Men and Abortion

[Madspirit]

Poll question: Men and Abortion

I am not saying that it wouldn't be nice if women discussed their choice with the men in their lives.
I am strictly talking about legalities.

Should men have any official say in whether abortion is legal and available to women?

Lee

[Madspirit]

1. Everyone is voting

...but no one is commenting so I must kick...
Lee

[Proud2BAmurkin]

290. You think we would EVER let women have a say if we were the ones having the abortion?

Never happen. Can't even imagine the possibility and it's almost funny to try. I doubt many DUers male or female can either.
That's why I say "no."

[Triana]

328. Hell No.

NO WAY would that happen.

[RC]

2. Absolutely yes

Some of us believe women should have control over their own bodies. It should be between you and your doctor.

[Madspirit]

4. So...you mean "no"?...n/t

[RC]

14. No, I mean "Yes'.

"Should men have any official say in whether abortion is legal and available to women?"

Some men realize women are competent, rational people who deserve the same autonomy as men. The more voices saying this the better.

[Initech]

3. I'm a guy who thinks that the government shouldn't be making decisions like this

[bryant69]

5. I mean as an absolute right I would say no

I think the ideal situation is for the man to be consulted, though. But obviously there are situations where the man is abusive or not around or any number of reasons where it's not good.

But then again, in an ideal situation women shouldn't have abortions.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Karenina]

34. Ah, then you're saying that women should NOT

have recreational sex as men do... oder?

[bryant69]

44. Neither men nor women should have recreational sex

But I recognize that they probably will.

I don't get the oder comment.

Bryant

[Madspirit]

68. WHAT!!

When I was single I had recreational sex all the time. What the hell Victorian tree did you fall out of? I had it with people I liked, at least but honey, I am no celibate and never will be. You need to toss the romance novels.

I'm also a lesbian and we are the safest group as far as STDs go and pregnancy, for that matter...<g>

...BUT things can happen and I have had an abortion.

Anyway, sex is a good thing, not a bad thing. It doesn't have to be only in a marriage or committed relationships. That's just nonsense. It's always best when accompanied by love but it is still...just a thang...
Lee

[bryant69]

140. People are allowed to do whatever they want, and live by whatever standards they want

that's America.

Bryant

[cgrindley]

155. No, they're not

we have laws against incest, rape, murder, animal abuse, speeding, bigamy, following too closely whilst driving, talking on cellphones in public theaters, identity theft, littering, loitering and so on... and the electorate is free to vote to do whatever it wants, including making amendments to the constitution.

Now, that's America.

[Zhade]

165. Ooooh, so close: EXCEPT WHEN DOING SO VIOLATES SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS.

Contrary to the popular idiotic opinion, rights cannot be legislated away by majority fiat.

I mean, assuming one supports the Constitution and Bill of Rights, of course.

[iverglas]

180. you mean you've noticed

how there aren't laws against eating pizza for breakfast and wearing socks with holes in them?

Or getting tooth fillings or blood transfusions or kidney transplants ... or nose jobs ...

Gosh. There are laws against doing some things. Obviously, there can be laws against doing any things!

Head hurts.

[Zhade]

182. I confess: not sure what you mean.

NT!

[iverglas]

190. I'll just quote you ;)

Contrary to the popular idiotic opinion, rights cannot be legislated away by majority fiat.

The response to "People are allowed to do whatever they want, and live by whatever standards they want" was "No, they're not - we have laws against blah blah blahbety blah blah" and that kind of disingenuousness just makes me want to throttle someone. Over and over and over, as often and as fast as they spout their disingenuous jibber jabber.

It's downright rude, is what it is. Why, if everybody started pretending that people meant something they obviously didn't mean, and wasting everybody's time pretending to reply to things that people plainly never said, there'd be posts all over the place like ... well hmm, like post 124 in this very thread.

;)

[cgrindley]

227. Have you forgotten PROHIBITION?

I mean, really. You're plain wrong on this one. The electorate can do pretty much whatever it wants.

[Thothmes]

229. Oh Contrair

In 1942 we (the Govt) stripped the rights away from almost 200,000 Japanese citizens, Threw them in concentration camps and stripped them of their property. All legislated away by majority fiat.

[Justitia]

294. And that was a GOOD thing??? I consider it a great error & source of shame. -eom

[Karenina]

80. Procreation or abstinence?

Do I read you right?

[bryant69]

144. I was glib earlier

I mean recreational sex within marriage is fine; but sex outside of marriage isn't, by my standards. But i wouldn't dream of imposing my standards on anybody else.

You never did explain that oder comment.

Bryant

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bryant69]

163. I'm a virgin.

And to be more accurate, your phrase should read "So I have to assume you had sex for the first time with the person you married, or your a virgin or you're a hypocrite.

Bryant

[Warren DeMontague]

169. Well, then, at least you're consistent.

I lost my virginity at age 16, which is pretty typical. And I'm damn glad I didn't get married until more than 15 years after that.

[jakem]

246. well, technically...

or you're a virgin...


if we are going to be strict about sex, let's at least be strict about grammar.

[fudge stripe cookays]

302. Now THERE'S a shocker.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

336. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fudge stripe cookays]

342. .

You're quite fond of that reply. Hit a little too close to home, huh?

[Name removed]

352. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RedCappedBandit]

174. ROFL n.t

[Exiled in America]

301. So then, GLTB people shouldn't have sex? Because they can't get married?

Just checking in.....

[uppityperson]

345. No, they are all virgins because they don't have vag/penile intercourse.

See? (OK, that deserves a couple smilies I rarely use) :crazy: :think: :crazy:

[bryant69]

353. That's an entirely different discussion

But I appreciate your attempt to make me out to be a homophobic virgin. I do want to run the gamut.

Bryant

[Exiled in America]

359. I did no such thing. But please respond to post where I give you a detailed, reasoned response.

It's probably the most fair (toward you) thing you're going to find.

As far as my "attempts" to make you out in some way. You said you were a virgin, did you not? I don't remember saying anything negative about that. And then I simply asked you about the implications of the "sex outside of marriage is wrong" idea.

I do note that you dodged the question, but hey that's your right. I'd be more interested in seeing if you're willing to have a thoughtful discussion with someone, as long as that someone (me) treats you respectfully... if you see my lengthly post at the bottom of this chain, you'll see that's what I tried to do.

[WhollyHeretic]

86. 'cause gawd says so?

:rofl:
Sorry, don't think so.

[Madspirit]

95. Just have to say it

I like sex...<g>
Lee

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bryant69]

157. Now that's a strong reaction

Do you think people shouldn't go to church? Wait, we both know the answer to that. Everybody has standards they think people should live by; what makes a fascist is believing you should be able to force other people to live by your standards.

Bryant

[Warren DeMontague]

161. And part of my standards dictate that someone who makes statements like

"men and women shouldn't be having recreational sex" probably has their chastity belt screwed on a little too tight.

[bryant69]

166. So if I wanted to live by your standards I should go get laid at the first opporrunity?

That's what makes America great - I can ignore your standards and you can ignore mine.

Bryant

[Warren DeMontague]

170. No, frankly I don't give a shit what you do.

But, then, I'm not running around saying things like "people who WANT to remain abstinent from sex shouldn't." I don't give a shit, I just want the uber-religious busybodies in our society to mind their own fucking business.

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

175. No, I'm expressing my opinion right back at ya. nt

[bryant69]

207. Than what makes your opinion ok and mine offensive?

Bryant

[Warren DeMontague]

221. My opinion is that it's offensive to make statements on how others "should" run their sex lives.

As long as everybody's a consenting adult.

Or hell, I wouldn't even call it so much "offensive", so much as, in my mind, the mark of an excessively uptight busybody.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to mine. And my opinion is that blanket statements like "men and women shouldn't have recreational sex" or "sex outside of marriage is always wrong" are, well, kind of idiotic and inane.

Of course, given that Theocratic Pinheads in our government are pissing away millions of our tax dollars on wrong-headed, thinly-veiled jesus proseltyzing "abstinence only" classes, there is a political component to all of this, I suppose.

[bryant69]

239. The political compenent comes into play if I support their plans

Otherwise it's just my opinion.

Bryant

[zanne]

231. Your opinion isn't technically "offensive"...

It's just uber right-wing.

[bryant69]

241. I will acknowledge that a lot of right wingers have this opinion

I would also note that the difference is a willingness to enforce it as law. They would like to force their morality in the field of sex on everybody; I would not, and in fact would oppose such a move.

But, in case you hadn't heard, I'm a secret freeper and a traitor to everything DU stands for. It's pretty common knowledge, but I guess there are a few that don't know it.

Bryant

[zanne]

254. I didn't mean to imply you're a "secret freeper"....

Of course, it's everybody's right to decide what they do with their own bodies. It's a very private thing.

[fudge stripe cookays]

304. Actually,

it is pretty common knowledge.

[SarahB]

250. Have you ever had the opportunity?

Being sanctimonious is a lot easier when you have no other options.

[Zhade]

171. You don't know the answer to that. Here's mine: No, I actually DON'T think that.

People should be free to peacefully congregate as they wish. I know, makes it harder to hate atheists when we don't call for banning your churches, but there you go. You were WRONG about my answer.

So yeah, your reply doesn't have fuck-all to do with me.

And of course it's a strong reaction; you're acting as if your choice is somehow respectable or pure. It's just another choice.

[bryant69]

178. See this is where you don't get it

There is a difference between saying what people should do and what people must do. I think people should go to church every sunday but I would never support and would indeed actively oppose any move to force people to go to church.

Do you honestly believe that the world would not be a better place if people like me and all the other religious types decided to give up their religion? I'm not asking you if you would like to force us to, I'm asking you if you thought it would be better if we chose to.

Bryant

[Zhade]

181. The question is an irrelevant strawman, since I never said anything like that.

So, fuck your question - it isn't deserving of an answer, since it's asked dishonestly.

[bryant69]

184. Ok - I guess we'll pretend we haven't discussed this issue many times

Let's change it to something nuetral.

What is the difference between saying

"I think people should not be rude assholes, but in reality you can't stop it legally."

or

"I think people should not smoke, but in reality outlawing smoking would be a huge mistake."

or

"I think people should not have sex out side of marriage, but in reality, you shouldn't legalize people's sex lives."

What makes the third statement offensive, or all they all offensive?

Bryant

[Greyhound]

338. Well I'll answer it. Provided that, in giving up religion, you and your ilk

would also give up the immature belief in some sort of omniscient, omnipotent, super being, the answer is yes, the world would be much better off.

[Warren DeMontague]

156. "Neither men nor women should have recreational sex"

Good Fucking Grief.

Yes. Think about Jesus or the Queen of England, and pray for it to end quickly. :eyes:

[SarahB]

251. No kidding.

Consenting adults who are honest with their partners shouldn't have to consult anyone about their personal business.

[fudge stripe cookays]

305. .

Yes. Think about Jesus or the Queen of England, and pray for it to end quickly.

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[Exiled in America]

308. Ok, I doubt you'll respond to this, but I'm gonna give you a reasoned reply:

I'd urge you to rethink you're absolute declaration that men and women "shouldn't be having recreational sex. You later explain that you believe sex "outside of marriage" is wrong.

I'm also gathering that its likely that you are fairly young (i.e. younger than me, age 30) based your statement that you are a virgin. Now, I could be wrong about that, and its certainly none of my business. But if that's the case and you are younger than me, I'd encourage you to listen to your elder (mostly joking when I say that) for just a second:

I have a concern about your use of the term "recreational" and "marriage." First of all, what do you mean by recreational? Do you mean any sex that is not specifically planned for the purpose of procreation? Would that include sex between two committed people who love each other and want to express their affection while at the same time planning not to get pregnant?

Apparently, no - since later you say recreational sex is fine as long as the people are married.

Ok, but that leads me to me next question. What about committed and loving gay and lesbian couples who are not allowed to get married? Should they simply never have sex for the rest of their lives?

If you believe there is something wrong with GLTB human beings, then I suppose we should stop talking now. That's not a defensible position by any standard, including religious (namely, Christian) standards, as plenty of ministers, theologians and lay people will attest.

If you support equality, then we're back to the question of what GLTB couples are supposed to do about sex if they can't get married.

You see, it seems to me that what you're really trying to say is that people should have sex only when there is love and commitment involved. To you, the easiest way to see that is by talking about marriage. But clearly there are many long term, monogamous, committed loving couples who can not or choose not to get married for a variety of reasons. I don't believe their commitment to each other is sanctified by a "marriage certificate." It is sanctified by their own commitment and their choice.

Having said all that, that's a great notion in theory. In fact, its a good rule of thumb that is usually true. I think generally speaking, sex is best between people where caring and love is involved. But nothing is always true. There are always contexts where this might not be the case. People who have known each other for a while and been friends may decide at some point to have sex, and may never come together in that way again, and both may remember the experience as beautiful and fun (its ok to talk about sex as fun you know - its not trivializing anything.) People who develop crushes on each other may discover they have a very exciting physical attraction without an associated emotional commitment. Pursued responsibly and with sensitivity to the feelings of all involved, that can be a wonderful thing.

If you haven't had sexual experiences yet, with all due respect, you really aren't in a position to comment on it. If you don't want to have sex yourself until you are married, that is fantastic, and I wish you the best. But you have no business talking about what's right for everyone else in the world when you have absolutely NO experience in the matter whatsoever. You don't know how relationships work with sex, you don't know the many different contexts in which sex can occur, you just don't know too much about this.

About the only thing you SHOULD say, is that you believe sex is best when it is handle responsibly and sensibly, with concern of the feelings and needs of a partner and with the basic respect for fellow human beings that should accompany every activity we undertake. You shouldn't go on to stipulate what that means, because you have no experience. But that in and of itself is a good principle that we should ALL follow.

Cheers!

[jpgray]

6. In order to protect the most people, sometimes nice people get screwed over

There's just no way around the need to avoid almost any form of official male say. Rape/incest victims or other women who feel disclosing the pregnancy would be dangerous might be put in serious jeopardy.

[liberal N proud]

7. It is a womans body and haven't us men screwed up enough in this world?

[spoony]

13. "haven't us men screwed up enough..."

speak for yourself, I'm not going to apologise for my gender for crying out loud.

[Solly Mack]

8. Do I get the final say on any medical procedure a man wants or needs?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

248. No, you get one vote on it, out of 200,000,000.

NT

[Orsino]

255. Really? Should we be voting on each other's medical treatments? n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

276. Yes! It would massively benefit America if you did.

More specifically, you should be voting to create some form of national health service, and to make most forms of necessary medical procedure free at point of use, and paid for from general taxation.

[Orsino]

337. This sub-thread concerns specific medical procedures. n/t

[Solly Mack]

256. 200,000,000 people got a vote on the medical procedures you have had?

Do you happen to have a list of how they voted?


Thanks in advance for the list on how all those people voted on your medical procedures.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

274. You'd have to dig through the depths of British law to find out.

There are all sorts of laws governing who can perform what operations in what circumstances, and on whom; I don't have a clue when they were passed, or by which governments, and frankly I don't give a damn, but if you want to look them up then you're welcome to.

All those laws were passed by democratically elected governments.

Most of the most significant ones, I suspect, came in under Clement Atlee's government of 1945-51, which won by 12 million votes to 9 million.

[Solly Mack]

289. No list then. Okies

[Donald Ian Rankin]

309. Can you provide me with a list of all the names of women who've had children in the US

in the last 20 years, please?

Because that's exactly as relevant.

[Solly Mack]

310. Still can't provide that list of people who voted on your medical procedures

Okies

[Donald Ian Rankin]

325. No, I can't list the entire populace of Britain in 1945.

NT

[Solly Mack]

327. LMAO

[iverglas]

331. I'm still waiting to hear *what* the vote was

Did they vote on whether to permit tonsillectomies in the UK? Cataract surgery? Hair replacement?

NOT "who can perform what operations in what circumstances, and on whom". And not who will pay for it.

Whether you may have a medical procedure, performed by a medical practitioner, that you and your practitioner consider to be in your interests.

That's what we're talking about. Not some question invented by you to divert the discussion from what it is.



edit - argh, I'm waiting to hear it, not here it. Good thing to have a proofreader's eye, bad thing not to use it in a timely fashion ...

[JetCityLiberal]

9. No. Never.

Ever. It is a woman's body. Period.

I trust women in general in this world a hell of a lot more than I trust the men in this world, but that's just me.

Our world would be a lot better place if women made all the decisions IMHO. But not to digress, leave the men out of it officially, unofficially.

When men get involved my gut says it is all about control. Period.

Thanks for the poll.

Paul

[iamjoy]

10. No Way

Why not just go back to the days when the man (father, husband, etc) made all of a woman's decisions for her?

[goddess40]

11. men get to decide before they unzip

after it's up to the women as it is her body - my advice to men that don't like abortion - know the woman very well before you have sex with her. (which is good advice for everyone - know who your exchanging bodily fluids with to avoid nasty surprises later on)

[Nederland]

12. Question for those voting No

What principle are you basing your opinion on? Are you saying that if an action/procedure/right only affects a certain group of people that only those people should have a say? Would you extend that principle to other areas too? Would you be willing to say that only African Americans should have a say on issues affecting only African Americans? Would you be willing to say that only people serving in Iraq should have a say on the war? And what about abortion, should women that are post menopausal be excluded from the discussion too?

[Justitia]

19. Physical Self Determination. NO ONE has more control over YOUR body than YOU. -eom

[Nederland]

45. Agreed

But what if we are talking about two bodies, not one? Isn't that the root question at the heart of the debate? And who gets to decide if the fetus has rights--only women, or all of us? Given that we all started out as fetuses, I'm not sure why we all shouldn't get a voice in that decision.

[Justitia]

53. We are not talking about 2 independent bodies. The fetus is not independent. Women are not forced

incubators.

[Nederland]

I would agree

...but many would not. So what are we to say? That those that disagree with our determination of the status of the fetus are just wrong and have no right to voice an opinion? That seems strange...

[Justitia]

65. No one has more control of a woman's body than she herself does. -eom

[DireStrike]

69. That's circular logic.

You dodged his/her question. What if someone else considers the fetus to be a person? Then you're saying that the woman has more control over the fetus' body than the fetus itself.

I agree, the fetus is not a person, but many people don't. Unless they agree, your argument is meaningless.

[Justitia]

73. Yes, a woman has more rights to her own body than the dependent fetus. Clear?

In what instance do you submit YOUR body to the control of another?

[DireStrike]

83. You won't like the answer

...when I permit myself to be jailed.

Yes, I'm avoiding your question because there is no answer fitting all your criteria. There is nothing analogous to abortion.

The question we ask (If I'm understanding and paraphrasing correctly) isn't what your opinion is on the status of a fetus(I'm sure we agree), but rather why your argument makes the question of that opinion irrelevant. I don't see that it does.

[Justitia]

98. Once again, when does the State have medical authority over a prisoner's PERSON?

Is it more clear to indicate "medical"? Incarceration is a means to restrict movement.

They cannot beat you, torture you, withhold medical treatment or subject you to unwanted medical treatment. Prisoners have Body Integrity.

And why the hell are you still comparing WOMEN to PRISONERS?

[DireStrike]

109. You used the phrase "willfully obtuse" downthread

I said somewhere in here that there is no possible good analogy, and asked that nobody therefore read anything into those that are made. And now you chide me for comparing women to prisoners.

Yes, medical is a better definition. Unfortunately it isn't very catchy. My main problem with the "body" line of argument is the visceral objection I felt because of how poorly it is defined. The kind of feeling that sets off peoples' bullshit detectors, and if they are partisan on the other side, just dismiss the rest of the argument.

Let me make it clear that I'm not calling the argument bullshit. I just don't think the "body" statements very strong.

I have to go now, I'll check back later tonight. Take care!

[Justitia]

119. It's really simple. Who has more control over what happens to your body than you? -eom

[AngryAmish]

245. The state gives unwanted medical treatment all the time

Heck they give crazy folks drugs all the time to make them sane - by court order. You are not allowed to hunger strike in prison. They can beat you or kill you if you are a danger to others.

[iverglas]

268. and you've heard of due process too!

they give crazy folks drugs all the time to make them sane - by court order

By court order. Not by a law saying "all crazy folks will be compelled to take medication".

So, as I was just asking, how might due process be applied to determine which pregnant women can be compelled to continue a pregnancy -- to assume serious risks to their life and health, and to forego their liberty -- and which cannot?

Still asking.

And how might due process be applied to determine which fetuses will be subjected to the death penalty?

As for what can be done to you in prison -- some violations of rights and freedoms are justified in the pursuit of state interests, some are not. They can't beat you for no reason, or even sentence you to be beaten.

Just like they can't compel you to carry a pregnancy to term for no reason ... unless they all get together and gang up on you and pass laws that say they can ...

But then, they could all get together and gang up on you and pass laws that say you can be bought and sold, too.

[iverglas]

267. ah, then you've heard of due process

"When I permit myself to be jailed" = when I have done something contrary to the law and the violation of my liberty rights is regarded as justified -- in the pursuit of the clearly compelling societal/state interest in maintaining order and protecting whatever interests may have been adversely affected by your act (other people's property interests or safety, the public interest in unpolluted drinking water, etc. etc.). And when the state alleges that this has occurred, you get all the protections inherent in due process.

So how do you propose that due process be applied to determine when and how women's rights may be violated by prohibiting them from having abortions?

Or conversely -- to determine which fetuses may be "deprived of life" by permitting abortions?

For starters, what might either have them have done wrong to deserve such punishment?

I've always been curious. How's it gonna work?

[Nederland]

257. True but irrelevant

If anyone being forced here it is the fetus, not the woman. The fetus had no choice in the matter at all. The fetus is stuck in the woman's uterus whether it likes it or not, and it is there because of decisions that the woman made of her own free will (unless she was raped of course).

[LostinVA]

230. No, we are talking about one body: a woman's

Nice try, though, slipping that in.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

249. You're missing the point.

*I*, and most DUers, agree with that (at least in the first two trimesters). Many Americans don't. The only way to decide whether the state sides with us or with them is by voting on it.

[Hosnon]

55. That's simply incorrect.

Prostitution is illegal, ingestion of certain drugs is illegal, etc.

Perhaps that is your position but it is not a legal principle.

[Justitia]

64. Prostitution is an act of commerce. Drugs are illegal substances. When can I control YOUR person?

In what instance do I have more control over your physical body than you do?

[Hosnon]

72. Well, if you mean a single individual when you say "no one" then I agree with you.

However, that is not what we are talking about when we discuss laws. No one person ever can make a law in this country.

You, through your representatives, control my body in that I can't sell my body, my body's organs or use drugs.

[iverglas]

122. And if prostitution and drug use are to be illegal

then there must be justification for making them illegal.

Just as is the case for abortion.

Where I'm at, prostitution isn't actually illegal. Soliciting in public for the purposes of prostitution is. This rule is designed to reduce the public nuisance aspect of prostitution, and is considered to be justified on that basis. It doesn't address the exploitation and abuse of women that prostitution constitutes (nope, not interested in argument, just explaining an analogy) and that might provide justification for prohibiting it.

Where I'm at, we'd likely decriminalize drug possession, gradually in any event, if it weren't for political and economic pressure brought to bear from south of our border. You know who you are. There is strong argument that criminalizing drug possession causes more harm than it cures, and thus, given that criminalization is on its face a violation of liberty rights, is not justified.

It may be simplistic to say "my body, my choice" regarding abortion. But if read as shorthand for "it's my body, you have no justification for interfering in what I do with it, therefore it's my choice", it works quite well.

And attempted analogies involving prohibitions on certain other activities involving people's bodies for which there *is* or could be justification are obviously specious.

[Hosnon]

129. Nice analysis on prostitution and drug possession.

I couldn't agree more. It seems you are looking for a amoral reason for abortion being illegal. The best I can provide is the reason that I am wishy-washy on abortion:

There is no consensus as to when the fetus becomes a person. But when the fetus is a person, it has the Constitutional right to life. As a result, we are potentially depriving citizens of life without due process. Because of this I am a unable to commit one hundred percent to the total legalization of abortion (as a fundamental right).

In any event, the idea that laws do not regulate what we do with our bodies is what is specious. And the reason that your expanded version does not work for me is for the reason I stated above: the whole point being that we are not sure when it stops being your body.

[iverglas]

153. nuh uh

It seems you are looking for a amoral reason for abortion being illegal.

A moral reason? No. An amoral reason? Meaning to mean, a reason not relating to morality? That would be it.

Morality doesn't interest me, at least in this context.

I'm looking for a *constitutional* reason for abortion to be illegal/restricted, speaking in the context of constitutional democracies (yours and my Canadian one, similar in most fundamental ways).

Constitutions, in constitutional democracies, set out the rules agreed to by the society, by consensus. Whatever reasons there might be for those rules, in anyone's mind -- pragmatic, moral, religious, whatever -- them's the rules that have been agreed to by all.

And "justification" means reasons for violating the rights set out in those constitutions that are considered to be good and sufficient reasons, according to the rules for determining that, generally developed by the courts that make the decisions.

There is no consensus as to when the fetus becomes a person.

Yes, there most definitely is. Your constitution refers to the rights of persons, and never in the history of your country since that constitution (i.e. its early amendments) was adopted has anyone ever treated a fetus as if it were a person, or even until very recently imagined doing such a thing. In point of fact, no one is actually imagining, let alone suggesting, that this be done now.

The consensus as to when a fetus becomes a person is: at birth. It's really very simple.

As a result, we are potentially depriving citizens of life without due process.

Nope. (And citizenship has precisely bugger all to do with this, I'll say once again. The rights in questin -- life, liberty, privacy if you like -- belong to persons. Not citizens.)

I might ask you what I ask anyone who suggests that "person" (the legal description of "human being", in this context) be somehow redefined to include "fetus" (or embryo or zygote or fertilized ovum ...). How's it gonna work? How's a fetus gonna exercise its right to liberty? How is due process going to be applied (as it must be, in any situation where someone is to be deprived of life) to determine which person, of the fetus and the woman, is killed (by act or omission), in a situation where only one could survive? How can due process ever result in permitting a fetus to be killed for any reason at all, it being blameless? How can due process ever result in a woman dying as a result of pregnancy/delivery after being denied an abortion, she being also entirely blameless?

It just doesn't work. If fetuses have rights, the entire "rights" concept becomes meaningless.

Because of this I am a unable to commit one hundred percent to the total legalization of abortion (as a fundamental right).

But whether you "commit to" the concept is of no relevance. You may not commit to the concept of people charged with crimes being entitled to counsel and fair trials. Who cares? The consensus of your society, as expressed in your constitution, is:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law ... .

and it's as simple as that. There is no way that women can be compelled to endure pregnancy and delivery, things that put her life and health at risk and impair her liberty, with due process of law. None that anyone has ever offered me, anyway, and I've been asking for quite a few years.

In any event, the idea that laws do not regulate what we do with our bodies is what is specious.

Well, I'm sorry, but I think that what's specious is pretending that the message of the slogan is as simplistic as that.

the whole point being that we are not sure when it stops being your body.

I have absolutely no doubt about when it stops being my body. When it's born. Yes, there might be a tiny grey area there, involving what "born" means: between the emergence of the head and the cutting of the cord; but there are tiny grey areas all over life, and we don't make rules to account for them, usually, we make rules to account for the overwhelming majority of areas, which are either black or white.

And in the infinite moments that precede that grey area, it's my body. And if you want to make me do something with it that I don't want to do, you need justification, not moral uncertainty.

[Hosnon]

187. Forgive my minor grammatical error.

Yes, I meant an immoral reason, i.e., a reason having nothing to do with morality.

The consensus as to when a fetus becomes a person is: at birth. It's really very simple.

Not legally:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Roe v. Wade, 93 U.S. 705, 730 (1973).

The same case discusses the lack of consensus in various legal areas.

Nope. (And citizenship has precisely bugger all to do with this, I'll say once again. The rights in questin -- life, liberty, privacy if you like -- belong to persons. Not citizens.)

As "citizen" is a subset of "person", anything that is a citizen is a person.

As to the rest of your response, I have never professed to know the answer. I am simply pointing out the possible legal aspects of a fetus' personhood, or lack thereof.

But whether you "commit to" the concept is of no relevance.

This was merely a statement of my personal situation.

And if you want to make me do something with it that I don't want to do, you need justification, not moral uncertainty.

But whether you believe something is the case does not make it the case. There is the possibility that you are incorrect and that the fetus is a person before birth. In fact, Roe v. Wade is partly based upon the fact that the State has a compelling interest in the life of the fetus at the point of viability, which is far sooner than birth.

Again, I do not claim to know the answer. However, I do claim that there is no definite answer, either way. I do not know when it is a fetus, neither does anyone else. The point is that there is the possibility that abortion deprives a person of life without due process.

[iverglas]

265. so, you've read Roe v. Wade

You quote:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

in purported rebuttal of my statement:

The consensus as to when a fetus becomes a person is: at birth. It's really very simple.

I don't even know how you imagine that what you quoted relates to what I said, let alone rebuts it. I wasn't talking aboaut "when life begins", and in fact the Court said that it was not talking about that either: the question was not before the Court, which is why it did not need to resolve it.

Did you think I hadn't read Roe? I'm not even a USAmerican, and I can recite it; just because it needs to be recited sometimes, not because it settles anything in particular.

Did you miss this part? (emphases mine)

In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth, or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few courts have squarely so held. In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

I really hate to sound snarky -- but quoting a source, particularly one to be taken as authoritative, as if it supports one's position when in fact it does the exact opposite just isn't admissible in civil discourse. And the fact that "the unborn" may have been recognized as having rights that can be exercised only after live birth doesn't really help you, particularly since those rights are property rights and other common law rights, not human rights.

But whether you believe something is the case does not make it the case. There is the possibility that you are incorrect and that the fetus is a person before birth.

Is there a possibility that my cat IS the Queen of Romania, and all of you people who don't believe it have just been mistaken?

We are not talking about FACTS, that can be somehow checked and proved or disproved. We are talking about DEFINITIONS. There is no way that we can "discover" that I am the president of the USA, when I was never a candidate for that office and never held any office that would lead to it -- those being preconditions, criteria that form part of the DEFINITION of "president of the USA".

The exact same is true of "human being". We can only "discover" that something is a human being by verifying/proving that it meets the criteria in the definition of "human being".

My belief about this matter is indeed of no consequence -- except for the fact that it is 100% consistent with the universal human consensus on the matter, that consensus being the determining factor.

Again, I do not claim to know the answer. However, I do claim that there is no definite answer, either way.

Well, I wish you better luck on figuring out whether my cat is the Queen of Romania. Obviously, there can be no definite answer either way.

[Hosnon]

269. Roe resolves the issue based on a right to privacy.

Not deprivation of life without due process (which is the issue that I personally think is important). Because of this, the court does not directly discuss the issue of when life begins, as it is not necessary to its ruling. However, it does not seem to be a stretch of deductive reasoning to say that if life begins at time T then certain legal obligations and rights also begin at time T, specifically, the right to not have one's life deprived without due process of life. And there is no consensus as to when life begins, for which I used the statement by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade to illustrate.

In any event, you claim that there is near universal consensus on when life begins. That is simply not true in the law.

In criminal law, an individual that kills a pregnant mother can be charged with two murders. As the definition of murder requires the death of a human being, it follows by necessity that such a practice does not define "human being-ness" as beginning at birth, but before birth.

The section you quote ends with the Court stating that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense" and this is undoubtedly true (emphasis added). This does not mean that the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in some sense (as is extremely clear in the criminal law context). This statement by the Court is not in conflict with the idea that a fetus could have personhood as it is relates to the Vth and XIVth Amendments (deprivation of life without due process of law).

It is unfortunate that you chose to be snarky, because you are simply not correct in your statement.

As to the rest of your post, if the Court wants to define a fetus as a person owed the protections of the Vth and XIVth Amendments, it need only borrow the definition used in criminal law.

[iverglas]

278. obfuscation

Not deprivation of life without due process (which is the issue that I personally think is important). Because of this, the court does not directly discuss the issue of when life begins, as it is not necessary to its ruling.

Deprivation of *whose* life without due process?

If it had concurred in the view that a fetus is a human being and thus a person under the US Constitution, the issue would unavoidably have been deprivation of life without due process -- the fetus's life.

It didn't address the issue of the deprivation of the woman's life without due process. Red herring. I think it should have, and my own court did, but neither here nor there for this purpose: whether *fetuses* have a right to life.

Because of this, the court does not directly discuss the issue of when life begins, as it is not necessary to its ruling.

"When life begins" was not necesary to its ruling -- but whether a fetus is a person *was* essential to its ruling. And it ruled on that question. As I quoted it doing.

However, it does not seem to be a stretch of deductive reasoning to say that if life begins at time T then certain legal obligations and rights also begin at time T, specifically, the right to not have one's life deprived without due process of life.

Fuddle-duddlery. "If life begins at time T" ... "the right not to have ONE's life". One cannot start out talking about "life" and then purport to reach some conclusion about "one's life" -- the life that a person has the right not to be deprived of.

The right belongs to a person. It doesn't matter a pinch of poop when "life" begins. What matters is when a person exists.

In any event, you claim that there is near universal consensus on when life begins.

I have claimed absolutely no such fucking thing, and I would thank you very much not to misrepresent what I have said as egregiously as this. You truly may not have understood what I said, and how completely unrelated it is to what you said, but I think you can probably cut and paste, and this may help you.

That is simply not true in the law. In criminal law, an individual that kills a pregnant mother can be charged with two murders.

You are arguing in a complete circle. Your law also said until recently that it was illegal to engage in homosexual sexual activity. That law was struck down as unconstitutional; even had it not been (as it wasn't, in previous cases), it would very plainly have been unconstitutional. The courts in a constitutional democracy may be authoritative; that doesn't make them right.

What you have said is true in certain US states and not true in others. It is certainly not true in Canada or in any other part of the world I know of. It is an idiosyncratic, time- and place-specific deviation from normality. It is also a very plain violation of your constitutional guarantee of equal protection ... and dang, I get tired of going over this same ground over and over, but it is instructive nonetheless.

A person who is charged with fetal homicide is being hit with the biggest weapon in the criminal law -- while a person who terminates a pregnancy by a legal abortion suffers no consequence. Little equal protection problem? Little one.

Have legislatures in the US made those laws? Yup. Have courts in the US upheld those laws? Yup. Are legislatures and courts in the US necessarily the wisest and most reliable protectors of rights? Hmm.

As the definition of murder requires the death of a human being, it follows by necessity that such a practice does not define "human being-ness" as beginning at birth, but before birth.

You need to read your laws before you go citing them in support of your arguments. Really. That's an essential, for civil discourse: that you not attempt to mislead your audience, even inadvertently where you could easily have avoided it.

You are arguing that the violation of fundamental human rights may be permissible. You have a responsibility, to the world, not to cite nonexistent "proof" of points you wish to use in support of your argument.

The California Penal Code, for instance, says:

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

So in fact it says the exact opposite of what you just said. That definition of murder does *not* require the death of a human being; it requires the death of a human being or a fetus. So guess whose argument that supports? Not yours.

This does not mean that the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in some sense (as is extremely clear in the criminal law context).

Oh dear, you're wrong, as we have just seen. The precise opposite is extremely clear in the criminal law context. And after I was at some pains -- as was the Court itself -- to explain to you what that does mean: that, in the civil law context, fetuses have certain "rights" -- rights that they will have after birth, and that their ability to exercise after birth will be protected until they are born. If they are *not* born, those rights never exist. If a child inherits a million bucks at birth and then dies the next day, the money goes to its heirs; if the child who is to inherit the money is never born, the money goes to whoever its original owner directed. And those "rights" have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

This statement by the Court is not in conflict with the idea that a fetus could have personhood as it is relates to the Vth and XIVth Amendments (deprivation of life without due process of law).

You missed all this too?? (emphases mine)

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; (n53) in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. (n54)

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
______________________

(53) We are not aware that in the taking of any census under this clause, a fetus has ever been counted.

(54) When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?

There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that, in Texas, the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?

Do you really think there was some doubt in Blackmun J.'s mind as to whether a fetus is a person under the US Constitution?

Are *those* statements just a tad "in conflict with the idea that a fetus could have personhood as it is relates to the Vth and XIVth Amendments" -- given as how they state THE EXACT OPPOSITE?

It is unfortunate that you chose to be snarky, because you are simply not correct in your statement.

Hmm.



Oh, by the way, when you said:

Roe resolves the issue based on a right to privacy.
Not deprivation of life without due process (which is the issue that I personally think is important).

You were technically right. However, the denial of due process itself was the foundation of the decision:

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[LostinVA]

232. Excellent post

[Morgana LaFey]

185. I just want to say

that while iverglas handled this eloquently and perfectly, this kind of thought:

There is no consensus as to when the fetus becomes a person.

sends me STRAIGHT over the top. KaBOOM! :nuke: The only answer is the one iverglas gave: when it's born.

How DARE you even think, for even an instant, that any female human being who is pregnant is worth so fucking little that she and her well-being could POSSIBLY be made subordinate to her fetus, unless she's the one doing it. That's what is abolutely inherent in your line of thinking, the very premise of your comment, the very misogynist premise of your philosophy.

[Hosnon]

193. Let me be clear:

If the fetus is a person, that does not mean that it automatically trumps the interests of the mother. However, it means that the fetus' personhood must be taken into account. In other words, if the fetus is a person and there is no chance of harm coming to the mother, an abortion would deprive the fetus of life without due process of law.

As a side note, I do not appreciate your tone. I've remained civil and you should attempt to do the same.

However, I am interested in one thing. I do not see the inherent misogyny in this line of thinking. Could you explain?

[iverglas]

271. and in what universe would this be true?

I must admit that I'm not perfectly comfortable talking about abortion in terms of the traditional, liberal rights -- life, liberty. I think we have to start thinking about the things raised by Madam Justice Bertha Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada in striking down our abortion law in 1988:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1988/1988rcs1-30/1988rcs1-30.html (emphasis mine)

The question then becomes whether the decision of a woman to terminate her pregnancy falls within this class of protected decisions. I have no doubt that it does. This decision is one that will have profound psychological, economic and social consequences for the pregnant woman. The circumstances giving rise to it can be complex and varied and there may be, and usually are, powerful considerations militating in opposite directions. It is a decision that deeply reflects the way the woman thinks about herself and her relationship to others and to society at large. It is not just a medical decision; it is a profound social and ethical one as well. Her response to it will be the response of the whole person.

It is probably impossible for a man to respond, even imaginatively, to such a dilemma not just because it is outside the realm of his personal experience (although this is, of course, the case) but because he can relate to it only by objectifying it, thereby eliminating the subjective elements of the female psyche which are at the heart of the dilemma. As Noreen Burrows, lecturer in European Law at the University of Glasgow, has pointed out in her essay on "International Law and Human Rights: the Case of Women's Rights", in Human Rights: From Rhetoric to Reality (1986), the history of the struggle for human rights from the eighteenth century on has been the history of men struggling to assert their dignity and common humanity against an overbearing state apparatus. The more recent struggle for women's rights has been a struggle to eliminate discrimination, to achieve a place for women in a man's world, to develop a set of legislative reforms in order to place women in the same position as men (pp. 81-82). It has not been a struggle to define the rights of women in relation to their special place in the societal structure and in relation to the biological distinction between the two sexes. Thus, women's needs and aspirations are only now being translated into protected rights. The right to reproduce or not to reproduce which is in issue in this case is one such right and is properly perceived as an integral part of modern woman's struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being.

But we aren't there yet, so we'll stick to those "first-generation", "negative" rights: the right to life and liberty and not to be deprived thereof without justification.

So -- you say:

In other words, if the fetus is a person and there is no chance of harm coming to the mother, an abortion would deprive the fetus of life without due process of law.

Second things first, and back to my question: in what universe is there "no chance of harm coming to the" woman? (You don't like someone else's tone, I don't like being called a mother, any more than I like being called Miss or Mrs. I'm a woman. I am not defined by my parental or marital status. And the person in question in a pregnancy is not a mother by virtue of that pregnancy.)

There was "no chance of harm coming to" my sister ... until she was 10 hours into labour and everybody realized that all her ultrasounds had somehow failed to detect the size of her fetus's enormous head. Not too many years ago -- and in many places in the world today -- my sister and her fetus would be six feet under right now. As would the woman in the next room to her, who for some reason decided to try to bleed to death from a simple epiosotomy. And as in fact the niece of an African friend of mine is; she died a couple of years later from a post-partum haemorrhage in Cameroun. Not one of them was in any danger from the pregnancy ... until they almost died, or died.

And back to first things -- this "if the fetus is a person".

Do you have difficulty determining whether a table is triangular or square? Whether you are the president of the USA? Whether my cat is the Queen of Romania?

If a fetus does not meet the CRITERIA in the definition of HUMAN BEING, then it is not a human being, and thus not a person in law.

Your statement makes as much sense as me saying IF I am the president of the USA, then that person over there should go to jail for treason for making threats against me. Do you think that, if you were that person, you'd go along with a law based on the possibility that I am the president of the USA -- when I am not, and there is no way that I can be, because I don't meet the criteria for being the president of the USA?

I wonder why you'd think that a pregnant woman would agree that she should be compelled to accept a risk to her life and health, and to forego her liberty, and possibly to die, by a law threatening her with punishment if she did not comply (that's what laws do, of course), because someone else has the entirely fantastical idea that her fetus might be a person?

If someone wants to make a law based on the notion that a fetus IS a person, or prosecute someone under a law prohibiting the killing of persons based on that notion (I mean, if a fetus is a person, then it's homicide, right?), then someone ought to be proving that a fetus is a person.

Until then ...

I do not see the inherent misogyny in this line of thinking. Could you explain?

Gee, I wonder whether it's because the proposal is that WOMEN's rights be violated based on a nonsense that places some other interest, whatever it is, above ours? We've had a lot of that happen to us over history, and we're kind of tired of it.

[Hosnon]

273. Once again, I must apologize for a mistake.

“No chance” was not the proper wording to describe the entirety of the concept (however, it does describe its boundary, i.e., the resulting conclusions apply when there is no chance just as when there is, say, a small chance).

I’ll amend my statement thusly: “If the fetus is a person and there is only a small probability (based on medical experience) of harm coming to the mother, an abortion would tend more to deprive the fetus of life without due process of law.”

Perhaps you could extend the courtesy of attempting to understand what I mean rather than moving forward with an argument based on a strict textual interpretation of my statements. And I apologize for any unintended offense by my use of the term “mother”. I assumed it was an accepted term. Is the acceptable term “pregnant woman”?

If a fetus does not meet the CRITERIA in the definition of HUMAN BEING, then it is not a human being, and thus not a person in law..

This is precisely the crux of the debate, in my opinion. Why is it a foregone conclusion that the a fetus does not meet the criteria? What if it does? And the definition of “person” or life” is a bit more difficult to nail down than “triangle” or “square”. And even more so than “U.S. President”, as that entity has no existence outside of its definition in the Constitution.

Again, reasonable people do not disagree on whether I am the U.S. President. As a result, any action taken with that possibility in mind would be unreasonable. However, reasonable people do agree on whether a fetus (at a particular time) is a person. And I would like to add that I do not know whether a fetus is a person…at any point. However, the issue is unresolved enough so as to at least give us pause to civilly discuss the issue.

Finally, my question regarding the inherent misogyny in this line of thinking was genuine. As I could possibly agree with you, it is in your best interest to answer the question in a less rude manner. After all, I’ve made the step of opening myself up to a new idea, the least I ask is that you present that idea in an amicable way. In specific response to you reply to the question, if there is a interest in another legal person, i.e., the fetus, why should that interest be automatically violated for the interest of the woman? If the other interest exists, I think they should both be considered, neither one automatically trumping the other (although, perhaps the woman’s interest could be the presumption.

[iverglas]

284. so, how much of a chance of death can we compel you to accept?

I’ll amend my statement thusly: “If the fetus is a person and there is only a small probability (based on medical experience) of harm coming to the mother, an abortion would tend more to deprive the fetus of life without due process of law.”

My neighbour needs a bone marrow transplant and will almost certainly die without it. You are the only compatible donor in the known universe. Not very much chance of death involved in the procedure. Does the law compel you to undergo it?

My elderly mother has fallen into the icy St. Lawrence. Her long-ago shoulder injury prevents her from using her arm to stay afloat. She's only four feet from shore, but she can't make it, and will almost certainly die if she does not get out of the water. You are young, healthy, large, and a strong swimmer. Does the law permit me to push you in to rescue her?

Prohibiting an abortion compels a woman to assume a risk to her life and health, and to forego the exercise of her liberty.

Permitting an abortion deprives a fetus of the exercise of its right to life ... if it had such a right.

My sister might have wanted to terminate her pregnancy so she didn't miss tanning season. If she were compelled to continue the pregnancy and died during delivery, her right to life would be violated. Even though the possibility of dying had never entered her head, and she wanted an abortion for the most frivolous of possible reasons.

How does anyone conceivable "balance" these interests -- i.e. apply due process to determine whether the woman's or the fetus's interests prevail -- and reach a conclusion that is in any way a justified violation of either's rights? Dead woman, dead fetus; both are persons with rights, one's rights have been violated to the point of annihilation; neither did anything wrong. ?

Why is it a foregone conclusion that the a fetus does not meet the criteria?

How could anyone entertain the slightest doubt that a fetus does not meet the criteria???

Why do you call the universal consensus of humanity a "foregone conclusion"?

And the definition of “person” (no one is talking about "life") is a bit more difficult to nail down than “triangle” or “square”.

Sez who??? No one ever seems to have had much difficulty in the past. Granted, some tried to exclude others from the definition -- but the exclusions were completely incoherent, and did not survive. They were in no way similar to the line we are discussing, which is simply not incoherent.

However, reasonable people do agree on whether a fetus (at a particular time) is a person.

None that I've ever encountered. Let me quote your Supreme Court again (footnotes to Roe):

53. We are not aware that in the taking of any census under this clause, a fetus has ever been counted.

54. When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?

There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that, in Texas, the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?

Where were all the reasonable people when those laws were being made? Where are they today? Calling for abortion to be dealt with in law on the same basis as homicide? I'm not hearing them ...

However, the issue is unresolved enough so as to at least give us pause to civilly discuss the issue.

Ah, civil discussion. That would be: discussion in which no participant attempts to mislead anyone, or makes assertions for which s/he cannot provide facts and argument in support in an attempt to persuade through emotion or by creating doubt where none can exist ...

In specific response to you reply to the question, if there is a interest in another legal person, i.e., the fetus, why should that interest be automatically violated for the interest of the woman? If the other interest exists, I think they should both be considered, neither one automatically trumping the other (although, perhaps the woman’s interest could be the presumption.

To which all I can say is: when you've established that such things exist, not to mention found a way of fitting them into reality as we know it, and the philosophical and every other infrastructure of our collective lives, please get back to me.

[Morgana LaFey]

335. More misogyny

Since you dont' seem to quite understand what misogyny is -- this article may actually be over your head, but what they hell. Read it and see if something sticks:

What Is Misogyny? http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/misogyny.shtml

Before we address the misogyny, let's address the utter ridiculousness:

“If the fetus is a person and there is only a small probability (based on medical experience) of harm coming to the mother, an abortion would tend more to deprive the fetus of life without due process of law.”

My mother had a little joke she'd say sometimes: If we had some ham we'd have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.

First, the fetus isn't a person. Since you were unwillingnes or inability to follow iverglas's logic, I'll help you out here: the fetus isn't a human being because it isn't outside the woman's body. It doesn't have any separate existence.

Second, as iverglas pointed out rather starkly, women are put at tremendous personal risk when they concieve, endure pregnancy and give birth. There ARE no risk-free pregnancies. Period. Nor is pregnancy GOOD for the woman's health: it takes a toll, even the best and most trouble-free pregnancies. Your "small probability of harm" is a fiction, or more accurately a lie. Please stop with such lies. And we're not even talking about the LIFETIME of RESPONSIBILITY that accrues to she who gives birth, which would also include horrific and neverending heartache for those who give the infants up for adoption.

Since the fetus ISN'T a person (which is really all we need), and since the "small probability of harm" is a flat ass lie, your syllogism fails. Well, it also fails because "due process" is used to sort things out in law enforcement and the judicial system. It has no place here in this discussion.

Does the woman have full rights over her own body or not? If NOT, then she's a slave of the state. Period, end of discussion. She's a brood mare.

You and fascists have a lot in common: Misogyny and Fascism http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/10/misogyny-and-fascism.html

And as for this misogynist nonsense:

In specific response to you reply to the question, if there is a interest in another legal person, i.e., the fetus, why should that interest be automatically violated for the interest of the woman? If the other interest exists, I think they should both be considered, neither one automatically trumping the other (although, perhaps the woman’s interest could be the presumption.

Let me say it again: AS SOON AS you ponder the ridiculous notion of "personhood" for a non-human being, viz. the fetus, you have eroded rights of personhood for the woman carrying that fetus. You have made her a brood mare, a walking incubation machine. You have objectified her to the max, rendered her not fully human.

If you can't see that, Goddess help you 'cause I can't.

[LostinVA]

233. What a bunch of anti-choice talking points

Welcome to Ignore.

[Warren DeMontague]

177. Yeah, well it SHOULD be a legal principle.

Government should get the fuck OUT of the business of telling consenting adults what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Period.

[Hosnon]

191. You'll get no fight out of me here. NT.

[Der Blaue Engel]

22. Only African Americans should have a say about what happens

to their own bodies.

I think the way the question is being viewed may be detracting from the actual point: it's not about women getting to make a decision about women's issues, it's about individual women (since this happens to individual women) getting the final say about their own individual choices about reproduction and their bodies. So ideally, there should be NO ONE with a say about who else gets to have or not have an abortion.

I suspect the OP is not suggesting that women should get to vote on such a decision, because neither men nor women should be able to make a decision about anyone else's body, period.

[Justitia]

27. Bingo. When someone else has dominion over YOUR physical body, it's called slavery. -eom

[Madspirit]

32. Thank-you!

That's how Ruth Bader Ginsberg put it. Women are not chattel. No one owns us or our bodies...not the state, our lover, our god. It's OURS.
Lee

[Der Blaue Engel]

48. Someone give this woman a prize!

All of the arguments about "moral" concerns, "ethical" concerns, etc. obfuscate this simple truth that you just spoke.

[originalpckelly]

67. Yes, it is. What exactly do you call the dominion a mother has over the parasite infesting her?

[Karenina]

106. HER perogative.

And NO ONE ELSE'S.

[originalpckelly]

131. What if it is a person? Have you considered that you might be wrong?

What then?

[Zhade]

150. Until it has a cerebral cortex, it's not a person.

NT!

[originalpckelly]

214. What if your definition is wrong and mine is right?

What if you are wrong you pro-choice fundie?

[Morgana LaFey]

188. You call it PREGNANCY, of course.

Duh!

[Zhade]

149. Scary that this isn't obvious to more people.

NT!

[LostinVA]

234. Exactly! Great point!

[DireStrike]

28. Our society controls peoples' bodies all the time

We have a lot of people in jail. Some of them don't get to vote at all!

[Justitia]

31. Bullshit. Their movements are restricted. We cannot experiment on their BODIES. -eom

[DireStrike]

37. There are limits, but there are measures of control and influence

I'm just saying that the freedom of what to do with your body is not absolute.

I'm pro choice, so I agree that the line should be drawn well past the point of abortion. But there is no societal event that affects ONLY one group, and very few events that affect ONLY one person. Notwithstanding the definition of "person" problems in this case.

Men are not affected as much by any policy regarding abortion, but there still are some consequences. There are plenty of cases where an individual can't partake in an activity but should still be allowed to have a say in policy regarding that activity.

[Justitia]

38. So give me an "acceptable" circumstance when someone else controls YOUR body? -eom

[Nederland]

42. Easy

Drug Use
Prostitution
Vaccination

just to name a few...

[Justitia]

50. Wrong, wrong & wrong. Drugs are objects which are illegal, prostitution is illegal commerce, vacs

are not legally mandated in any state in the nation.

Not ONE of those examples is of the law having MORE control over YOUR body than YOU.

Give me an instance where another person has more legal rights to your physical person than YOU.

[Nederland]

56. Yes they are illegal

That's the point.

If a woman wants to prostitute herself, what business of is it of yours to tell her what she can and cannot do with HER body?

[Justitia]

61. That is commerce. We are talking about who has physical control of what happens to your BODY.

You are trying to muddy the waters.
Give me an instance where YOU would allow ME to determine what happens to YOUR physical person.

[DireStrike]

66. You have a very limited definition of things "happening to your body."

Please define exactly what it takes for something to "happen" to "your body".

I consider incarceration as something that happens to your body.

[Justitia]

71. Is it legal to deny medical care to prisoner's BODIES? Do we experiment on their BODIES?

Their movements are restricted to protect the larger community, the State does not control their physical person.

Your analogy is ridiculous. So women are to be MORE controlled than incarcerated prisoners?

Why the hell aren't we taking their kidneys then?

[DireStrike]

75. no

"So women are to be MORE controlled than incarcerated prisoners?"

No, but that would be what those in favor of making abortion legal think.

Again, can you please try to define what you mean by something "happening to one's body"? I'm guessing you mean something like "insertion or removal of an object under or on the skin." Am I right?

Because that's different than controlling someone's body, in general language. That is a very specific instance of doing something to someone's body, or restricting what they may do with their bodies.

And finally, it doesn't address the issue of whether the fetus is a "person", which is where the real conflict lies. Even if everyone in the country agreed with exactly your meaning of what people should be allowed to do with their bodies, there would still be that problem to deal with. Don't let the framing cloud your understanding of the issue. A frame isn't an argument, it's a quick and dirty way to show the upside of a position.

[Justitia]

91. If you think a fetus is an independent person, that is your opinion, not fact..

Until it is independent of the mother's body, it's "rights" are not equal to hers.

A woman has the ultimate dominion over her own body - no one else.

Please give me an instance where I have more control over your physical future than you do?
Where I can force your body, against your will, to acquiesce to my demands and opinions?

[originalpckelly]

94. "Until it is independent of the mother's body, it's "rights" are not equal to hers."

What proof do you have to support that conclusion? What leads you to believe that is true?

[Justitia]

105. It's HER BODY, duh. You ask the most inane questions. -eom

[originalpckelly]

126. No, what proves that the rights of what's inside and needs to be aborted...

has less rights or rights that are secondary to that of the mother? What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?

[Justitia]

128. Excuse me, do your sperm have rights independent of you? -eom

[originalpckelly]

133. Are my sperm capable of becoming fully grown humans without fertilizing an egg?

No. The abortable, well last time I checked the problem with most abortions is that its going to become a fully grown human and no one wants it around.

[Justitia]

135. Is the fetus capable of becoming fully grown without a woman's body? -eom

[originalpckelly]

136. Does a fetus have the same DNA as its mother?

Last time I checked, for most people, sperm only have half of the same DNA as their producers. Same is true for an unfertilized egg.

[Justitia]

138. So why isn't the fetus independent of the woman's body? -eom

[marions ghost]

198. The mother was here first

She may choose abortion. Or she may not choose abortion. According to her beliefs. That's why it's called choice, the only solution in a divided society. Let each live with her own decision.

While this is a not a preferred form of birth control, nobody should EVER be forced to have a child she does not want and is not prepared to parent. We have too many people in this world already to force women to have children against their will.

Let every child be wanted.

[Hosnon]

100. Um...no. I agree that it is a fact that the fetus is not independent.

However, there is much debate as to when a blob of cells becomes a person. Many people believe that is the moment of conception, others, the moment of viability and still others, birth.

If you have hard facts which can definitely solve this problem, the rest of the world would like to know.

[Justitia]

107. When a fetus becomes a person? That is a matter for OPINION. -eom

[Hosnon]

111. Glad we agree. So you do see that the real argument is over that, right? NT.

[Justitia]

116. Everyone has an opinion. Only I have ultimate physical control of my own body.

That is called Self-Determination, Self-Autonomy, Body Integrity, etc.

Otherwise, we're back to slavery, right? Letting some have more control of others physical bodies than they have themselves?

Why does anyone else's OPINION have more right to my body than I do?

[Hosnon]

123. That may be the case but it misses the point.

If the fetus is a person then it is not your body. And if, as you believe, each person has "ultimate physical control of [his or her] own body" then you have no control over the fetus.

Note: I do not express my opinion as to when a fetus becomes a person (primarily because I do not know).

[Justitia]

134. Egads. The fetus is not independent. Are your internal organs independent?

Since they can be removed from your body and artificially sustained, have they become persons?

Where does the soul reside? If I remove that organ, do you lose your personhood?

This is a matter for opinion, not the law.

[Hosnon]

137. I assume this is in response to my post. (edit: Sorry, it is my browser that is messing up.)

I agree that the fetus is not independent. But it is less clear when it becomes a person. And deprivation of life without due process is certainly a legal matter.

And no, reasonable people do not disagree whether an organ is a person. However, reasonable people do disagree when a fetus becomes a person.

[Justitia]

139. Well, until physical independence can be proven, opinions are moot. -eom

[Hosnon]

141. Huh? The critical characteristic is personhood not physical independence.

Conjoined twins are not physically independent of one another but we consider them two persons.

[Justitia]

142. Again, when a pregnancy becomes a "person" is opinion, not a medical fact. -eom

[Hosnon]

146. Right. Which is why it is the crux of the debate.

Very few people disagree that if the fetus is not a person that it has little to no Constitutional protection. However, if the fetus is a person, it has the Constitutional guarantee of due process with regards to its life.

[Justitia]

Ok, I'll leave that one to the religious clerics. Who also don't own my uterus.

:)

[Hosnon]

151. Alright.

But you do realize that if the fetus is a person that, by your own rule, you have no control over it, right?

[Justitia]

152. Define "person". -eom

[Hosnon]

164. Legally, a person is an entity that cannot be deprived of life without

due process of law (among other things). What is an "entity"? In other words, is a fetus an entity? That is exactly the heart of the debate. If the answer is "yes", then that fetus cannot be aborted. If the answer is "no", then the opposite is true.

[Justitia]

172. These are philosophical ruminations I'm not interested in. If my body is obligated, I get final say

Can I obligate your body in some way, without your consent, but in accordance with my opinions?

[Hosnon]

189. Sigh.

Assume I agree with the notion that if your body is obligated, you get final say. However, that does not mean we agree on the definition of your body.

[Justitia]

192. Wha? So who's body are we talking about? Yours? - eom

[Hosnon]

194. The fetus'. If the fetus is a person, it has a body of its own.

And again, I do not know if the fetus is a person. I'm merely pointing out the implications of an affirmative answer to that question.

[Justitia]

195. If MY body is medically required, MY opinion is the only one that matters.

Or can I medically require YOUR body, against your consent, for my opinion?

If so, I'm taking a kidney, and I'm not kidding. My son is on the transplant list.

Why should my son suffer when YOU can live with only one?

[Hosnon]

196. But that fails to consider the fact that the fetus' body is also medically

required. And the fetus' could agree with you and say that its opinion is the only one that matters.

[Justitia]

200. This is crazy talk. Fetuses have opinions? Have you polled them?

And fetuses opinions trump real, live, grown women?

My son hasn't been a fetus in 24 years, but he is of the opinion that you should share your abundance of kidneys with him. He is young and has his whole life ahead of him. He has more potential than you. I bet I could even get his transplant team to "convince" you that this is what should be done.

Why can't I obligate you to cough up a kidney to save his life? It's not like it will kill you.
And trust me, I'm getting more serious about this question by the minute.

[Hosnon]

204. Of course not. Like many things, it's a legal fiction. However, they are usually

referred to as "interests". And no, the interest of the fetus (assuming it is a person) does not trump that of a live, grown woman.

It must simply be considered along with that of the woman.

I have remained civil in this discussion. Shame on your for failing to do so as well.

[Justitia]

205. Excuse me? You think someone else should have dominion of my body & I'm supposed to be civil?

By the way, I think I've been VERY civil to someone who thinks I should have less control over my body than you do.

Why haven't you answered my question? Why should I not be able to appropriate your kidney for my son if you only need one? My son is a walking, talking, thinking person, no doubt about it.

[Hosnon]

210. Yes I do. Thus is the essence of the free exchange of ideas.

You should not be able to appropriate my kidney for your son because the kidney is my body. Again, reasonable people do not disagree that my kidneys are part of my body. However, reasonable people do disagree whether a fetus (at whatever stage) is a person.

If it is, it is not your body, but its own.

[Justitia]

212. But my opinion says that my son, a person, needs your 2nd kidney more than you. Who decides?

A fetus is inside MY body. Your kidneys are separate entities which can survive without you, indeed, they can belong to someone else.

So why do you have any more control of a kidney you don't even need when a separate person (my son) needs it more than you? My ethical opinion is such that if you are deemed a match, you should be obligated to forgo one kidney.

You'll never know it's missing. Why cannot a separate person ethically lay claim to the extra kidney in your body?

[Hosnon]

213. I do. Because it is my body. My kidneys are separate entities but not entities

as the term is defined in my previous definition of "person".

No reasonable person maintains that a kidney is a person. And personhood is what creates a State interest (via the Vth and XIVth Amendments).

Again, if a fetus is a person, it has certain Constitutional rights. A kidney cannot be a person.

[Justitia]

216. But that's YOUR opinion, not mine. Why doesn't my son's right to life take precedence?

My son is a "person" by any definition.
You don't need two kidneys!
The State has a valid interest in giving him one of YOUR kidneys, his medicare supported dialysis treatment is costing them a bundle!

Your body supplies it's extra kidney, my son goes back to being a productive part of society, and the State no longer pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for his care.

Sorry, but everyone else's interests seem to outweigh your selfish insistence to hang on to an extra kidney.

[Hosnon]

264. Sure, it may be my opinion. It may also be medical fact.

But it's not merely my opinion in a debate where opinions differ widely. And most doctors, I presume, would agree that the organ's of a particular body are a part of that body.

On the issue of whether a fetus (at a particular moment in time) is a person, and therefore a separate body, opinions are all over the place and I wager that there is little consensus among doctors.

In other words, the idea that my kidneys are a part of my body is probably extremely close to being medical fact (there may be a few outliers but there are also outliers in the global climate change "debate"). The idea that a fetus is a part of its mother's body is not nearly as agreed upon.

As to the various interests that are involved in my kidney, I agree that they exist. However, I disagree that they outweigh my interest...as it is beyond a reasonable doubt that my kidneys are a part of my body. The same cannot be said with any degree of certainty regarding a fetus.

[Justitia]

293. Sorry, your ideas about how a fetus is not part of a woman's body seem outlandish, to put it mildly.

I think you are operating from a strong anti-choice ideology & are looking for justification to deny a woman's autonomy.

So, in short, we have NO common ground and further debate is useless.
I will NEVER relinquish the absolute right of a woman to control her own body - NEVER.
The woman will ALWAYS hold dominion over her own body in my eyes, nothing, including a fetus, preempts her natural right.

So, I guess we are done.

[Morgana LaFey]

201. And that's precisely why the fetus can NOT be a person -- by YOUR

statement, you would deprive the mother of the personhood you would give her fetus instead. There's no two ways about this. If one does not have sovereignty over the physical processes and medical procedures and conditions of one's own body, one does not have full personhood. Period. "If a fetus is a person," and in your mind that means the mother has no control over it (hah! but must care for it nonetheless once born), then the woman ceases to be a full person at that point.

The very heart and soul of misogyny. Whatever ideology or theology has informed your "sensibilities" on this issue is misogynist by definition.

[Hosnon]

202. The personhood of the mother does not have to be forfeited for the

fetus to also have personhood. I do not understand why you think I hold that belief. However, if the fetus has personhood, it must be considered along with the personhood of the mother. And I do not disagree that, when the health of the mother is in danger, her interests may very well prevail.

I am in no way advocating denial of the personhood of the mother.

[Morgana LaFey]

333. Of course it does --

The personhood of the mother does not have to be forfeited for the fetus to also have personhood.

Don't be ridiculous. You can't have two personhoods in the same physical body. ONE has to be preeminent.

However, if the fetus has personhood, it must be considered along with the personhood of the mother.

Well, if the fetus has personhood, then we have COMPETING interests, don't we? SOMEONE gets to have better personhood than the other. It's all well and good IF the woman wants the pregnancy and IF the pregnancy proceeds beautifully and IF there is never a medical crisis. and then eventually the fetus becomes a REAL person (at birth) and there's no competition for who has the preeminent (real) personhood -- they both do and since they're now separate, no problem.

But if there is a problem -- a crisis or the desire by the woman NOT to be pregnant -- if the fetus has been granted personhood, then NO abortion could ever happen. You just can't have two competing personhoods in the same body. And that is -- must be -- inherent and inherently understood in the whole notion of granting "personhood" to the fetus at some point before birth.

That means the woman's personhood is subordinate to the fetus's. It just can't be any other way. As soon as you even consider that the fetus MAY ALSO HAVE personhood while firmly esconced within the woman's body, you have ALREADY subordinated her to some other interest, you have ALREADY eroded and degraded HER personhood.

[Zhade]

154. When it attains a working cerebral cortex.

That's my guess.

But even then, the woman ALWAYS has control over her own body - and I'd say the same thing if abortion were 100% illegal. Hell, I'd help women who still wanted to get them.

[Hosnon]

168. Sounds reasonable to me. But I don't know either.

But even if we both agree that the woman always has control over her own body, the fetus, if it is a person (perhaps because it attains a working cerebral cortex), is not her body but the body of a separate person.

[originalpckelly]

70. So a john has sex with commerce?

That's just too fucking weird. No wonder it's illegal.

[Justitia]

76. Willfully obtuse. -eom

[originalpckelly]

93. Actually, I'm having fun at your expense because you're basically contradicting yourself.

Prostitution doesn't hurt anyone so long as it is consensual and the person who's the prostitute, male or female, is doing it of their own choice.

Your current belief is that any ban on abortion would be a malum prohibitum law as well.

Malum prohibitum laws only prohibit something in a particular culture.

Malum in se laws criminalize something that is usually recognized by just nations to be a crime.

[Justitia]

108. Bullshit. I'm saying that a woman has physical control over her own body.

Where is the fucking contradiction in that?

[originalpckelly]

121. Why doesn't a woman have control over her body when it comes to prostitution?

Who are you to tell a woman who she can and cannot sleep with in exchange for money? As long as she pays taxes on the money, it doesn't hurt you in any way.

[Justitia]

127. What's w/the sideline hooker talk? Is sex illegal all of a sudden?

What part of prostitution makes it illegal?

Hint: Sex isn't the illegal part.

And why are we conflating hookers with "all women"? Disturbing.

[Zhade]

160. Because the laws are wrong and based on archaic Puritan bullshit...

...based on conservative nonsense like "consenting adults shouldn't have sex unless they're married"?

[DireStrike]

77. Who the heck names their kid commerce?

Must have been a republican. :evilgrin:

[originalpckelly]

87. Yep, Commerce P. Worthington.

:rofl:

[DireStrike]

101. He hangs out with his friend from Britain

Sir Charge! (Seen the commercials? I actually kinda like that guy, despite myself. Damn accent!)

[Nederland]

258. Yes it is commerce

But regulation of prostitution has never been justified on grounds of regulating commerce, it has always been on the grounds that prostitution is immoral.

[Pithlet]

347. Prostitutes are still free to have sex.

So they still have control over their own bodies.

[DireStrike]

49. see no. 46

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=754982&mesg_id=755519

replied in the wrong place

or no. 42, nederlands' post.

[tyedyeto]

208. Ummmm... first thought is the insurance industry

They control length of hospital stays, what prescriptions you take, etc.

The insurance industry today controls what you and your Doctor can or cannot do to your own body!!!!!

[Justitia]

211. No they don't, they only control what they will PAY for. -eom

[tyedyeto]

215. Do you have the $6000 per day extra to pay for ...

another night in the hospital when your DOCTOR tells you that you should stay another day or two? Do you have the money to pay for the non-generic prescription when your DOCTOR prescribes a brand name because he/she knows of your intolerance to the generic medicine? Do you have any choice in the matter when your insurance company is telling your DOCTOR how he/she is to practice medicine? Do you have a say when your insurance company tells you that because you have feces coming out where urine only is supposed to be, and it is an elective surgery to correct it? This is the insurance industry practicing medicine. Plain and simple.

[DireStrike]

46. Here

It's hard to find an exact analogue to abortion, there is no other case involving another "person" in the same way that abortion involves a fetus. So don't read anything into any comparison.

A quadriplegic judge has the right to discuss and define physical assault, including the finer points of punching and kicking.

edit: oops replied to the wrong message.

[Der Blaue Engel]

40. That's not at all what we're talking about

Their "bodies" are not being controlled in the sense that we are talking about here.

Any debate on this subject becomes absurd, on the level of suggesting we legislate whether a woman can use a tampon or not, or whether certain people should be allowed to urinate. What part of "my body" don't people understand?

[DireStrike]

57. I really can't understand the distinction

There are many laws regulating what people can and can't do with their bodies.

Are you using "body" as a clever euphemism for uterus, or something? Are you talking about things that happen only INSIDE a body?

[Der Blaue Engel]

82. Does a fetus gestate outside the body?

I don't mean to be flippant, but I think you may have answered your own question. I'm not at all trying to be clever or use euphemism. If something happens inside my body, I most emphatically insist that no one has any right to tell me what to do in that regard. Yes.

[DireStrike]

96. Well I wasn't really asking a question to inform myself

I'm just testing and refining this argument. We can all come to better understand what we're talking about when we nail it down to exactly what we mean.

So it ultimately boils down to: "No law should be made that violates the sovereignty of an individual over the contents of his or her body."

You can still restrict what people can DO with their bodies (public masturbation), or at least where and when they do it.

I assume you would legalize things like duels to the death, right? Use of otherwise legal items (inhalants, etc) as drugs? Suicide? Not like the legality of suicide matters, it's just a moral question.

[Der Blaue Engel]

110. We're mostly understanding one another here

Duels to the death? That's not really about one's own body.

I do think what I put into my body and whether I choose to end my life should be no one else's concern, but I have no problem with the regulation of personal activities in public places.

[Nederland]

39. Embedded in that assertion

is the notion that we are talking about a woman's body and ONLY a woman's body. That of course, is the crux of the debate.

[Der Blaue Engel]

79. Mamatoto

Mother and baby are one. Shared flesh. What the mother breathes, the fetus breathes. The same blood runs through both. Who should decide what happens to this unique unit? Who can possibly decide?

We're messing with the most sacred connection in the world when we attempt to step in, decide, legislate, argue about what is best for the mamatoto. You cannot separate them, and you cannot tell me what to do with the potential life that feeds on my cells. You simply cannot. (The law may allow you to interfere, your religion may tell you to do so, but it will be a sacrilege against my body.)

I know I can't make anyone understand this, but I hope some will consider it.

[Nederland]

51. Are you in favor of legalizing prostitution?

Just curious.

(And it's not a rhetorical question, many extreme feminists do favor legalization)

[Madspirit]

54. You missed the poll?

I had a poll about this and actually a LARGE majority of us do think prostitution should be legalized.
Get over trying to control other people's bodies.
Lee

[Nederland]

59. Excellent

It's good to see DU is consistent.

[DireStrike]

63. ok

I agree that prostitution should be legalized. How about these?

public nudity
public masturbation/urination/defacation
suicide
use of otherwise legal substances as drugs, ie. inhalants?

[Der Blaue Engel]

90. Just how many strawmen fit on the head of a pin, anyway?

[Morgana LaFey]

203. Those are BEHAVIORS, not physical/medical conditions

that only can affect women.

You can't analogize with any of those. It's apples and paperclips, for God's sake. And goddamned ignorant and insulting as well.

[Madspirit]

316. Not the same...

I do support people's right to take drugs.

Masturbation/defecation are acts that affect other people who live outside the womb and are exposed to it. (I promise I will have my abortion and pay for a hooker, in private.)

I'm iffy on suicide because I do believe in informed consent and I think a mental illness serious enough to make someone consider this, shows they are not able to make an informed consent. In every single case, including my own, where someone tried to commit suicide and were prevented from it, all were glad later. As I said though, I am iffy on this one. If in one's completely right mind...sure.

...and where I live, in Austin, it is legal for women to go topless. Google it. ...and we have a legal nude beach. I have no problem with naked people. I'm not 14. All I have to do to see a naked person, is strip and look down.

However, public nudity does affect others. What is inside MY body, only affects me. It is not a child. It is a fetus, hooked to my support system and I am not chattel and am not required to be a baby producer or a baby incubator.

Any more ridiculous examples showing much public things being reasons I shouldn't be able to engage in a much private thing?

As I said, I promise to see my hooker, have my abortion and take my drugs, in private.
Lee

[Der Blaue Engel]

85. Extreme. That's an interesting word choice.

I'm one of those "extreme" feminists who is in favor of legalizing the right to do with my own body as I will.

[bemildred]

102. I like it.

I think you put your finger on it.
It's about personal autonomy.
Should parents be required to have children they don't want?
Should children be forced on parents that do not want them?
Does society have a right to force people to have offspring?

[iverglas]

124. I see where you're going with this, and I agree!

NO ONE should have any "official say" about how women exercise their fundamental rights in this regard.

Hurray!

[in_cog_ni_to]

159. The father may get an 'opinion', but that's IT. It's the woman's body, it's the woman who has to

carry it for 9 months, it's the woman who has to actually GIVE BIRTH....not the man. Not ANY man. NO ONE has a 'RIGHT' to tell ME what to do with MY body. Period.

For the AA issue...that is EXACTLY how I deal with issues that matter to THEM. I'm not AA. How the hell do I know what is good for them, matters to them, what they care about, don't care about. It's not my right to tell THEM how to feel/act/care/how to think....

[stevedeshazer]

15. All your choice are belong to the women

I'm a man. I can't bear children. It's your body and your life, my fellow human females. I give it up to you.

I get really sick of the few men I know who think women are property, therefore they have to give rights up to the man's decision. If the situation were reversed, I sure as hell wouldn't defer.

A long time ago, I sold baby clothes over the phone including cotton caps for newborns. The sizes available were XS, S, and M. I noticed that most new moms ordered M, even for a brand new baby. I made the mistake of commenting to the new mom that "all new moms order the biggest size."

Her response?

"Buddy, if you had to deliver this kid, you would never order anything but the biggest size."

Smack. My stupid noggin still smarts from that.

[iverglas]

167. a slogan for the next wave

Maybe the latest generation of "I'm not a feminist but"-ers would warm to that one better.

All my choice are belong to me.

;)

[BlooInBloo]

16. Segregate our society on gender lines! Obviously the only solution!

Did everybody fall out of the crazy tree today, and hit every branch on the way down?

[Madspirit]

20. Crazy Tree

I fell out of that tree a long time ago. I guess if men should have a say about abortions, women should get to decide when and if a man has a vasectomy. Yeah...that would be fair.

...and it was just a question and no one seems to be having any trouble with answering it and answering it is not mandatory. ...and the "nos" are in the lead...whoohoohoo.
Lee

[BlooInBloo]

23. Why stop with gender? No individual should have any say in what anyone else does.

Problem solved.

DU logic is funny.

[Madspirit]

26. We're talking about

Whether they should get to be a deciding vote in whether it's legal or not. I said right in the OP that it would be nice if women discussed it with the man in their lives.
Lee

[BlooInBloo]

33. I'm with ya! Women ONLY should make laws for women. Men ONLY...

... should make laws for men

And the "logic" continues:

Christians ONLY should make laws for christians.

Black folks ONLY should make laws for black folks.

Wall-eyed folks ONLY should make laws for wall-eyed folks.

.
.
.

An individual ONLY should make laws for the individual.

Wonderful DU logic!

[Madspirit]

36. When men get pregnant

They can have a say too.
The race stuff is not an analogy.
Lee

[DireStrike]

41. Actually I'll agree with that

It's proving very difficult, to racists' chagrin, to define a "race" in any biological sense. This is not at all like the vast majority of men and women, who clearly belong to one gender or the other.

However, it COULD be extended to "each individual makes laws for that individual." You can clearly show that every individual is different.

[Hosnon]

58. For once (or twice, but who's counting) I agree with you. NT.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

17. Answer: yes. Legal principles are not gender limited.

The principles of autonomy and privacy are not exclusive to women.

[Madspirit]

21. Then

I get to decide when and if you have a vasectomy. I like it. Yup.
Lee

[DireStrike]

25. how about whether vasectomies are LEGAL

that would be the proper analogy.

[Madspirit]

29. OK

I want to get to decide if vasectomies are legal or not. Oh wait, that right isn't up for whittling on, is it?
Lee

[DireStrike]

30. Unfortunately not

it would be a nice counterpoint to the abortion problem. You started with the analogies though - I'm just keeping everything on track.

[mondo joe]

238. Or more accurately, legislsation regarding such matters is not limited by gender.

And that's the current status anyway.

[DireStrike]

18. Yes.

Men cannot have an abortion, but males can still BE aborted. There is no issue that solely concerns one gender or the other.

[Madspirit]

24. I want

I want to get to decide when and if men get vasectomies. Sounds fair to me. My shears are ready all you "yes" voters. Stand in line....
Lee

[SteelPenguin]

60. As mentioned upthread that's a bad analogy

The analogy would be determining the legality of the procedure itself. IE whether vasecotmies should be legal or not. Men aren't forcing you to have an abortion. Nobody is holding you down and cuting a fetus from you.

Lets talk hypothetical though. If our country didn't just flip right, but decided to go whole hog, and not only made abortion illegal, but contraception as well. A law was put forward to make vasectomies illegal. I would support your right, in that circumstance, to vote on that bill and to have an opinion, because we are part of a society that should be mature enough to participate in a democracy together.

Actually that's a lie. If our society went whole hog chrisian right I'd probably either be dead, in jail, or have fled the country with my family.

[Morgana LaFey]

206. No, that doesn't work because we're talking "force, against one's

will" -- any prohibitions on abortion require the mother to bear a child she doesn't want. If you're not female, you can't fully IMAGINE what horror that amounts to. The only roughly equivalent "force" for men vis a vis vasectomies would be forcing them to get one.

[SteelPenguin]

260. Good point

You're right, that analogy doesn't work either.

How bout this, and obviously we're stretching the hypothetical boundaries here...

What if there was a law that said cancer treatment on men for testicular cancer was legal, and there was a movement, by men and women, to make it illegal to treat testicular cancer. Mostly because these were religious people who believed thanks to their holy book, that diseses of the testes are gods hand at work and shouldn't be blah blah blah.

Not that being pregnant is a disease mind you.

Anyway, this would be a situation with a medical condition that only affects men, where the law currently allows men to choose whether to recieve treatment or not, and the movement was to create a law preventing men from having that option, and if they get testicular cancer, they're pretty much going to have it, whehter they like it or not.

In that circumstance I also don't think that women should be excluded from having a say on that decision, because we're a free society and we're all equals, or supposed to be, and just because women wouldn't be directly affected by the condition, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't be indirectly affected, and even if not, women are not stupid, and should be able to make decisions on topics that don't directly or indirectly affect them, as they do every day.

We're forced constantly by laws to do certain things. Don't do drugs. Don't go over 65. Don't use leaded fuel. Pay your taxes. Yes most things affect everyone equally, but others only affect certain groups, classes, ethnic groups, localities. Some more drastically than others. If we can't all learn and have opinions and a say in everything that occurs in our society then we truly aren't free. That's not the world I want my kids growing up in.

[Der Blaue Engel]

35. To clarify what you mean...

...would you agree with what I posted upthread, that women should not have an official say either about anyone's body but their own?

I think people are missing the point and thinking that this is about segregating legal decisions, or not "letting" men have a say, when what it is about is whether anyone else has the right to decide what is right for another person when it comes to their own bodies.

To paraphrase what I wrote in response to another poll: you stay out of my uterus, and I'll stay out of yours. ;)

[Madspirit]

43. 80% "NO"....Whoohoohoo...n/t

[Colobo]

47. Legalities, no. Opinions, yes.

[Madspirit]

52. I agree!

Absolutely.
Lee

[SteelPenguin]

62. So if there were a law about racial profiling

Say there were a law about letting arab people be racially profiled and taken aside for extra security at airpots. Only arabs, and arab americans, and people who looked like they were. Taken aside, strip searched, analy probed, and usually prevented from flying at all.

Would you say in that case that only Arabs and those who would be affected by that law should be allowed to vote on it?

This is a democracy. Men and women both, should be mature and intelligent enough to vote on all issues, otherwise our system would implode.

[Madspirit]

74. Not a Democracy

Actually we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, thus the Pledge of Allegiance saying..."I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic..."

The racial profiling thing does not hold...isn't a good analogy. A good analogy would be...do I, a woman, get to decide whether vasectomies are legal or not. THAT would be an analogy. ...and no, I shouldn't but hey, it's a given that they are legal and up to the man and abortion should be the same for women. It isn't your damned body.
Lee

[Morgana LaFey]

209. no -- see my post just a bit upthread re vasectomies being legal

as an analogy -- doesn't work that well.

[SteelPenguin]

261. Look

I personally agree that there should be no law about what you can do and not do to your own body, be it a man or a woman. Be it something that only happens to a man or a woman. If you want to do drugs, or have an abortion, or take medicine for your headache it shouldn't be up to anyone but you. Nobody, man, woman or government should tell you what you can and can't do with your body.

I just don't see why some lady in Florida who you've also never met, gets to have a say in your body, while her husband doesn't. They way I see it either neither of them should, or both should.

[ends_dont_justify]

78. Wow....

Everything all about a woman and her body. She shouldn't have the unprotected sex if she doesn't want the kid (in the case of rape, I do agree with abortion though.) Some people seem to think of babies coming out the womb no different than the urine coming out the uterus...it's disgusting. I used to have a fairly open minded view about abortion until I saw some of the shallow, selfish attitude women have. You eat cake, you get fat. You fuck, you have a baby. Only difference is 10 pounds of lard doesn't have a future worth preserving.

[Hosnon]

81. Let me be the first to say:

Aloha.

:popcorn:

[Forkboy]

84. ...

:popcorn:

[Madspirit]

92. Buh bye now

...and it is my right to be selfish as I want...about MY body...nanana I've had an abortion...nanananananana
Lee

[Colobo]

99. I don't agree with your opinion

but thanks for your input.

[Sparkly]

114. You sure made the point about why it's nobody else's choice.

Sure would hate for decisions to be made and imposed on women by people who think like that.

[Kool Kitty]

225. Urine doesn't come out of the uterus.

[LostinVA]

235. Oh frigging boy

[LostinVA]

236. Also, take a human anatomy class -- urine does NOT come out of the uterus

OH BOY!

[fudge stripe cookays]

307. So those of us who had birth control fail...

are just stupid and selfish since we tried to prevent it and got pregnant anyway?

Kindly go fuck yourself.

[Midlodemocrat]

320. Holy Crap!!! Urine comes out of the uterus? Christ on a cracker

Someone better tell the American Urological Association. They've been poking around the wrong holes for years.



And, your statement about urine is funny, about as ridiculously funny as your post. :eyes:

Here's a Rock. Crawl back under it.

[Madspirit]

89. My Point

My point is, it shouldn't even have to be a law. It should just be a given. A person controls what is done to their own body. I don't get to tell men they should all have vasectomies after their allotted 1.5 children and My abortion should only be up to me. I am not trying to divide the country along gender lines. I am saying that ALL people should get to make the decisions that relate to themselves only.
Lee

[Karenina]

113. You called out the men

MY bet is on 250 posts!!! MINIMUM!!! ;-)

[Madspirit]

115. Ya think? hee...eom

[Karenina]

117. NAHHH!!! Tee-hee!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Hosnon]

199. Gettin' close.

:)

[slackmaster]

97. If you care about the votes of men like me who support reproductive choice

It's in your best interests to allow us to participate in the debate, and to vote on it.

[cgrindley]

103. As voters, yes

otherwise, you are talking about deliberately disenfranchising half of the country's population and that would be utterly and completely unconstitutional.

[Madspirit]

112. My Point

My point was actually not to take anything from anyone. My point was that this shouldn't even be an issue, any more than YOUR vasectomy is an issue. It should be a given, that people control what is done to and with their own bodies. I, of course, would not really divide voting this way. My point is, it shouldn't even be up for a vote, EVER. It should never be someone else's business what any of us do with our bodies.
Lee

[cgrindley]

143. But you know that isn't how the world works

eg ballot measures for medical marijuana, doctor-assisted suicide, or referendums on vaccination programs, laws to control the vaccination of children for school attendance, laws compelling medical tests of immigrants, and so on. There are a million laws out there about what we can and cannot do to our bodies, and gender isn't particularly important in most of them. I think that this issue is one that you're just going to have to accept is the sort of thing that everyone gets to decide for everyone else.

[Zhade]

179. No one - NO FUCKING ONE - gets to decide to take away another's rights.

Learn that lesson. Now.

[cgrindley]

228. Yeah, they do. All. The. Time.

It's pretty damn ordinary. People routinely lose the right to vote due to felony convictions. People are sometimes hospitalized against their will--sometimes even locked up for being sick like the guy with the drug resistant TB. People sometimes simply have certain rights "defined" away from them--eg children cannot vote or exercise any number of constitutionally protected rights. There is a draft to register for. It's illegal to support a variety of organizations. And so on.

And remember, if enough voters felt like it, the Constitution could be amended to replace the comma with a tiny drawing of a panda.

[Hosnon]

262. I'm seeing a big disconnect between what people believe ought to be the

case in this country and what actually is the case.

[Clark2008]

104. No.

And I'm 8 months pregnant with a "surprise" and, yes, my husband and I discussed all options, but the final word was mine. I could not have an abortion, even though she'll strap us. But that's, guess what, MY CHOICE.

[iverglas]

118. misread the damned question

I voted no, imagining for some reason that the question was about men having official say about a woman's abortion.

But that's a subset of my answer, anyhow.

Should ANYONE have any official say in whether abortion is legal and available to women?

NO.

It is NO ONE else's business, be s/he man or woman.

No one should have any official say in what a woman does with her body and life in this regard, any more than anyone should have any official say in what a person of colour does with his/hers in another regard.

There is no voting on whether African-Americans should be slaves. Not even by African-Americans. No subset of African-Americans, no matter how large, gets to decide for any one of them, any more than white voters do. That would be no more tolerable than white voters purporting to make the decision.

The enslavement of people of colour has been ruled right out of the realm of possibility, in the US Constitution, in this instance, and in the minds of decent people everywhere.

Won't it be nice when the same can be said about women and women's rights?

[Madspirit]

125. You Get It!

You really really get it! It shouldn't even be a voting matter. It should be a given. I don't get to tell a man to have or not have, a vasectomy because it's not even a question. Abortion should just be a given.

Whoohoohoo...another person really gets it.
Lee

[iverglas]

130. I bin gettin it fer several decades, sister ;)

And we here in Canada got it collectively nearly 20 years ago, when the restrictive abortion law was struck down by the Supreme Court and never replaced by anything else. And it's just a giddy round of free-for-all abortions, up here, I can tell ya.

:toast:

[Madspirit]

132. We would love to move to Canada

I don't think we are quite as welcome since the Viet Nam war though. : < ...and we don't have the money to move but IF we did, we would be there so fast.
Lee

[Zhade]

183. You know what, I change my answer. You're damned right!

NT!

[blues90]

120. I am a white male which should not matter .

I feel there should be discussion between the man and wife . I feel no man should have a legal or government voice in the matter and also the final decision should the the womens alone , it is after all her body and her life and without a doubt her decision , no one else should have a voice in the matter .

I would certainly not want anyone to decide for me , no way , no how .

[Zhade]

145. No, and I'm a man.

NT!

[in_cog_ni_to]

148. ABSOLUTELY NOT! Not until they have a WOMB.

:grr:

[hyphenate]

162. Perhaps a more revealing set of questions

would have been: YES--and I am a woman; YES--and I am a man; NO--and I am a woman; and NO--and I am a man. But that's good enough for another poll in the future!

[RedCappedBandit]

176. I like this..

I also think that those who don't use drugs shouldn't be able to vote against them :D


(Not really a serious post :silly: )

[nonconformist]

186. No. This is one of those things in life that's just not fair, but it is what it is. nt

[GreenEyedLefty]

197. Neither gender has the monopoly on reason

And since there are two sets of chromosomes involved, I do believe men should have somewhat of a say.

[Madspirit]

219. Idea!!

Then men can carry it some of the time! Okey dokey?
Lee

[suigeneris]

217. I'm for universal equal rights...

...before the law. Voting should be blind to sex. Ergo men have every much to say about abortion as women.

[Madspirit]

218. Wow!

**"...before the law. Voting should be blind to sex. Ergo men have every much to say about abortion as women."**



I didn't know men got pregnant! Oh, you're saying they should be able to decide whether I can have an abortion. That's odd. Why on earth should they be able to decide if I can have an abortion? I don't understand at all. Wow.

Well sorry. I will have one if I want one regardless of what a wombless person thinks about it. In fact, regardless of what anyone thinks about it. My body. My body. My body. My body. ...and NO ONE can stop me.
Lee

[Betty]

237. I don't want another WOMAN deciding for me either

since there are women who are opposed to abortion as well. So maybe we should leave it at each woman gets to decide for herself, and only for herself.

[mondo joe]

243. I can't fathom why your point is lost on so many. Thank you. NT

[Colobo]

220. Can't we all get along and give this debate a rest?

[Warren DeMontague]

222. Here's the solution: Every pregnant person gets to decide about any pregnancy taking place

INSIDE their own body. That's it. That is the extent of the decision making ANYONE is allowed to make.

[SarahB]

252. Logic!

:thumbsup:

[piedmont]

223. Yes. Whether a society values a liberty is determined by the members of that society.

So, indirectly, both women and men have a voice in deciding whether we value abortion enough to keep it legal and safe or whether we'd rather it be criminalized and marginalized. I'm for legal and safe. I also think that no one should decide whether any particular woman can have an abortion at least until the fetus is capable of living outside the mother. My opinion is still somewhat in flux on the period after viability has been reached.

So my answer was yes, and no. Maybe I didn't interpret the question as it was intended?

[LSdemocrat]

224. Other: only to the extent that the right to an abortion implies other fundamental life choices

Legally speaking, the right to an abortion stemmed from other general privacy rights, including the right to use contraception, and has helped lead to court recognition of other fundamental rights. To the extent that the right to an abortion rests on and follows from other general privacy rights, men should have a say, but in terms of specific regulations and required procedures that deal with how the right to an abortion is implemented only women, keeping in mind the input of qualified medical professionals of both genders, should have a say.

[Hepburn]

226. Unless the woman is incapacitated for some reason such as...

illness or injury and cannot speak for herself, then there are NO other circumstances which warrant ANYONE having a says-so over her body...PERIOD!!! It's HER body and her choices and decisions. The govt and everyone else needs to butt the hell out.

JMHO

[noonwitch]

240. It should not be mandated by law.

If they have a good relationship, she will talk to him.

[Smooth Operator]

242. No

end of story.

[AngryAmish]

244. Post-menopausal women do not get a voice in this debate either

In fact, there must be a full physical exam before any person votes. If the person cannot bear children (sterile, tubes tied, too old) then they do not get to vote. We live in a representative democracy so every vote (even at the local level and school board) has a chance of effecting the abortion debate. The primary tool in determining whether or not a person has the franchise is if they can bear young. If not, SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FUCKING FUCKER.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

247. Should women be allowed to vote on whether it's legal for men to murder men?

After all, no women are involved - surely there should be a separate all-men vote on issues like that.

Man A has every bit as much right to decide under what circumstances woman B should be allowed an abortion as woman C does. You may well feel that that amount of right is "none"; I think there's a lot to be said for that position, but if you hold it then whether or not the state should hold it to is, again, as much a matter for men as for women.

It's worth noting that men are, on average, more pro-choice than women are. I suspect that this poll was posted with the intention of advocating "men should stop trying to prevent women having abortions". Actually, if anything, abortion is legal because of men, not in spite of them - left to women alone, the polls suggest it would be more heavily restricted than it is.

I think this is a daft poll, frankly, and I'm horrified at the number of DUers who voted "no".

[bettyellen]

270. i'm horrified you equate abortion with murder...

that said, i do believe men would do a fine job creating laws that would cover the situation. i don;t think they would be biased by a complete lack of empathy- as they prove (and you) themsleves to be on the abortion issue.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

272. You need to rethink most of that.

For one thing, are you aware that men in America are, on average, more pro-choice than women are?

Also, your use of the words "equate" and "prove" suggests that you haven't really thought about what either of them means.

And if you decide that there should be special laws covering men murdering men, voted on only by men, where does it stop - you then get laws covering black or white men murdering black or white men, voted on by only black or white men, and then laws on me murdering you, which only you and I get to vote on.

[bettyellen]

277. we are arguing abortion and mediacal decisions should not be subject to any vote, period

as it restricts a woman's right to self determination.
i merely objected to your odd analogy to murder. i have to say apples and oranges, why'd you choose murder?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

280. Murder is the most extreme example available of an act with no women involved.

I'm agree that abortion (at least in the first two trimesters) should not be subject to government restriction.

However, I think that the fact that abortion should not be restricted is something that *has* to be voted on, like any other decision in a democracy (that's an over simpification - "has to be subject to vote" is closer), as does everything else.

"The law should be this" translates into action as "people should vote for the law to be this", not "people should not be allowed to vote on whether or not the law should be this".

You can't simply say "this is right, therefor it will be the law without being voted on". Whether or not you're right has nothing to do with that - a democracy cannot take right and wrong into account, only votes and laws.

[Madspirit]

285. Democracy?!

Repeating Myself because I'm tired of trying to explain this:


On what Bizarro World is it a Democracy for you to get to stick YOUR nose in MY womb?

I don't get to tell you what to do with your penis or your testicles. I'd like to...but alas, legally only YOU have say about MY body. It doesn't work the other way. Yeah, that's really Democracy.

Besides which, we do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Certain rights are above voting on. They are set aside in a Constitution. Control over one's own body should be one of those. Some of us think it is. I don't want anyone to tell me what I can do with my body. No man, no other woman, no state, no god. People are so dismissive about the "my body" argument and yet it really is the crux. It IS MY body. Keep your nose out of my uterus. Period.
Lee

[Donald Ian Rankin]

311. Yes, democracy.

It's not "bizarro world", it's simple everyday democracy that if the majority agree with something, it becomes law. An inevitable consequence is that if the majority decide to put all the redheads to death, that happens; if you can think of a better form of government, please suggest it.

You're right that you live in a constitutional republic, but wrong that certain rights are above voting on; ammending the constitution juts requires a larger majority.

I am one of the many who are dismissive of the "it's my body" argument, I'm afraid, not because I think that - in the first or second trimesters at any rate - it *isn't* just the woman's body, but because I think whether or not it is is the issue at stake. It's a true statement, but it's a conclusion, not an argument.

"Keep your nose out of my uterus" may well be an argument for voting to make abortion legal on demand (I don't think it's an argument at all, but it will serve in place of one); it is not an argument for arriving at that decision by any means other than a vote, nor could such an argument exist.

[iverglas]

318. I can recommend some reading for you

it is not an argument for arriving at that decision by any means other than a vote, nor could such an argument exist.

You've been presented with the argument, rather cogently, several times.

In a CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERAL DEMOCRACY, individual and minority rights are NOT amenable to vote. Not without violating the very principles of constitutional liberal democracy.

I don't actually know who this person is, but he popped up first on a search for those words:
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0405/ijde/howard.htm (emphasis mine)

The Supreme Court's decisions raise a fundamental question: What is the place of an unelected judiciary in a democracy? There is an inherent tension between two basic principles in a constitutional liberal democracy—accountable government by a democratically elected majority and enforcement of the Constitution even if it requires striking down laws favored by that majority. Judicial review is especially attractive when it reinforces democratic principles such as one person, one vote; free and fair elections; and freedom of speech and press. The rule of law—indeed, the very idea of a constitution—requires that the Constitution be enforced as the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court may err in particular cases. But the Court's role in ensuring the rule of law commands widespread assent among the American people.

A vote that resulted in the violation of individual or minority rights, by law, without justification under the rules of constitutional scrutiny developed by the authoritative courts, would disqualify the society from membership in the family of constitutional liberal democracies.

As would a vote that changed the constitution to permit such violations.

Since we are speaking in the context of constitutional liberal democracies, your suggestion that a constitution can be changed to incorporate permission to violate individual or minority rights arbitrarily simply isn't part of the discussion.

It's not "bizarro world", it's simple everyday democracy that if the majority agree with something, it becomes law.

That may be "simple democracy", but it is not everyday democracy as it is understood and practised in any of our three countries.

[bettyellen]

286. except "all medical decisions" are NOT VOTED ON. that's the point..... singling out women to

beg for approval when it should not be others business.

[iverglas]

295. ah, you brits just don't get it ;)

"The law should be this" translates into action as "people should vote for the law to be this", not "people should not be allowed to vote on whether or not the law should be this".

Not in a constitutional democracy with constitutionalized individual rights it doesn't!

Parliamentary supremacy is indeed the cornerstone of the British tradition. As it is of Canada's. Which is why we had such a battle royal over whether to constitutionalize rights back before 1982.

Making the constitution the supreme law and giving the courts the power to interpret it and override parliamentary choices -- totally contrary to the parliamentary tradition. In that tradition, the people, through their elected representatives, get the last word.

Subjecting rights that were regarded as fundamental, in the late 20th century, to majority rule -- totally contrary to the principles of modern liberal democracy.

Compromise? The Canadian way. Our constitutional charter of rights prevails over federal and provincial laws ... unless ...

Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Only a foolhardy government would, say, try to outlaw gay marriage ... and if we had elected a government that promised to do that, and we rejoiced when it did that instead of throwing the bastards out, well, no fine words on any bit of paper would have stopped it anyhow. Ultimately, might makes victory, if not right. The "notwithstanding clause" is intended as recognition both that Parliament is the final authority on public policy choices and as a tool that could be necessary in extraordinary times or circumstances.

In a liberal democracy, there *are* things that are not subject to vote -- by common consensus, as expressed in a constitution.

And even you folks have an equivalent now: the much maligned "Canadian-style" Human Rights Act.

I'm actually a fan of parliamentary supremacy as a principle, myself, so I like our compromise. I like the recognition that the collective will of the people is what the state is based on. I also like the recognition that individuals have inviolable rights, and that while the state may override them without justification, it does so at its peril and at the peril of the society itself.

What "people should not be allowed to vote on whether or not the law should be this" means, in our context, is people can vote for it all they like, and their representatives can legislate it, but the courts must strike it down and the people and their representatives must abide by what the courts say ... or, in Canada, say "we're not gonna" and make it clear to everyone that what they are doing is contrary to what we have agreed, and we all hope there's danged good reason.

You can't simply say "this is right, therefor it will be the law without being voted on".

We're not. We're saying this has been agreed to, and it is part of the foundation of our society, and that agreement governs.

a democracy cannot take right and wrong into account, only votes and laws.

But no, even where you are -- also constitutions, whether written or unwritten. ;)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

312. A constitution is just another form of law.

Either a constitution can be ammended by a vote with a sufficient majority, or it should be torn up and thrown away.

By all means say "abortion should be one of the sorts of special laws that requires a larger majority to change it"; I think that's a very sensible decision.

But that's a far cry from either "whether or not abortion should be legal on demand should not be ammenable to vote" or "votes on whether or not abortion should be legal on demand should be restriced to women".

[iverglas]

315. and a sausage is just another form of pig ...

Either a constitution can be ammended by a vote with a sufficient majority, or it should be torn up and thrown away.

If you want to talk about amending constitutions, that is a completely and entirely and totally different thing. That's not what you were talking about.

Of course constitutions can be amended.

If a constitution is amended to the point that it is internally incoherent, then it should be torn up and thrown away. It is to be expected that there will be conflicts -- the individual's freedom of speech sometimes conflicts with the state's legitimate interest in public order, e.g.; and a society, usually through its courts, will develop ways of resolving those conflicts. But there is no need to create pointless conflicts or to imagine them when they aren't there, as advocates of laws restricting abortion are doing.

Take Canada's 1982 constitution; section 15 says:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The 1867 constitution, still in effect as well, says:

WNothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union.

Oops. Roman Catholics in Ontario were getting and still get full funding for their schools; Muslims and Jews don't. They want it. The United Nations human rights commission has told Ontario it must provide it. Funding RC schools and not other religions' schools plainly violates the constitutional guarantee of equality ... while not funding RC schools would violate the constitutional guarantee of funding.

RCers got it, in a distant century, because Roman Catholicism was an important element of French Canadian identity, and the constitution itself was the result of a bargain between two collectivities, English and French Canada, and the English and their schools were Protestant. That provision in the constitution was to protect minority rights. The provision was an expression of tolerance and commitment to the value of diversity, not a preference of one group over another.

Today the public schools are religiously neutral, and most RC schools are English. The reason for the preference given to RCers has ceased to exist. That provision of the constitution should be eliminated, and *all* religions that want private schools should have to pay for them themselves. But nobody has the political guts to say that or start the process. And the panderers may just decide to fund other religious schools rather than defund the existing ones.

We're stuck with our little conundrum for the time being. But why would anyone want to go creating constitutional incoherencies where there were none before??


By all means say "abortion should be one of the sorts of special laws that requires a larger majority to change it"

*I* am not saying any such thing, I don't hear anyone else saying any such thing, and frankly I think you're working overtime trying not to grasp what is being said.

The right to life and liberty and not to be deprived thereof without due process (to use the USAmerican phraseology) is what is "special" -- because it is in their constitution.

And any law that violates that right is unconstitutional, no matter how large a majority votes for it.

But that's a far cry from either "whether or not abortion should be legal on demand should not be ammenable to vote"

So cereally now ... how would you be with "whether or not access to the internet should be legal on demand should not be amenable to vote"?

Whether ANYTHING should be ILLEGAL on ANY conditions depends on what the constitution says about it.

Certainly there will always be argument about what a constitution says, and the courts will be the authoritative arbiters of that, even if their decisions are not always "correct". But countries like the US and Canada and the UK have rules that their courts have developed for answering those questions, precisely because it is the constitution, and not the majority, that governs.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

326. I think you're going round in circles.

I don't know whether or not restricting internet access in Canada or the US would require a constitutional amendment, or could be done by an ordinary law.

An amendment can also remove part of a constitution. Vide the 18th and 21st amendments to the US constitution.

If a high enough proportion of the US or Canadian electorate, correctly distributed among the states, wanted to amend their constitution to ban abortion but leave it unchanged inasmuch as it relates to other matters, they could, without making it inconsistent and men would have as much right as women to vote to do so. So far as I can say, none of what you've said contradicts that, and it's not clear to me whether you agree or disagree with it.

[iverglas]

330. well, there's nothing like a blatant assertion to settle an issue

If a high enough proportion of the US or Canadian electorate, correctly distributed among the states, wanted to amend their constitution to ban abortion but leave it unchanged inasmuch as it relates to other matters, they could, without making it inconsistent

Canada has provinces, and your statement is false.

You're talking out your bum, and I'm talking from a very extensive background in constitutional law and history. But your claims about constitutional law and theory are as good as mine, I guess. Especially when I've cited authoritative and reasonable opinion (see post 318) to support mine, and you haven't.

The Supreme Court of Canada, which actually gets to make decisions that are usually binding in this regard, says that a law prohibiting abortion on the terms set out in the Criminal Code violates women's right to life, liberty and security of the person and is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Nobody seems to have any proposal for how such a law could not violate both those rights and the principles of fundamental justice.

So the constitution now prevents Parliament from criminalizing abortion (unless Parliament chooses to override the constitutional guarantee, which, yes, it can do here -- and in that case we'd lose our claim to being a liberal democracy, since we would be legislating to violate the fundamental rights of a segment of our population).

So a constitution that both

(1) banned abortion (that being a bizarre thing for a constitution to do anyway; the constitution doesn't ban murder, for instance)
and
(2) prevented Parliament from criminalizing abortion because to do so was a violation of constitutional rights

would be, well, "incoherent" is the best word I can think of.

men would have as much right as women to vote to do so

Actually, our constitution is amended according to a formula providing for votes by the provinces, the same being true in the US, by the states. Provincial and state governments are, indeed, elected by the people, but it would be quite wrong, in that it would deny the entire nature of a federation, to say that the vote in question is a vote of the people.

So far as I can say, none of what you've said contradicts that, and it's not clear to me whether you agree or disagree with it.

Well, I'm gobsmacked left and right. You can't tell whether I agree that a constitution that contains provisions protecting minority and individual rights can be somehow amended to prohibit abortion?

*Everything* I have said contradicts what you have said. You are making up your own rules, and I am speaking from rules that actually exist. "A constitutional liberal democracy" IS something; the term has a meaning. What you suggest can be done is not something that can be done in a constitutional liberal democracy.

As I said in post 318:

In a CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERAL DEMOCRACY, individual and minority rights are NOT amenable to vote. Not without violating the very principles of constitutional liberal democracy.

Don't rely on my word. Do some reading rather than just farting out uninformed opinions. Seriously. Please.

[hiaasenrocks]

253. Yes. And to prove that the "men shouldn't have a say" argument is nonsensical....

how often do you hear people telling pro-choice men they shouldn't have any say in the legality of abortion? I've never heard it. People only say that to anti-abortion men.

People who use gender in this argument are doing so in order to try to shut down debate, thinking they're playing some trump card. It's a silly argument.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether abortion is legal or not. That issue is never on my radar screen when I'm voting.

Now back to the Iraq posts for me. :)

[Arugula Latte]

259. "I couldn't care less whether abortion is legal or not."

Oh, gee, how nice of you to weigh in. :eyes:

You really don't care if women don't have a right to choose? Basically, you're telling half the population of this country to fuck off and that their civil rights don't concern you.

Why are you here on this board?

[Madspirit]

266. How stupid

That you even bothered to post and thanks for caring about our rights. Really appreciated.
Lee

[Matsubara]

263. Should men have the right to vote? of course they should.

Some women may not like to hear it, but these are the facts.

At present time, a woman's right to terminate her pregancy exists because the decision Roe v. Wade says that the Constitution protects her right to privacy, right?

The constitution can be changed by a supermajority in the congress and ratification by the fifty states.

Every right guaranteed under the constitution is ultimately determined by our votes, and men should of course have the right to vote, as should women.


Another thing that always puzzles me is when pro-choice women start saying "men should have no say in a woman's right to choose", as though it's men who are all up in arms about it.

Form what I've seen, 90% of the fundie loons outside any Planned Parenthood trying to scare girls into keeping their babies are WOMEN.

From the people I know personally, most of the anti-choice ones are WOMEN. Hell, if men didn't have any say in the matter, abortion might be illegal today.


PS - here in J-land, abortion is legal, some women have them, some don't, there is no controversy about it, or "debate" about it on the media. It's just legal, a medical procedure that exists for women who need it. Sounds, kinda... SANE, doesn't it?

Isn't it sad to think of all the time and money that could have been used over the last 30 years for other things, that was instead used in the legal and media battle over this procedure? what a waste.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

275. Men shouldn't be allow to vote...

...but neither should the Jews
...but neither should the Blacks
...but neither should the Asians
...but neither should anybody who disagrees with me

What fucking country do you live in? Democracy is a democracy for everybody, or it's not a democracy for anybody.

[Madspirit]

279. How is THAT democracy

On what Bizarro World is it a Democracy for you to get to stick YOUR nose in MY womb?

I don't get to tell you what to do with your penis or your testicles. I'd like to...but alas, legally only YOU have say about MY body. It doesn't work the other way. Yeah, that's really Democracy.

Besides which, we do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Certain rights are above voting on. They are set aside in a Constitution. Control over one's own body should be one of those. Some of us think it is. I don't want anyone to tell me what I can do with my body. No man, no other woman, no state, no god. People are so dismissive about the "my body" argument and yet it really is the crux. It IS MY body. Keep your nose out of my uterus. Period.
Lee

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

281. Speaking of Bizarro worlds....

Your possession of a womb trumps my rights as a citizen? Tell me, are post-menopausal women allowed to vote in your fantasy world? Should women on birth control have their constitutional rights suspended until such time as they are able to conceive?

And I'm sure I would never want to have my nose anywhere near your uterus, thank you very much.

[Madspirit]

282. It shouldn't be voted on.

It should just be a RIGHT.

...and yes, you evidently DO think you should be allowed to dictate what I can do with my uterus.
Lee

[Madspirit]

288. Canada

This is how it is in Canada, fyi. It's a Right, not a votable thing.
Lee

[Nederland]

296. Yes it should be a RIGHT

And guess what, rights are VOTED on. When the Constitution and the Bill of rights was proposed, the people voted on whether or not to accept them. That's how the process works. Someone proposes a new right, and we ALL vote on whether its a good idea or not. The idea that any individual can propose a right and then cherry pick who they think can vote on it is ridiculous.

[Justitia]

297. You are really wrong about how "rights" & our Constitution work.

I don't have much time, so I'll let others walk you through this more thoroughly.

A few highlights, our "rights" are not voted on, they are retained, granted, recognized.

The Constitution & Bill of Rights was not "voted on", it was ratified - acquaint yourself w/the difference.

No one "proposes new rights", and we don't "ALL" vote on them as good or bad ideas.

And no, your neighbors DO NOT get to vote on your "rights" in a just society, else we would still have slavery. I admit we currently have some glaring examples of injustice that still need to be corrected if we consider ourselves a just society. Our Constitution was never perfect in the original details, but it's intent on this topic is more than clear.

[iverglas]

298. nah, Nederland is just pretending again

Pretending that reproductive rights are "new rights".

Kinda like how the right of Japanese-Americans (and -Canadians) not to be forcibly relocated and in some cases locked up was a "new right" created sometime after WWII.

The right to life and liberty in our respective constitutions, it just isn't/wasn't relevant, according to Nederlander. It doesn't protect women's reproductive rights, and it didn't protect naturalized aliens' right not to be locked up. Lord knows what happened to mean that it does protect naturalized aliens' right not to be locked up now -- I don't recall any constitutional amendment to that effect in the US ...

Sometimes, it takes us a while to figure out what some rights mean, and who has them.

The fact that people of colour were enslaved in past centuries didn't mean they didn't have the right to life and liberty. It just meant that "we" hadn't collectively figured that out ... or admitted it ... yet. We were violating their rights either intentionally (I mean, how many people who supported slavery knew perfectly well that people of colour are persons?) or inadvertently (okay, people are often stupid).

Ditto women and reproductive rights. The fact that nobody had the wit to stand up 100 years ago and say that abortion prohibitions violated their right to life and liberty doesn't mean they didn't. (In fact, of course, some such prohibitions were intended to *protect* women's lives, given that until fairly recently abortion was a pretty risky business itself.)

But no. Nederland and her fellow travellers keep up the chorus. Reproductive rights are some new invention that isn't really already in anybody's constitution.

I'd like to see how Nederland reacted to a law prohibiting her from eating pizza for breakfast unless she could prove that it was medically necessary for her to do so. Methinks we might hear cries of someone's right to liberty being violated without due process then. And yet ... where does it say anything in the constitution about eating pizza?

[Nederland]

314. Response

like to see how Nederland reacted to a law prohibiting her from eating pizza for breakfast unless she could prove that it was medically necessary for her to do so. Methinks we might hear cries of someone's right to liberty being violated without due process then. And yet ... where does it say anything in the constitution about eating pizza?

I'd respond by commiting civil disodedience and eating pizza. That's how it works in a democracy...

Next question?

[iverglas]

319. "Response"?

Was someone talking to you?

But I'll play.

I'd respond by commiting civil disodedience and eating pizza. That's how it works in a democracy...
Next question?

What term of imprisonment will you anticipate being sentenced to for eating pizza, and agree is fair?

Speaking as a Canadian, I'd be in a court with an application for a declaration of constitutional invalidity by daybreak.

What breaking the law on principle has to do with "democracy", I'll probably never know. Methinks you and Donald Ian Rankin need to have a little chat. Perhaps two incoherently and oppositely wrong arguments make a right.

[Nederland]

346. Canadian

As a Canadian perhaps you aren't familiar with how American have historically dealt with injustice in a non-violent way, so I'll be happy to explain it to you. When you have a law that you consider unjust, you delibrately break it in an act of civil disobedience. The purpose of this is two fold: one, draw attention to the injustice; and two, instigate a court case that can lead to the law being declared unconstitutional. That's why MLK and others during the civil rights era went around delibrately breaking Jim Crow laws and getting arrested. They sought to bring the nations attention to the injustice of the laws and get them overturned in the courts. They were successful on both accounts.

And FYI, usually when a person begins a sentence with "I'd like to see how Nederland reacted..." it's safe to assume that they are looking for a response from that person. Sorry for the confusion.

[Nederland]

313. Clarify

Please identify the step by step process by which rights are "retained, granted, recognized". I'd be shocked to learn if nowhere in that process a vote by the people was involved.

For example, the US Constitution was ratified by being voted on by the state leglistatures of the 13 original colonies. Those colonial legislatures were made up of people who were voted into office by the people. An identical procedure is used to pass amendments, such as the 15th and 19th amendments which granted african americans and women the right to vote. Clearly then, voting has always been involved when it comes to the granting of rights. How could it not be?

[Justitia]

348. Your ignorance of the Constitutional process & it's content are overwhelming.

I'm not responsible for YOUR education. Banish your own ignorance.

[Madspirit]

299. Hilarious

Repeating Myself because I'm tired of trying to explain this:


On what Bizarro World is it a Democracy for you to get to stick YOUR nose in MY womb?

Besides which, we do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Certain rights are above voting on. They are set aside in a Constitution. Control over one's own body should be one of those. Some of us think it is. Just as it is in Canada, a country not exactly known for it's fascist repression. I wish I lived there. I don't want anyone to tell me what I can do with my body. No man, no other woman, no state, no god. People are so dismissive about the "my body" argument and yet it really is the crux. It IS MY body. Stop telling me what I can do with my uterus.

LASTLY AND WHAT IS MOST PREPOSTEROUS ABOUT ALL THIS SELF-RIGHTEOUS OUTRAGE: FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF PREGNANCY, WE ALREADY HAVE THIS RIGHT. WITHOUT QUESTION AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, INCLUDING IF WE DON'T THINK IT WILL MATCH OUR ACCESSORIES, WE CAN HAVE AN ABORTION. nanana
Lee

[tritsofme]

283. No, but the man should have the choice to disavow all responsibility for the child

Up to a certain point in the pregnancy.

If women have the sole choice to terminate the pregnancy, men should have the choice to wash their hands of the deal. Women could either then have the choice to carry the fetus to term or abort it.

It is utterly consistent, but I doubt very many pro-choice women would think much of giving men the choice to control the next 18 years of their lives.

[Madspirit]

287. THIS pro-choice Feminist

I actually agree. ...and that should be that. YOU shouldn't be able to vote away any of MY rights and if I choose to keep a child against your wishes, you should not be obligated to the child or to me, in any way. If that is the choice you make, you would also have NO say in the child's life.
Lee

[insleeforprez]

291. My analogy

is that would be only letting gay people vote on gay marriage. While that would produce an outcome that I would welcome, it would hardly be a fair way to make that determination.

[truebrit71]

292. Yes. Just as soon as THEY are the ones getting pregnant, and having THEIR bodies..

...legislated over...

Until that occurs, men get to shut the fuck up and leave this up to the women and their doctor's.

[Exiled in America]

300. Male voting NO here.

That is all.

[Madspirit]

303. LASTLY!!

If I want and feel I need, an abortion, I will have one, regardless of the law. Period. Even if I have to trundle off to Canada, I will do what I want with MY body. All the law can affect, is whether or not I can do it cheaply, safely and without traveling. That's ALL. Once again, I have had an abortion. In the same situation, I would again and NO ONE COULD STOP ME. ...not the dad, not my country. Got it?
Lee

[Deja Q]

306. I think life should be treated more than just a tally on an expense sheet.

But if religious, corporate, and government leaders already treat the post-born as such, why should it be any different for us and the pre-born?

I think life has reverence, provided it is created responsibly.

[Justitia]

349. Yeah, because us silly girls treat our whole lives just like that, huh?

:eyes:

What another dumbass statement about the frivolity of women. From a man.

[The Stranger]

317. I voted "no," but thanks anyway for a wedge issue to split DU into a meaningless flame war.

[Midlodemocrat]

321. Are you kidding? Laura Dern split DU into a flame war.

It's virtually impossible NOT to split DU into a flame war, so don't blame Madspirit. Her poll and thread are just as valid as anything you or I post.

[Madspirit]

322. Thanks Midlo!

People are also free to not post in the thread. THAT poster is implying we are all idiot children...<g>

It's kind of funny. This whole thread, with so many assuming I am a callous baby hater. I LOVE babies. I have friends who will only allow my girlfriend and I to babysit with their kids because they know I would truly jump in front of a truck to save them.

...but this isn't about kids. It's about My body, a point many try to dismiss.

Thanks again Midlo.

Lee

[Madspirit]

323. Oh yeah...and Lastly!

If it's THAT divisive, I would say we NEED to be discussing it. That is a stupid reason to not have a discussion.
Lee

[The Stranger]

343. Actually, there are some who make a career out of dividing Progressives with wedge issues.

It is much more subtle than you seem to think. So what you may think is "debate," is really deleterious to your cause (and, ironically, mine), especially given the poll results and the fact that you risk alienating men who would otherwise support your point of view (and, ironically, mine as well).

But thanks for dividing DU into another meaningless, internecine flame war.

[Maddy McCall]

324. Fuck no.

When men can carry the fetus, then they can control the decision.

Now, in relationships, most men DO have input.

But women don't need to return to THAT level of patriarchy that they've had to endure in the past.

[Madspirit]

332. Men can make all our decisions...

Yup...I remember those days.... My full grown cousin couldn't buy a car without her father or a husband signing for it. Blech.
Lee

[Triana]

329. No. Zero. Zilch.

[omega minimo]

334. Men who care about this need to work for improved women's rights and social status

and support the ERA.

And respond in as intense a manner in the recent news that women one year out of college earn 25% less than male counterparts FOR THE SAME WORK. :wtf:

As economic, educational and social opportunities improve SO DO EGALITARIAN RELATIONSHIPS.

This could be viewed -- not as a battle of the sexes -- but A CALL FOR MORE SUPPORT FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS -- even and especially on DU.

:yourock:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

339. Of Course They Should. To Say Otherwise Would Be Blatantly Sexist In My Opinion.

All of the factors that can go into making such determinations (legality) are not exclusively limited to a woman's capability of deduction and reasoning only. Those factors can just as easily and readily be understood and deduced by men, and therefore they are absolutely capable of also contributing to the debate and ultimate legislation one way or the other as it relates to the legality and availability of abortion. A premise stating men do not have such capability of reasoning and deduction or inherent capability to understand the issue is sexist and quite silly.

[entanglement]

340. I voted no - as a guy, it's none of my business

n/t

[Greyhound]

341. This thread is an excellent example of why this issue, and many others,

should be out of bounds to the law.

In any law regarding abortions, the fundamental issue in question is "Are we free individuals, or are we property of the state?", and since we assert that the answer to that question is that we are free individuals, the issue is inappropriate to legal interference.

That is not to say that this principle is not violated in any number of ways, every day, all over the world, but it is wrong to do so, every time.

[DuaneBidoux]

344. I said no but....

I really can't see allowing men any say over a woman's body but I do hesitate just a bit over situations where all is well with the pregnancy and the father is known and objects.

But, this is only something that gives me a little pause and overall I must still say that no man should ever have a right to say what I woman can and cannot do about her own body.

[Name removed]

350. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Madspirit]

355. You have NO right to call me names

You've been alerted on. You've already had one post pulled today. Are you trying for a tombstone?
Lee

[BlueIris]

351. Fuck no.

The majority of men in the world today, profoundly misogynist, violent and horrifying as they are, are such a plight on the global community. Their ignorance is killing everyone.

[JTG of the PRB]

354. I don't have a uterus...

...so as a man I feel I have absolutely no right to decide such a thing. The only time I feel I would even be allowed to be involved in such a conversation is if I was the father of the child. When it comes to women's bodies and abortion, any opinion I may have is completely irrelevant. Not my body, not my choice.

[Madspirit]

356. Thank-you!

I actually could have worded the poll better. I don't want anyone in my uterus, particularly the state. ...but I don't want Phylis Shafley to have control over me any more than I want Bush to have control over me. I want to have absolute control over my own body.
Lee

[LittleClarkie]

357. Why should women who aren't involved have any say either?

I don't understand this poll.

Who besides those involved should have a say, male or female.

Or is it okay if someone takes away your reproductive rights as long as they too are female?

[Madspirit]

358. If You Read

...any of the posts except your own, you would see that I have said several times that I agree.
Lee