident or a negligent coal mining operation. In any other case, except those caused by women having sex, the body is inviolate. These people want to say that, “but when women have sex, the public owns their body and we get to say what they do with it, because women have no right, they say, to have sex without turning their body over to us.

It is clear as a society we do NOT condone forcing people to use their body, organs, or even just their blood, for the benefit of any other human against their will. And a woman’s body after she has sex is no different. If she does not want to be a host for another being, there is no moral reason to compel her against her will.


Part 2: Women do it because they have an inherent right to have sex when they want to, and to not be forced to be a parent.

The majority of pregancies that end in abortion - the vast majority - are a product of the right wing’s efforts to make contraception as difficult to acquire as possible. By shutting down clinics, by passing laws that birth control pills must be prescribed by a doctor instead of being available over-the-counter at a pharmacy, by passing laws that exclude it from insurance coverage, and more.

This, by the way, is the proof that “pro-lifers” are not against abortion as the prime directive, they are against women having sex without consequences. That is what they seek to control most, and they are willing to have more abortions if it means they can keep contraceptives away from women. They want sex for women to be as risky as possible. This is shown by their actions - which increase abortions.

So that is the main reason for abortions and the main avenue to reduce them - get the grip of the conservative fingers off of contraceptives. In three studies where long lasting reversible contraceptives are made free and available, abortions were reduced by more than half in the study period. If this were widespread and readily available and strongly advertized, abortions would nearly disappear. The people to blame for this - are not women.

A large number of abortions are sought by women who are married and already have children. They get abortions because the idea of having a sexless marriage is not humane, and sometimes birth control fails (such as when you are taking antibiotics). Some of these women didn’t even really want to have sex, but the social expectations of marriage will pressure them to have sex. Sometimes this is entirely voluntary, as a woman doesn’t really want sex, but does want the closeness it makes with her husband. And again, it should be her right to have sex with her husband or partner without being forced into parenthood. We have the technology to separate these, we are not apes. We can like sex and also know that parenthood is not desired or tenable every time we have sex.

Abortions can be sought because a woman had been unable to get pregnant, and gave up trying, moved in a new direction in life, then, surprise, it happens when it is impossible to reconcile the new direction with the old - a choice is made, and she has the right to make it.


It happens a lot among teens, who do not have the proper education about preventing pregnancy, and who are not in a position for parenthood. Again, blame the right wing for them getting pregnant. The desire for sex is inherently human, but it’s the right wing that is keeping people from the education and means to have sex without pregnancy.

And, of course, there are medically fragile pregnancies, and medically dangerous ones - and any attempt to outlaw abortions makes these women have to fight for their right to terminate it, and lose precious time in safe early pregnancy.

Add to that cases of forced or coerced sex. Those women, for obvious reasons, may not want to continue the pregnancy. They should not have to.

When I said limit the amount of time I actually meant for anyone outside of the above situations (and similar). I personally disagree with abortions being used for leisure, like a movie ticket for a consumer's consumption.

Not your call.
Really, that is none of you business at all.
If you want to police people’s reasons for maintaining their own bodily autonomy, then be prepared to be policed. If men want to have sex “for leisure” then they need their baby-making abilities shut off. Mandatory vasectomies? Are you really wanting that?


Edit: And I left off the wealth disparity you mentioned purposefully for now.
Edit2: And I do not mean to accuse all women of using it at leisure. I took my sister to an abortion, and her reason was none of what I mentioned above (which drives my question).

Be careful of what you are doing when you think “doing it for leisure” is an “accusation.” You are judging them for wanting to be adults who may have sex. Are you an adult who wants to be able to have sex? Are you comfortable with people accusing you of having sex for leisure?

Why are men so keen on telling women that wantinfg sex is bad? Why are men so keen on making sex as risky as possible for women? And why do you think you own our bodies as your vessels and get to tell us what to do or not do with our bodies?
 

ideologyhunter

Well-known member
Well said, Rhea. And a consistent 60% of Americans support having legal abortion and don't want Roe thrown out. They may want restrictions on abortion, but they support it. I question how many of the conservative muckety-mucks really care about the issue. Maybe Pat Buchanan and his ilk, but most of them don't make it a main feature of their public utterance. It's there as an issue because they absolutely have to hold on to the Christian Right voter, or they're doomed. And because they've been adding Catholic justices to SCOTUS for decades now, they finally have a 2/3 Catholic court that could speak on behalf of 40% of the citizenry and tell all of America's women just what the parameters of their autonomy and reproductive choices are. This is fucked. Welcome to Comey Barrett world. Better get a Bible and an ankle-length prairie woman dress.
 

Harry Bosch

Well-known member
Well said, Rhea. And a consistent 60% of Americans support having legal abortion and don't want Roe thrown out. They may want restrictions on abortion, but they support it. I question how many of the conservative muckety-mucks really care about the issue. Maybe Pat Buchanan and his ilk, but most of them don't make it a main feature of their public utterance. It's there as an issue because they absolutely have to hold on to the Christian Right voter, or they're doomed. And because they've been adding Catholic justices to SCOTUS for decades now, they finally have a 2/3 Catholic court that could speak on behalf of 40% of the citizenry and tell all of America's women just what the parameters of their autonomy and reproductive choices are. This is fucked. Welcome to Comey Barrett world. Better get a Bible and an ankle-length prairie woman dress.

Yep. I think that abortion being legal for so long made us complacent. We underestimated how important it is. But not the religious right. They have been laser focused on this issue. Maniacal about it. They stood by their candidates 100% despite all their flaws (Bush and Trump) because they wanted the Roe overturned. The left took it for granted. Hillary and Gore weren't perfect. So, turnout was down for them. Doesn't matter. La la la. Well, maybe if Roe is overturned, the left will be super motivated again and vote vote vote. The religious right is the minority, but they are very powerful because they are united and committed.
 

untermensche

Well-known member
Arguments mean nothing now.

You can't talk somebody out of ending their crusade to end the killing of babies.

Humans survived initially within a group. The more people the better.

There are evolutionary reasons why an ape might be opposed to abortion.
 

untermensche

Well-known member
As Tucker Carlson said: “Your body, your choice.”

Oh wait, that was about the covid vaccine.

For Republican sycophants like Carlson abortion is merely a way to easily attract voters they laugh at. Trump too.

Rich people don't care if the parts of America they don't go to turn into cesspools.

They have their high rise apartment, their huge estate, their country club.

And if they need an abortion they fly to Europe and get one.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Well-known member
Edit2: And I do not mean to accuse all women of using it at leisure.
I could be mistaken, but I feel confident that no woman has ever had an abortion performed for leisurely purposes.

Now if you meant as a form of birth control, it is quite possibly one of the more expensive, invasive, and risky forms of birth control out there. So, almost all women wouldn't do that either.

The actual question to ask is "Where are we supposed to draw the line between the legal weight of your opinion of what another woman is allowed to do with her body?" Is it abortion, birth control, intercourse, sex education?
 

ideologyhunter

Well-known member
I could be mistaken, but I feel confident that no woman has ever had an abortion performed for leisurely purposes.

Wanda Sykes does a bit about this -- "as if" women had abortions casually. "We don't call up our friends and say, 'GIIRRLL! You thinkin' what I'm thinkin'? They're on sale this week."
 

untermensche

Well-known member
The sex drive is the problem.

We could tell people to suppress it. Just say no.

We could have continual and consensual safe sex orgies for young people. I happen to like this idea.

Or we could do our best to get young people to practice safe sex if they can't suppress one of the strongest drives a human has.

And if this drive results in a pregnancy we should have an easy means to end it early and safely.

The so-called "morning after pill" is the best solution. Abortion a secondary less good option.
 

Jarhyn

Well-known member
The sex drive is the problem..


I would posit that the sex drive is not the problem. The problem is the judging of it.

Well, the judging of it and the fact that it is the bait of a biological 'babymaking' trap.

Some people just really love their Naturalistic Fallacy though, and absolutely hate when we disarm any kind of biological trap*.

*Assuming it affects women. If it effects men, it'll be fixed ASAP.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
Thanks, Rhea and others. Those were great answers. I'm terrible at finding the right words most of the time. I don't think leisure was a good choice. I meant something along the lines of abortion having been made available being treated no different from purchasing a can of Pepsi. Well no matter, I have a better understand now.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Thanks, Rhea and others. Those were great answers. I'm terrible at finding the right words most of the time. I don't think leisure was a good choice. I meant something along the lines of abortion having been made available being treated no different from purchasing a can of Pepsi. Well no matter, I have a better understand now.


You’re welcome. Thanks for the thoughtful questions.

For the record, getting a condom is as easy as getting a can of pepsi. So is piercing your ears (or your nipples). You can do many things to your own body as easily as getting a can of pepsi.

It is possible that the disconnect for you comes from years of being taught that you have a right to determine what women do with their bodies. That once they have sex, they are public vessels.

Women will point out, “so what if it’s as easy as getting a pepsi. If you don’t want an abortion/pepsi, don’t get one,” and by that they mean, “can I remind you that this is my body and not yours?”
 

Jarhyn

Well-known member
Thanks, Rhea and others. Those were great answers. I'm terrible at finding the right words most of the time. I don't think leisure was a good choice. I meant something along the lines of abortion having been made available being treated no different from purchasing a can of Pepsi. Well no matter, I have a better understand now.


You’re welcome. Thanks for the thoughtful questions.

For the record, getting a condom is as easy as getting a can of pepsi. So is piercing your ears (or your nipples). You can do many things to your own body as easily as getting a can of pepsi.

It is possible that the disconnect for you comes from years of being taught that you have a right to determine what women do with their bodies. That once they have sex, they are public vessels.

Women will point out, “so what if it’s as easy as getting a pepsi. If you don’t want an abortion/pepsi, don’t get one,” and by that they mean, “can I remind you that this is my body and not yours?”

So, not trying to impugn that Gospel needs 'splaining anymore...

But you do realize that there have been a few threads as of late I've participated in wherein Metaphor, Emily, and a number of other posters have repeatedly deigned to tell people-who-are-not-them what they may do, may not do, must allow to happen, or that they must otherwise accept the vision others (including the unthinking not-people stuff that is "DNA" or mere not-thinking-organs) have for their bodies, rather than their own personal desires... And even bringing up thought-crime style insistence that people are expected to want children, and that their insistence that they don't is not allowed as a motivator for bodily autonomy.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
Thanks, Rhea and others. Those were great answers. I'm terrible at finding the right words most of the time. I don't think leisure was a good choice. I meant something along the lines of abortion having been made available being treated no different from purchasing a can of Pepsi. Well no matter, I have a better understand now.


You’re welcome. Thanks for the thoughtful questions.

For the record, getting a condom is as easy as getting a can of pepsi. So is piercing your ears (or your nipples). You can do many things to your own body as easily as getting a can of pepsi.

It is possible that the disconnect for you comes from years of being taught that you have a right to determine what women do with their bodies. That once they have sex, they are public vessels.

Women will point out, “so what if it’s as easy as getting a pepsi. If you don’t want an abortion/pepsi, don’t get one,” and by that they mean, “can I remind you that this is my body and not yours?”

No, I never felt I had the right to dictate anyone's life for anything. When it comes to abortion I feel the option should be available to all, yet not treated like getting a tattoo. There is just something clearly different about getting an abortion and getting a tattoo.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
It is possible that the disconnect for you comes from years of being taught that you have a right to determine what women do with their bodies. That once they have sex, they are public vessels.

Women will point out, “so what if it’s as easy as getting a pepsi. If you don’t want an abortion/pepsi, don’t get one,” and by that they mean, “can I remind you that this is my body and not yours?”

No, I never felt I had the right to dictate anyone's life for anything. When it comes to abortion I feel the option should be available to all, yet not treated like getting a tattoo. There is just something clearly different about getting an abortion and getting a tattoo.

FOR YOU.

But your comment opens the discussion to why you should get to decide how women treat their own medical procedures.
So I’m curious, why you think that women are not treating their abortions “correctly?”

Isn’t it their body?

This is a calm question of discussion, not an attack. I’m curious why you think you get to say how they treat it? I hope you’re willing to explore this. Do you feel - maybe without knowing it - that their bodies are yours to decide? That you have some ownership of women’s bodies once they’ve had sex? Even when it wasn’t with you, but it’s just some random woman wanting an abortion for reasons you don’t think are legit? “They should not treat it like getting a tattoo.” Why not?

I will point out, as Jimmy did above, that women do not treat it like getting a tattoo, “Hey girl! Let’s go to the abortion shop and get some abortions this weekend! It’ll be great!” I will say that NO woman treats it like that.

So I’m interested to explore why they should care what you think about their abortion attitudes? It’s a medical procedure. It’s not fun. No one does it on a whim.

Some people seem to indicate that the women are not publicly sharing enough of their trauma with others to get social permission for the medical procedure. That they have to cry, or regret, or never do it more than once. That women need this social approval before they should be allowed to have body autonomy - which would not be autonomy at all, it would be ownership.

But the truth is a woman can need this procedure more than once, and it is her choice every time. And she does not need to pass any of your (or anyone’s) attitude tests for it to be perfectly okay for her to have this procedure. She doesn’t owe you an explanation. Because you don’t own her body.
 

Jarhyn

Well-known member
It is possible that the disconnect for you comes from years of being taught that you have a right to determine what women do with their bodies. That once they have sex, they are public vessels.

Women will point out, “so what if it’s as easy as getting a pepsi. If you don’t want an abortion/pepsi, don’t get one,” and by that they mean, “can I remind you that this is my body and not yours?”

No, I never felt I had the right to dictate anyone's life for anything. When it comes to abortion I feel the option should be available to all, yet not treated like getting a tattoo. There is just something clearly different about getting an abortion and getting a tattoo.

FOR YOU.

But your comment opens the discussion to why you should get to decide how women treat their own medical procedures.
So I’m curious, why you think that women are not treating their abortions “correctly?”

Isn’t it their body?

This is a calm question of discussion, not an attack. I’m curious why you think you get to say how they treat it? I hope you’re willing to explore this. Do you feel - maybe without knowing it - that their bodies are yours to decide? That you have some ownership of women’s bodies once they’ve had sex? Even when it wasn’t with you, but it’s just some random woman wanting an abortion for reasons you don’t think are legit? “They should not treat it like getting a tattoo.” Why not?

I will point out, as Jimmy did above, that women do not treat it like getting a tattoo, “Hey girl! Let’s go to the abortion shop and get some abortions this weekend! It’ll be great!” I will say that NO woman treats it like that.

So I’m interested to explore why they should care what you think about their abortion attitudes? It’s a medical procedure. It’s not fun. No one does it on a whim.

Some people seem to indicate that the women are not publicly sharing enough of their trauma with others to get social permission for the medical procedure. That they have to cry, or regret, or never do it more than once. That women need this social approval before they should be allowed to have body autonomy - which would not be autonomy at all, it would be ownership.

But the truth is a woman can need this procedure more than once, and it is her choice every time. And she does not need to pass any of your (or anyone’s) attitude tests for it to be perfectly okay for her to have this procedure. She doesn’t owe you an explanation. Because you don’t own her body.

So, maybe I'm interjecting where I don't belong. Tell me if you feel I am, and I will do my best to understand and see if that reasoning will drive me to agree..

I was born with a penis and testicles. I'll die without at least some subset thereof, if I have anything to say about it. So, I get bodily autonomy. I shouldn't have to apologise for that to anyone.

But, I do get to choose, by choosing to pursue reason, and by reason choosing to pursue my principles, and in my principles choosing to make some manner of personal moral judgement on the conduct and flippancy over what are in my estimation decisions that deserve somber and sober thought.

I have already posed it: I would see myself be one who could carry a child. I would not expect this of anyone, but I would expect people to be somber about ending something alive, though not a person. It's to me too close to killing to allow flippancy about it. I can't respect, I can't hold respect for someone who doesn't take life, it's beginnings and it's endings and decisions between it lightly.

It has nothing to do with the act. I feel the same way about butchering rats for my cats. I feel it about both bats I had to kill. I feel it about the guy whose car I had the barrel of a machine gun leveled at. Just thinking about that last one makes me cry. I'm crying right now about it, happy I didn't have to but terrified in knowing I would have and with some part of me still questioning... because when people behave like that, there's a really unfortunate chance you're about to get exploded on. I don't like talking about that.

The reason I judge? I refuse to accept as a moral person anyone who does not deeply consider every life they have some agency in the starting or ending of, and remember those lives, because flippancy about Life and Death is the realm of sociopathy.

Edit: that said, and in what was a degree of emotion I can't not hold over the subject, it is merely flippancy over such things. I will not judge any decision made except a decision made without consideration, and without a somber heart. Then, I don't think most, if any appreciable number, would ever not think so deeply about what had happened. I also know for a fact that my husband would get an abortion if he got pregnant, and I would support it no matter how much I want to be a parent, because we are not ready and it's his view that his genetics are not appropriate to put into anyone that he could ostensibly claim to hold love for. But that too is a deeply considered decision.

I will admit to caring little for the yellow sac spiders in my house, and killing those fairly freely. I still would rather not have to kill them, but they have bitten my husband a few times in his sleep, and possibly myself as well. Normal insects I care less still about because they are legion, and have evolved to not be particularly attached to individuality as a species. But even so, I still think about it when I kill them, and wish I didn't have to to maintain a clean home.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
So, maybe I'm interjecting where I don't belong. Tell me if you feel I am, and I will do my best to understand and see if that reasoning will drive me to agree..

I was born with a penis and testicles. I'll die without at least some subset thereof, if I have anything to say about it. So, I get bodily autonomy. I shouldn't have to apologise for that to anyone.

But, I do get to choose, by choosing to pursue reason, and by reason choosing to pursue my principles, and in my principles choosing to make some manner of personal moral judgement on the conduct and flippancy over what are in my estimation decisions that deserve somber and sober thought.

To understand, it helps to think about all the times when you did not think it was your responsibility to use your body to help someone not die. This is one way to separate, “I judge other people for what they do with their bodies, and I have a right to do that,” from “It truly is their body and by judging, I am assuming tha they owe me something, and they really don’t.”



I, for example, am a blood donor. I am also a registered marrow donor. I am also a registered organ donor.

It turns out that only a tiny minority of people are blood donors. An even smaller number are registered to donate organs if they die. An even smaller number still have taken marrow donor compatibility tests to get on a registry.


So where are all those pro-lifers? People are dying because there are not enough organ donors. People are dying because they can’t find a match for marrow, since no one will test and dwell on the list - knowing they might get called, and it might be inconvenient.

So let me ask you. Are you flip about that? Do you take it lightly? Are you signed up to save every life that you can save? Do you still have both your kidneys?
How about all the others around you? Do you lose respect for people who won’t sign up? To save a life?

Or is it just women who have had sex whom you judge?

These are some questions you can ponder when you decide if it makes sense for you to think you can get in the heads of people who want to control their own reproduction, with the millions of different motivations that they have.

It is fraught to think you can really know what they are thinking by maing assumptions based on how they process their condition.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Well-known member
Some people seem to indicate that the women are not publicly sharing enough of their trauma with others to get social permission for the medical procedure. That they have to cry,
I know for a stone cold fact, this is true of a lot of women after giving birth to children (that women conceal a lot of post partum depression). Maybe we need to tell people when they can take a pregnancy to term? ;)
 
Top