|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:04 pm
Hi all, it's been a while, but this partial birth abortion bullshit roused me a bit... It's bad enough that the "partial birth" abortion ban will strip pregnant women seeking abortions of their rights, but it all strips the rights of ALL pregnant women. "Miscarriage of Justice"Interesting tidbit from the article: "But at least one federal court has said that sending police to a woman's home, taking her into custody while in active labor and near delivery, strapping her legs together and her body down to transport her against her will to a hospital, and then forcing her, without access to counsel or court review to undergo major surgery constituted no violation of her civil rights at all. The rationale? If the state can limit women's access to abortions after viability, it can subject her to the lesser state intrusion of insisting on one method of delivery over another. " *vomits* Article via Prospect
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:00 am
I'll vomit along with you. Of course some lifer's going to argue that they're not the same. They'll only be partially right, but who's to say this can't set a precedent?
I mean, if you can decide if a woman you've never met has to give birth or not - and likely enforce this in some way or another - you can argue that you can also decide HOW the woman is to give birth. You are, after all, responsible for the birth, as you are the one making the decision.
It's scary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:25 am
Vomit^3. They'd be responsible for the birth, but I'm more than willing to bet that they'll take no responsibility for the child once it's born. Still not my president We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. You know, the first part of this sounds an awful lot like a pro-choice sentiment when you take it by itself. We also want children to be welcomed in life, but because their parents wanted it, not because the government said so. Do they really think that every woman will just automatically love her baby as soon as she sees it? Wouldn't it be closer to this goal if the only babies being born are wanted ones? *sigh*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:27 am
That's really nice, since c-sections make it three or four times more likely that the woman will die.
It's rather sad that I'm so bitter that I won't be surprised when they illegalize birth control. It won't surprise me one bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:14 am
YUCK.
It's like women might as well abstain from ALL sex, even sex with the person she loves, even with her ********' HUSBAND, in order to make a statement that
Woman > fetus.
Or all women should become lesbians if they don't want kids. Rather than being treated like breeder/cows.
But like in all things, the MEN will collectively come up with another solution to brow-beat women into their submission.
rape.
If abortion is banned even for the woman's health, what makes ya think they'll allow it for rape circumstances?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:22 pm
Without a right to abortion, women can't have any other rights. This is because a right to abortion is not just the right to terminate a pregnancy, but it is the exemplification of a woman's right to autonomy, to control her own body and make medical decisions concerning her own health without governmental intrusion (something all men are guaranteed).
If it is in the state's better interest to stop her from having an abortion, it can be in the state's better interest to require all pregnant women undergo C-section births, to ban smoking, and drinking alcohol, and then require a specific regimented diet or face child neglect charges and even murder charges in the face of a miscarriage under the claim they are looking out for the fetus. Then the government could extend these bans to all women because all women are pre-pregnant; making it the state's interest to keep her "healthy" as they see fit for the sake of the fetus she could one day have.
It may seem to be a bit of a slippery-slope, but it isn't. Slippery slope draws absurd conclusions from precidents that don't actually support them e.g. allowing gays to marry would permit animal marriages. The precident "consenting adults are allowed to marry" does not extend to animals. Therefore alleging animal marraige is a slippery slope. The precident just doesn't allow for animal marriages.
The precident "women do not get to make medical decisiosn concerning their own bodies if the government has an invested interest in the byproducts of that body" can be extended to all women, pregnant or not, and all decisions they make concerning their consumption of food, drink, drugs, and medicine. In the case of banning abortion the precident set does allow for these abhorrent things, whereas in real slippery slope arguments the precident does not allow it.
There are currently no restraints on how the government can limit women's control over their bodies. Without restraints anything we can imagine would be quite possible, even if we think it currently unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:23 pm
You know, as much as I love my boyfriend and am infatuated with men in general, I DO sometimes wish I could just stop being involved with them and live peacefully with some radical Amazon sisters. I love men, but if birth control and abortion and basic ******** acknowledgements that women are human beings are being eroded.... why bother?
....Anyway, um, Talon, that last post was right-on. Could you perhaps archive that in the Library of Logic somewhere?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:44 pm
Spiral Out That's really nice, since c-sections make it three or four times more likely that the woman will die. It's rather sad that I'm so bitter that I won't be surprised when they illegalize birth control. It won't surprise me one bit. seconded. i won't be surprised no matter what they do anymore. pissed, yes, surprised, no. the ban on second trimester abortions just opened up a whole world of possibilites to the pro-lifers, which is precisely why we NEED a pro-choice president in 2008. King George is on his last term, so he's getting in all the bullshit he can manage before he's gone. not like he gives a ********, he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected next term. and THAT, my friends, is why it's almost always dangerous to elect a president for a second term. let it be noted that i stress the almost. there are some people that can keep their power in check, but as i have little to no faith left in humanity, i automatically assume that any power figure is capable of ANYTHING.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:36 pm
"I'm ecstatic.... It's like someone gave me $1 million and told me, 'Leslee, go shopping.' That's how I feel."
-Leslee Unruh, anti-choice activist and promotor of the South Dakota ban on all abortions. (Los Angeles Times, 4/19/07)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:35 pm
PhaedraMcSpiffy "I'm ecstatic.... It's like someone gave me $1 million and told me, 'Leslee, go shopping.' That's how I feel." -Leslee Unruh, anti-choice activist and promotor of the South Dakota ban on all abortions. (Los Angeles Times, 4/19/07) It's funny that she compared it to something as superficial as shopping. And I agree...Talon, that was very good observation and summary of the article and the present situation with the new ban.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:43 pm
Spiral Out That's really nice, since c-sections make it three or four times more likely that the woman will die. It's rather sad that I'm so bitter that I won't be surprised when they illegalize birth control. It won't surprise me one bit. Even though birth control doesn't kill fertilized eggs, of course! Gotta think of the potential potential beings, too. However, women taking birth control is helpful to men and doesn't stir emotions like abortion, so I doubt its demise will be anytime soon, if ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:02 pm
Individual 171192 Spiral Out That's really nice, since c-sections make it three or four times more likely that the woman will die. It's rather sad that I'm so bitter that I won't be surprised when they illegalize birth control. It won't surprise me one bit. Even though birth control doesn't kill fertilized eggs, of course! Gotta think of the potential potential beings, too. However, women taking birth control is helpful to men and doesn't stir emotions like abortion, so I doubt its demise will be anytime soon, if ever. Well, some forms of birth control, like IUD's, work like the morning after pill and prevent implantation. I bet someday they'll try to get warrants to invade the uterus' of women who have them and remove them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:47 pm
Spiral Out Individual 171192 Spiral Out That's really nice, since c-sections make it three or four times more likely that the woman will die. It's rather sad that I'm so bitter that I won't be surprised when they illegalize birth control. It won't surprise me one bit. Even though birth control doesn't kill fertilized eggs, of course! Gotta think of the potential potential beings, too. However, women taking birth control is helpful to men and doesn't stir emotions like abortion, so I doubt its demise will be anytime soon, if ever. Well, some forms of birth control, like IUD's, work like the morning after pill and prevent implantation. I bet someday they'll try to get warrants to invade the uterus' of women who have them and remove them. I suppose those would be more likely to be banned, but again, doesn't stir emotions in the same way. Unless you're the insane kind of Christian...which there are many of in the US...who happen to be in politics...and are self ("God") serving...AGH! We're ********! Didn't you know? A woman's v****a is property, like a house or a car belonging to her father or the man she might marry. So if the law obtains a warrent to access it, they're just "searching" not "invading!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:20 pm
That's ... wow. Just wow. And ew.
I think my braincells fizzled out, reading that.
And honestly, it makes sense. If they don't give a s**t for whether or not the woman even wants to give birth- and THEY are the ones who get to decide that, then why the hell would they care if they go against the woman's express wishes in delivering it? Or if they violate her bodily integrity in doing so? It's not like they're doing anything new.
Just...
*speechless with fury* stressed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:32 pm
Individual 171192 Didn't you know? A woman's v****a is property, like a house or a car belonging to her father or the man she might marry. So if the law obtains a warrent to access it, they're just "searching" not "invading!" Reminds me of Stephen Colbert saying that your body does not belong to you because if it was your property, you could legally sell it. Also, of all those lifers who go "So if a toddler was sleeping on your sofa and you didn't invite it in you think it's okay to kill it?!" or "So people's children are just their property?!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
