Seen on Facebook; An extraordinarily well written response to an anti-choice post

[A HERETIC I AM]

Hopefully everyone can read it.

On edit to say that I am on the road and will be either driving or in the sleeper most of the day, so if this gets traction and responses, I don't want to be accused of posting and running! I'll be back to it when I can. Of course, if it falls off the front page in the next ten minutes, so be it.

[NV Whino]

1. Excellent.

[leftyohiolib]

2. pregnancy is not a blood transfusion or organ donation. the example is also unrealistic

twisty pretzel logic

[A HERETIC I AM]

3. Do you not agree the larger point has merit?

Re: "Bodily Autonomy"?

[leftyohiolib]

6. i do, when we're talking blood transfussions and organ donating but pregnancy is neither

[Cal Carpenter]

10. To clarify, do you think women have bodily autonomy when it

comes to pregnancy?

Do you think another party (person, government, etc) has the right to force a woman to carry a fetus to term?

[leftyohiolib]

11. i think the birth decision should be upto the mother and the father of that baby

but i think adopton before abortion.

[LeftyMom]

14. Elaborate further, please. What is the father's role in this decision? What if they disagree?

[leftyohiolib]

27. if they disagree i can only speak for myself and if she wanted to abort and i didnt. i would

fight to keep my baby

[LeftyMom]

30. Fight how? Legally, physically? Social stigma? You have no legal control over that decision.

Nor should you.

[leftyohiolib]

35. omg not phyically.legally,my baby my choice.if i lose in court i lose in court

but it's my baby as well.

[TBF]

40. While a fetus is in a woman's body it is a collection of cells -

it is not a "baby" and it is not "yours".

AFTER a baby is born he/she can be tested for paternity. At that point the male and female are responsible for jointly raising the baby (generally, if rights are not taken away etc).

[LeftyMom]

41. It's not your choice. You don't get to demand the use of somebody's body.

We have two words in English for the involuntary use of somebody else's body: slavery and rape.

[LeftyMom]

53. No, you have no control over somebody else's body.

Consenting to have sex is not consenting to bear your child. A woman may not want a child, may not want one right then, may not want your child, may not want to cope with a pregnancy and it's physical toll, or may just want nothing more to do with you. Those are all perfectly okay reasons to not continue a pregnancy, and you have no say over any of them. None, at all. The end.

[alp227]

179. And that post is gone.

On Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:35 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

you should change your name to hyperbole-mom- she's neither enslaved or raped
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5206554

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Nasty personal attack in subject line and possibly anti-choice posting here too. Wow, look at this user's posts throughout this thread - they're a train wreck.

Sorry, while DU does allow opinions (I can hear you saying that already!), unfortunately the line has to be drawn at right wing anti-choice diatribes or wingnuttiness in general, as well as rudeness towards other users. The phrase "what's the word for a woman who kills the baby of a man" is quite revealing.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Jul 7, 2014, 04:17 PM, and voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: "...kills the baby of a man..." says it all: women as incubators for precious male property.

Definitely a hide. Justice Scalia, is that you?


Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Strongly disagree with the post but I have to let it stand. This isn't anything worse than Pope Francis would say, and he's praised on DU all the time. The poster is getting their ass handed to them enough as it is. Plus, I don't think the rules state that one must be pro-choice to post on DU. Sad but true.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: agree with alerter
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: this poster took this post way too far. agree with alerter

Thank you.

[Squinch]

237. OMG. Juror #5.

[Callmecrazy]

282. No, it's not gone...

A mouse click brings it right back.
And I happen to agree with #5.

[Starry Messenger]

60. So every woman who has had an abortion is a baby-killer, according to you.

I mean, by your definition, every fetus would be "the baby of a man."

[passiveporcupine]

199. You got it

every pregnancy occurring from a rapist is still the baby of the man...and he is supposed to have the rights of the father over that of the victim? Jeeze.

[rockbluff botanist]

65. The chances of dying in childbirth still very much exists

With every pregnancy there is the chance of dying. When a woman goes through childbirth there is always a chance she may die. I know this first hand. My young totally healthy cousin died in childbirth due to a stroke.

So NO, YOU NEVER HAVE A SAY IN WHAT A WOMAN CHOOSES. Your male life is not on the line.

[AllyCat]

327. Welcome back! Good post.

[Orrex]

68. I am inclined to be sympathetic to your caveman-like perspective

Because I used to hold more or less the same view.

However, I eventually came to see that I was incorrect in this, as you are.

The realization occurred quite a while ago, but I have documentation. Check it out HERE.

Maybe you can benefit from my epiphany.

[cyberswede]

70. "what's the word for a woman who kills the baby of a man" - Are you fucking kidding me?

This is utterly unacceptable on DU. Women who have abortions are not baby killers.

[TBF]

78. Apparently it is acceptable. This is what happens

when we engage with republicans.

I don't blame Obama for sticking to executive orders.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

80. At least it should be...

utterly unacceptable on DU. But clearly it's not.

[ismnotwasm]

153. No I asked in ATA ( my only question ever)

Anti choice views are allowed here. Skinner did say something to the effect that they are watched and need to be low key. He said that there are Democrats that are anti-choice, which is apparently his reasoning.

[AngryDem001]

189. WTF???

You CANNOT be a Democrat AND be anti-choice!!!!

WHAT THE FUCK?!!!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

213. Yeah. Just my personal opinion about what I'd rather not see on DU.

I hear all the RW crap in too many other places already.

[DURHAM D]

215. I would like to see that list of Dems that are anti-choice. nt

[TBF]

76. Whether a baby is killed yes -

whether a fetus is born - no.

I think this may be a problem of definitions ...

[NealK]

84. "you should change your name to hyperbole-mom"

And maybe you should change your name to:
rightyohiocon. I don't see a lot of left or lib in what you say.

[catbyte]

87. "what's the word for a woman who kills the baby of a man."

WTF is THAT supposed to mean?!? Are you talking about aborting a fetus which is, in essence, a parasite living off a woman's body until it can survive on its own?

Wow.

[abakan]

204. I think men can solve this problem by having their own babies....

Huge amounts of money has been spent on making sure men can attain an erection anytime, anywhere. Maybe they should spend an equal amount to design a way to allow men to conceive, carry, and birth their own babies. I'm sure they would soon appreciate what they are condemning women to.

[catbyte]

218. I say amen to that!

[noiretextatique]

346. another way for men not to be 'concerned' about abortion

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Is to practice celibacy. problem solved.

[jmowreader]

90. You do not.

[PeaceNikki]

91. Abortion is not 'killing a baby'. It's terminating a pregnancy. There's a difference.

[leftyohiolib]

115. it's a difference to you

[PeaceNikki]

129. And the FUCKING LAW, dude. Get a clue.

[awoke_in_2003]

317. people like you are ruining my home state. nt

[Sheepshank]

166. so "she" should be able to exert control over your body too

...and require you to have a vasectomy...so she doesn't have to worry about a pg? fairs fair imho.

[Scruffy Rumbler]

336. Actualy, all straight men should be put in male chastity cages when they reach puberty...

with the key being given from the mom to the daughter-in-law on the wedding day. If woman had the same control over mens' bodily functions that men have and are trying to expand, then no straight man should ever be allowed to masturbate, because the child the woman wants may be in the ejaculate that he was wasted.

It is this type of control conservatives seem to want for women!

[ismnotwasm]

169. What's the word? Several

None. Of. your. Business.

If your wife chooses to share the decision. Then, and only then-- as often happens anyway, does it become your business.

[Quantess]

171. "what's the word for a woman who kills the baby of a man."

You tell me. What is the word you were thinking of?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

55. + about a million

[SunSeeker]

265. Thank you, leftymom.

I can't believe a woman's bodily integrity is challenged on a progressive site. Sickening.

[Chemisse]

340. Why is this simple concept so hard for people to accept?

I can understand why a man would want a say in whether his baby-to-be was born. But it is not his body, so not his choice. Sorry - I guess it sucks to be a male.

[bullwinkle428]

72. But seriously - isn't it more accurate to say "my sperm, my choice"?

[HockeyMom]

89. When as a male you can DIE from pregnancy or childbirth,

come back and talk to me. I am a survivor of a ruptured ectopic (tubal) pregnancy with severe internal hemorrhaging. "Your baby" will ALWAYS be a dead baby in that instance. You want to force that on a woman? Force her to DIE? This is why we say it is HER BODY, and HER LIFE to give up if that is what SHE chooses.

[leftyohiolib]

118. Force her to DIE? did i say that anywhere.

[aquart]

207. You don't know much about pregnancy, do you?

Sorry you missed seeing my mom in seizure after seizure. Full-blown eclampsia. They were really shocked she lived. Actually asked my dad who he wanted them to save, my mom or the baby.

WHO WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO SAVE?

And then there's the emotional toll, like taking fifty years to visit the grave.

Tell me, if you chose your wife over her baby, would YOU be a babykiller?

[HockeyMom]

221. My husband was screaming at the Hospital Staff

"Help and save my WIFE". Not ONCE did he ever say "Save MY baby". Thankfully SOME men do care more about the adult WOMEN in their lives. I will say that if he said what that other poster says, I would have DIVORCED him in a heartbeat, if I didn't die first.

[Chemisse]

341. Are you not aware that pregnancy and childbirth are inherently risky?

Thankfully it is nowhere as frequent as it was 100 years ago, but women do still die.

[noiretextatique]

133. so, you think impregnating a woman's gives you autonomy over her body?

you are not alone in that misogynistic, ass-backwards thinking.

[leftyohiolib]

142. no i dont but i DO have say in what happens to our baby

[noiretextatique]

161. that's reasonable

but it is still HER body, and therefore HER choice whether to stay pregnant....whether you like her choice or not. The only other option is that you could force her the bear a child she doesn't want. in the crazy country, we may too be far from that.

[ljm2002]

175. No, actually, you don't...

...and that seems to be the source of your fundamental misunderstanding here.

All of us (probably) agree that, in an ideal situation, say a married couple and the woman becomes pregnant -- in the ideal situation, they would discuss it and come to a decision that both of them agree upon and are happy with.

But we also all (probably) know that there's theory, and then there's reality. In the Real World (TM), things are not always so simple. That is one reason we need laws -- so we can be clear on where certain lines are drawn, and know when not to cross them.

In the case of pregnancy, the courts have decreed that it is between a woman and her doctor, up to about the third trimester usually. After that the state asserts more control of the situation legally.

In the Real World, where we all agree to follow the laws (modulo civil disobedience), you have this much say in whether she carries that fetus to term: ZIP, ZERO, NADA.

[The Traveler]

176. Really? I dispute that on ethical grounds.

Seriously. As men, we invest relatively little in terms of body changes (zero), risk (zero), post birth health issues, and even calories (pregnancy is a high energy process, biologically speaking.) In every measurable way the woman's investment and exposure outweighs the man's by orders of magnitude. With so little actual, measurable investment in the process, it is unclear to me why men should be awarded the decision making role you advocate. What is your logical and ethical basis for that assertion?

While upthread you claim the FB response that is the topic of discussion is logically unsound, I actually don't see that at all. The principle of bodily autonomy is deep rooted in our culture and system of law ... and for very good reason! Don't like the blood transfusion hypothetical? OK. Organ transplant. Or better, bone marrow transplant. I could go on. I can definitely construct a realistic scenario in which some person's life ends unless another person agrees to a violation of their body. Once that is established the subsequent discussion appears logically and ethically inescapable.

So I have questions for you.

1) What is the logical fallacy? I scanned over this thread but did not see where you identified it.
2) Explain why I should think men have a significant or overriding voice in this decision? That rationale needs to establish an extraordinary basis, for you are asking for an extraordinary amount of power over another individual.
3) If the principle of body autonomy is violable in this instance, are there other instances in which it can be ethically violated? If so, what are they? What are the guiding ethical principles by which we can make that determination?

Note that arguments that include "I believe" or "I feel" cannot be given great weight in a discussion of this sort. You may BELIEVE or FEEL very strongly about the matter, but others will have equally strong beliefs and feelings that are opposed to your own. How can we fairly choose between those contending feelings and beliefs? You are asking for extraordinary power over another individual. In a free society, that power cannot be granted without a clear ethical basis upon which the vast majority of citizens agree, and without further establishing that the ethics of the matter compels the deployment of that power. (An example of such a basis is the principle of body autonomy, for which you demand exception.) In other words, ethical principles are quite often in conflict, and we cannot resolve that conflict based on your beliefs or feelings alone.

Trav

[Curmudgeoness]

266. Thank you, Traveler.

Very well stated. And I see that your questions have not been given any answer.

[littlemissmartypants]

311. I love you. eom

[Scruffy Rumbler]

337. So well written! NT

[Control-Z]

185. You can scream about 'your say'

all day long. In the end she can do ANYTHING she damn well pleases. Fact.

[Iggo]

223. After it's a baby.

[randys1]

255. When you get pregnant, you will have all the say you want, until then the Woman has 100% say

[bravenak]

261. Right?

That makes sense. Until men can get implants to bear their own children..... I for one would love to get my husband pregnant and see how long he lasts in the delivery room before he begs to get put under. Another great movie. Junior. Loved it!

[randys1]

269. Not only would anti abortion men demand abortion clinics be more available than ATM's

they would demand it be free, if they were the ones getting pregnant

And ANOTHER THING, how in the holy hell have we got to the point we are arguing about WHAT TYPE of id they can demand you show to vote?

Requiring an ID is unconstitutional and there is no VOTER FRAUD

god dammit, how do the terrorists get away with this every time, framing the conversation is one thing, now they are framing laws that are unlawful

[bravenak]

271. Terrorists.

Yep. That's the name for it.

[awoke_in_2003]

318. no, you fucking don't. nt

[Bartlet]

324. No actually

Legally you have absolutely no say. In Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976) the Supreme Court ruled that the states requirement for spousal consent to an abortion was unconstitutional.

You have no say, period.

[Chemisse]

342. Sure. After it is born.

While it is in utero - and in the early months - it is there at the mother's pleasure. If she is willing to take the risks and endure the physical consequences of pregnancy and birth, then you will be a dad and have equal say in the child's rearing. If not, find yourself another breeder.

[cry baby]

350. Not before the birth, you don't...

and it isn't a baby until birth.

Science sucks, doesn't it? *eye roll*

[Maraya1969]

281. Many people, especially men, have no idea the strain of going through with

with a pregnancy has on the woman's body. In years past women died from childbirth at a very high rate. They still die. So I think that should be considered when demanding that a woman stay pregnant for 9 months and give birth. Do you know that the area between a woman's vagina and her butt can be ripped up during the birth? The doctor has to stitch it up and she has to go through the pain of that for weeks. Anyway, have a look at what you are expecting.

[littlemissmartypants]

312. Awesome. Schooled. eom

[awoke_in_2003]

316. if you aren't a woman

you have ZERO choice. Once again your anti- choice slip is showing.

[Ineeda]

334. Even more specific in this case - if you aren't THE woman

you have zero choice. The entire argument applies to anti-choice women, too. NO ONE should have a say except THE woman. I don't like it even when folks say that it is a decision between a woman and her doctor. Naturally, medical advice could be a factor either way, but for a woman's body? - uh, uh. Nope. HER choice. Period.

[awoke_in_2003]

349. Agreed. nt

[Scootaloo]

67. Are you carrying it? No? Then you have no argument to make

It's a hard notion for some to get, but biology is not a democracy. You are simply not a woman's equal in this scenario.

You have an opinion, but all the rights are hers.

[leftyohiolib]

126. im not carrying the baby but it is my baby also and that gives me an argument to make

but i cant stop her if that's what she wants but i dont have to stay with her

[Scootaloo]

158. As I say, you have an opinion

But you do not have a right to determine for her. Absolutely none at all.

And you're right, you can't stop her - so what's up with your thumping on about "forcing her to"?

[abakan]

212. If it's not your body...

Its none of your business...Whether you are married or not...If the woman chooses to carry the thing that is nothing more than a parasite until it can sustain its self, you have no say...

[randys1]

256. So you would put fathers who dont pay child support in jail, I hope?

Can we agree that any father who doesnt pay child support should be forced to or go to jail?

[StevieM]

295. I think it is important that men be required to pay child support when they father kids.

I think putting a lean on their paychecks is one way of dealing with deadbeat dads.

But that goes both ways. Men must also have the right to parent their children, regardless of whether or not they are married to the child's mom. That means that a woman cannot demand that an adoption take place, even if the father objects. Nobody, male or female, should be forced to be a birth parent.

And that includes recognizing the predatory practices of the adoption industry, which seek to falsely portray a man as having abandoned the mother, and relinquished his parental rights, only to "change his mind" after the fact. All adoptions should take place in front of a judge, with nothing being a official until both parents consent. If the father doesn't consent, there should be no adoption.

[Chemisse]

343. I'm pretty sure the law says men have equal say regarding adoption after the child is born.

I don't know if it varies by state, but it shouldn't. If a man has equal responsibility, he should also have equal rights.

[Bartlet]

325. The law says you have no say

That's simply the facts.

[AllyCat]

328. It's not a baby. All you did was have a good night.

She does all the work and takes all the risk. You have no say. You don't have to stay, but gosh, you could support her during pregnancy and her decision to continue it or not. Or, you could use birth control so this isn't an issue. And support her right to have equal protection under the law to be able to get birth control too.

[noiretextatique]

348. a fertilized egg is not a baby

or a even a guarantee of a baby. that's something you anti-choice folks don't seem to grasp. any number of things can happen once the egg is fertilized, including something that might endanger the mother's life.

[cry baby]

351. It isn't a baby til birth. nt

[littlemissmartypants]

313. Beautifully said. eom

[Aerows]

73. Here's a suggestion

If "your baby" is so important to you, make sure you put your sperm in a woman that wants to have "your baby". You don't have the right to dictate the life of a woman that doesn't want to have "your baby".

Find one that wants to have one with you.

[TBF]

79. Good advice although it could take awhile to find one. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

82. with his attitude he may never find one ... maybe over at FR

maybe over at FR ... oh wait ... what am I saying ...

[Aerows]

224. No doubt with an attitude like that n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

319. he needs to stick to

Rosy Palmer and her five sisters

[niyad]

294. what part of that fb post do you not understand? YOU do NOT have the right to force a woman

to be an incubator for nine months. as a matter of curiosity, did you forget the sarcasm icon as part of your screen name?

[MattBaggins]

338. Fight if you want

perhaps you could develop a way to transfer the baby to YOUR body and carry it ti term?

[Cal Carpenter]

16. Still not clear. Do you think a woman should have legal bodily autonomy

when it comes to pregnancy?

Do you think the male involved in the pregnancy should have the legal right to force her to carry to term if she doesn't want to?

Your answer is very vague in terms of scope. Is it your personal preference or is it what you think the law should be?

[TBF]

29. Wow. So a woman is nothing more than an incubator to you? nt

[leftyohiolib]

128. those are your words not mine - i dont see motherhood as merely an incubator but

if a man and a woman decide to keep the baby is she just an incubator for him?

[TBF]

134. My view is pro-choice -

I thought I had been clear about that.

I find your views much more interesting to discuss. So far you've told us that women are merely incubators when you decide to impregnate them and that if a woman doesn't desire to carry a term to pregnancy she should be forced to.

Any other great epiphanies you'd like to share?

[Lordquinton]

178. You seem confused

you are talking about two separate things here, a baby, motherhood, the fate of a child, and Pregnancy, a fetus and a woman's body/life. In regards to an actual baby, yes you share equal responsibility and have (as it stands more then) your share of say in what goes on with it's fate.

A fetus you have no say in. You have no say in what a woman does with her own body, and if you think you should have the right to force her to have a baby (your words here) then this really isn't the board for you.

[Iggo]

226. Forced birth were your words, though.

Forced birth.

You said that.

[Aerows]

229. Again - my suggestion

Stop having sex with women that don't want to bear your children.

If you can't follow that simple rule, you aren't fit to be a father anyway since adults make adult choices.

[awoke_in_2003]

321. saying a father should be able to force a birth

is the same thing as saying a woman is an incubator

[bettyellen]

34. Wow. Forcing births is not a part of the Dem platform, btw.

[leftyohiolib]

145. i cant physically force her but i wouldnt want her to have an abortion

now all of this is assuming the mother's life is not in danger and the baby is ok

[Aerows]

231. If you make the decision to have sex with a woman

You had better be prepared for the consequences. Not every woman in the world is going to want to bear your children. If you can't accept that, stop having sex with women that don't want you as the father of their children.

They must have a reason why they don't want you to be the father of their children.

[Squinch]

241. These "I am the father, hear me roar" people never get that fact. They're all about their

rights and responsibilities toward the "baby" but they never stop to consider that, if that is how they think, they have a responsibility to keep it in their pants unless they are certain they have an airtight agreement about pregnancy with the woman they are choosing to sleep with. If they have not met that responsibility, it's their own fault and they need to shut their ignorant traps.

[riderinthestorm]

236. You do know women die in from pregnancy related issues and during childbirth correct?

So if you forced a woman to carry this to term, and she died because of it, you essentially sentenced her to death because nobody can predict the future and assure that the woman is going to be "okay"?

There's always a risk.

Your entire line of rationale is entirely immoral. You want to put an adult woman in jeopardy over a clump of cells by trying to argue that clump of cells is more important than her bodily autonomy to accept or reject those risks.



I know this is piling on but I'm on my phone and this thread is getting unwieldy. I wanted to make sure I put my point out there before this gets way too long and difficult to get back into.

[littlemissmartypants]

314. And there are no genetic defects you can't live with in that child.

What if there are? How's your DNA?

[awoke_in_2003]

322. you keep going up to the line

then backtrack when someone calls you on it. Then you act surprised and change your tune. You aren't fooling anyone

[Cal Carpenter]

38. Thanks for clarifying

You don't think women have bodily autonomy and they should be legally required to risk their lives and future for the whim of a man's opinion of a cluster of cells.

I have other thoughts, but your words speak for themselves.

[KittyWampus]

39. WELL, before you have sex with any woman you better make it clear to her

that if she should get pregnant you will try to force her to give birth whether she wants to or not.

BEFORE YOU EVEN START FOREPLAY.

Every woman you might potentially screw around with deserves to know the potential nightmare you might try to impose on her.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

69. She needs to get that in writing, too. That way she can warn others with proof.

[Starry Messenger]

43. Wow. What in actual fuck?

A fetus isn't a baby in tupperware you can claim like it's your fucking lunch.

[Warren Stupidity]

190. Jury almost unanimous.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message



On Mon Jul 7, 2014, 04:40 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

i think a father should be able to force the birth, it is his baby as well. personal belief
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5206465

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"i think a father should be able to force the birth, it is his baby as well"

Wow, confirms that "pro life" is a code word for "forced birth". What a disgusting, over-the-top subject line that belongs in Freeperville. Take this right wing B.S. outta here.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jul 7, 2014, 04:44 PM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Not here. Not on my jury.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Holy shit - a forced birther sexist troll...hide and hopefully boot the hell out of here
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: WTF? This is one for the records here. MISOGYNY LIVES! HIDE THIS MRA, Right Wing, Forced birther post and I hope the poster gets the boot from here. WTF is going on at this website? Skinner, EarlG Anyone home????? Please make this a welcoming place for democratic women!!!

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Starry Messenger]

191. I didn't have teh stomach to alert on it.

I'm sick of the the "WHY DO U CENSOR OPINION!!11?" jurors. Glad to see it was almost unanimous.

He'll probably be back in a week.

[littlemissmartypants]

315. ..

Poetry.

[laundry_queen]

45. Um.

Well, we can see how you view women.

[CreekDog]

49. .

Original version with no edits.
21. i think a father should be able to force the birth, it is his baby as well. personal belief
if it were my baby and she wanted to abort and i didnt. i would fight to get my baby


Do you think the male involved in the pregnancy should have the legal right to force her to carry to term if she doesn't want to?

this is a discussion the 2 adults should have before doing something this adult

[cry baby]

352. a forced birther. nt

[Gormy Cuss]

62. Fortunately we don't live "The Handmaid's Tale" yet.

Last edited Mon Jul 7, 2014, 06:53 PM - Edit history (1)

I agree with you that adults should have this discussion before having sex. After however, the person who incubates must have the sole legal right to determine choices.

[boston bean]

186. Holy Hell, we had/have a real live forced birther, sexist troll

here on DU.

[cyberswede]

195. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5207514

(not as bad, but WTF?)

[The_Commonist]

216. Really? You linked to my post, which is about 15 posts down?

That's just weird.

[freshwest]

232. Note that it's the post number, not the placement on the thread that indicates the time it is read.

[cyberswede]

245. I wanted to make sure boston bean read your post

She usually has good insight on such topics.

Sorry I'm weird.

[Squinch]

250. He seems so proud of his cluelessness. It's just as bad.

[smirkymonkey]

272. I still haven't picked my jaw up off of the floor.

Amazing. Where do people like this come from?

[Squinch]

276. Discussionist, maybe?

[awoke_in_2003]

323. no, leftieohiolib has been around for a while

As a buckeye I notice such things. That one is, and always has been, an anti - choice troll.

[Squinch]

330. True. Anti-choice among other things.

[CreekDog]

63. how would you force a woman to give birth?

like via law enforcement?

would they need to be restrained? house arrest?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

81. Stop. You'll get him all excited.

[leftyohiolib]

122. i dont know - if she really wanted an abortion i doubt there's anything that can be done

[CreekDog]

123. NO, I asked what you "wanted", are you getting scared to elaborate?

maybe "justanaverageguy" can explain it to us so that you don't have to risk your 5000+ post account.

he seems to be in the neighborhood today. and as a bonus, he seems to be literate. what timing!

[Iggo]

228. Burn.

[Aerows]

233. And there is no possible scenario

that you can keep your penis in your pants until you find a woman that wants to be the mother of your children.

My goodness, it must be so hard for you.

[avebury]

88. So you think that a rapist should have the right

to force a woman he victimized to carry a child conceived of that violent illegal act to term? It sounds like you are posting to the wrong internet board.

[leftyohiolib]

113. no, i dont think rapists should have any rights to the child -

and under those terms abortion is understandable

[mountain grammy]

147. What you consider "understandable" is irrelevant.

The only thing relevant is the woman who does or does not want to continue a pregnancy for whatever reason. That is entirely her decision, hers and hers alone and no one else's business. It's a small step from forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy to forcing a woman to terminate a pregnancy.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

94. if you impregnate a woman or girl who didn't want

"Your baby", take her to court. Hopefully she's smart enough to keep her pregnancy from you. But your personal beliefs can't be forced on others. Even Hobby Lobby can't force its employees from taking contraceptiin. Thankfully my boyfriend and I talked about our situation and considered my health and mental state and were grateful to have a safe place to go for an abortion.

He's my husband now going on twenty years. Good luck keeping a sensible woman yourself.

[CrispyQ]

101. No one has the right to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Not you. Not anyone. It 's a parasite & she is the host & her rights trump everyone else's in this matter.

If you feel this strongly about it, you should stop having sex instead of forcing your will on another person, you self righteous ass.

I can't believe I'm reading this shit on a democratic board & yet some will still claim there is no war on women. You should stop digging before the rest of the female population on DU reads your tripe & runs you out of Dodge.

[A Simple Game]

105. So when a women is pregnant the father of the fetus can assume control over her body?

This would mean that if I impregnated a woman and didn't want to pay for or raise a child I could force her to have an abortion?

That seems to be where your logic leads. Do you have any female relatives of childbearing age that want to date? I mean as long as you don't care who has control of their bodies.

[historylovr]

125. I think you took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

Holy fucking fuck.

[leftyohiolib]

140. why b/c no man wants to see his child born?

[TBF]

156. No, because from what you've said in this thread

you've indicated that you don't understand boundaries.

It is one thing to have an opinion but a very different thing to force someone else to do something.

[historylovr]

181. No, because you insist a woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term.

You want to see your child born, great, find a woman who wants that too.

[myrna minx]

136. OMG.

Force a birth? Your notions about women and pregnancy are chilling and disturbing.

[christx30]

177. Let's carry this to its conclusion:

You want her to carry it to term. She doesn't. You go to court. For some reason, the judge agrees with you. She is ordered not to abort. She is seen near a planned parenthood building. Do you seek her arrest? What if she gets on a plane to go to another state ? Do you arrest her and confine her for the rest of the pregnancy? Or just until she is past whatever point in the pregnancy the state allows abortion?

[mercuryblues]

180. well then

the only answer to this dilemma for you is for the fetus to be implanted into you. You can then make all the medical decisions concerning the embryo.

[Bettie]

217. So, by following your logic

If you should have the legal right to force her to incubate, you would also have the legal right, in your eyes, to abort, if that is your choice for 'your' fetus. After all, rights to her body and the disposition of 'your' fetus is your primary reason to demand such rights.

And yet, what rights does that woman have to your body? None. You get to enjoy bodily integrity while insisting that half the human population has no such right.

To recap: if you have sex with a woman that results in pregnancy, you believe you have rights to her body during said pregnancy to incubate a fetus possibly of your making.

This is a prime reason some women never do discuss it with men. (Not all, some.)

[laundry_queen]

268. One thing I find about guys like this

is that they have NO FUCKING CLUE about the number a pregnancy does on your body. Even if everything goes SMOOTHLY, your body is NEVER the same. And if you end up with a C-section or something, you will have serious scars and often much more. I've had 3 C-sections and after my last one, my ob noted a huge amount of scar tissue twisting up some of my internal organs. He said he tried to cut out as much scar tissue as he could. The scar tissue was also noted when I had my gallbladder removed. I have some serious stomach issues - pain with no known cause - and my gastroenterologist said it could be related to the scar tissue and multiple abdominal surgeries, because there are so many nerves attached to the stomach and scarring could affect those nerves.

And that's not even including the labors and deliveries I had (I've had both normal and C-section). It was hard enough going through that when it's PLANNED. If you didn't actually want the pregnancy and someone FORCED you to go through it? Well, let's just say that anyone who would do that, in my eyes, is as bad as a rapist.

Every single woman I know that has children will tell you pregnancy has effed up a lot of things. Most of us are happy to do it, because we love and really wanted our children. But let's not pretend the woman could spit out a baby and then go on her merry way like nothing had happened. So fucking clueless, this idiot who keeps posting crap. Glad he finally got locked out of this thread.

[Bettie]

277. Yep. I know what you mean

I've had 7 pregnancies: an intrapartum death at term, three live births and three miscarriages. This has encompassed an emergency c-section (for the first, who didn't make it), three scheduled c-sections (since my first one never quite healed that well and I had what they called "windows" forming along my old incision), a D&C for one of the miscarriages, and oh, with my last son, post-partum eclampsia, which we found out about by me having a seizure.

This guy clearly knows nothing about what can happen during pregnancy and yeah, it does eff a lot of stuff up.

I'm glad he got locked out, but it makes me sad that there are men out there who don't get that pregnancy isn't just this 'inconvenience', that it has lasting and major impacts on our health.

Not that I'd give up any of my boys, but I went into those pregnancies with my eyes open and ready to deal with it all and by my own choice.

[laundry_queen]

280. Exactly.

I did the same with my girls. I also made the choice and went in knowing the risks. Although, truthfully, even I (compulsive researcher that I am) was unprepared for the number it did on my body. Lots of glossing over of it in our culture.

ETA: I'm sorry about your losses. And wow, eclampsia is usually caught way before that. Scary stuff. I had some signs of it with my first pregnancy which led to a series of interventions that led to a really horrible labor (worse than most 'horror stories' you hear) and C-section that left me with PTSD. My second was a VBAC and then 2 scheduled C-sections. I was extremely lucky to have had 4 live births from 4 pregnancies. I did have 1st trimester bleeding with 2 of them and 2nd trimester bleeding with my youngest. Ended up on bedrest. Had a separated public bone with my last one that took months to heal. Passed out after that birth for several hours - presumably due to blood loss but the doctor "wasn't sure" about how much I lost and said I'd probably be fine (my blood pressure went from 160/75 - I'm always high in pregnancy - to 89/53. I can't imagine why I was in and out of consciousness ) Anyway, it was no picnic. I really get what you are saying.

[Bettie]

292. They didn't catch the eclampsia

Because I was post-partum and my blood pressure was 138/80, which for me is extremely high, but is still in the 'normal' range.

Plus, I'm fat and they assumed that high blood pressure was just normal, even though I pointed out that I'd been running at 100/60 or so for my whole pregnancy, except for one doctor visit where we almost had an accident in the parking lot on the way in!

Went in to the ER for visual disturbances and an inability to breathe when not sitting up when my little one was five days old. They did a drug test, got a cardiologist and did six hours of tests and informed me that I had congestive heart failure.

They should have called an OB, but they figured they had the answer. Turned out, it was the eclampsia and a nasty respiratory infection. It's really unusual to have happen after birth, but it does happen, I'm living proof, though they told my husband I was pretty close to checking out.

Oh, the separated pubic bone just sounds awful! Ow.....and don't you wonder about doctors sometimes? It's like they aren't even paying attention!

You have all girls? I have three boys (13, 11, and 5...last one was a surprise!). My first was my girl and from her, I learned that as loud, messy, and obnoxious as my kids can be at times, a silent house is way worse.

[laundry_queen]

303. Yeah, all girls

17, 13, 11, and 7. They are the lights of my life. I feel incredibly lucky to have them and I treasure every second with them.

That's interesting they figured because you were fat, high BP was ok. I'm fat, and that made them PANIC at my high systolic level. With my first, my doctor was so anti-fat that he was SO certain there would be issues with gestational diabetes, a giant baby, shoulder dystocia etc that he caused some of the very problems he was trying to avoid (baby ended up being 6.5 lbs. ) I really educated myself with my second and always made sure after that I had doctors that listened to me and let me make my choices. My second doctor told me I should've sued my first, lol, and told me my high top number on my BP was probably normal for me during pregnancy. As soon as I'm not pregnant, my BP is perfectly normal (110/68). I think doctors always carry their last 'bad experience' in their mind and have too many biases based on that, and 'manage' pregnancies based on it. I'm glad they caught your eclampsia in time - it IS rare to have it appear so long after birth (what I've read is 24-48 hours or so after birth it's a risk, not 5 days). I've heard a good number of stories of women dying from things like blood clots in the lungs or systemic infection a few days after a birth...so even if you are ok right after the birth, everything is not always 'in the clear'. I think even some doctors need to be reminded of that stuff. I found the nurses a lot more concerned with those things when I was in the hospital after my C-sections than the doctors were.

[Mariana]

339. A lot of them do know.

They just don't give a fuck.

[malaise]

97. It is not for you to think

unless you are pregnant. What about body autonomy do you not understand?

[avebury]

86. So you would consider that a woman who is raped and find

herself pregnant should be forced to carry a child to term that she did not voluntary participate in the conception of? So once she has already been violated, should be violated again by removing from all rights to make decisions about her own body?

Do you also believe that a woman with pre-existing medical conditions be forced to carry a child even after being told by medical professionals that there is a high probability that she will not survive the pregnancy? We all hear about heroic woman who sacrifice themselves to try to carry a child to term but that is always their choice. Years ago when I worked in a hospital I know of a woman who had been told in no uncertain terms that she should not get pregnant again. She did, attempted to carry the child to term - neither survived.

[gcomeau]

93. Yes, pregnancy is far far more invasive and risky

...than sticking a needle in someone's arm to draw a small amount of blood and maybe having them be a little tired for a little while after. Not the same at all.

That's KIND OF THE POINT.

[Trajan]

7. It establishes the concept of 'Body Autonomy'

And how many similar medical procedures are subject to the same decision-making process, founded on the personal volition of the individual ...

Your complaint seems ... all right-wingy ...

[leftyohiolib]

13. why because dems cant be against abortion?

besides i think it's a bad example

[LeftyMom]

15. Yes, that's exactly why. Respect women or GTFO.

[leftyohiolib]

17. i do respect women,

[LeftyMom]

18. Nice edit. Your post was " i do respect women, why cant women respect the life inside them"

[leftyohiolib]

22. there was a reason i took that out - it was judgemental so i removed it

[LeftyMom]

32. You mean you were a bit too honest.

[CreekDog]

36. such an honest DUer, took you 5000+ posts to post that

[LanternWaste]

74. Once we begin to advertise ourselves, it's often difficult to stop...

Once we begin to advertise ourselves, it's often difficult to stop...

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

83. ROTFLMFAO! You'd FORCE a woman to give birth at your whim, but you wouldn't want to be

all judgmental and shit???!!!!!!

Lost all your mirrors, did ya?

[Not a Fan]

206. Forcing the mother to carry the child for nine months and then have the child.

If I didn't completely comfortable with, or completely understand the character of the man involved - if I became pregnant with his child - I simply would not tell him I was pregnant. I would just have the abortion. He would never know.

[TBF]

20. "Life inside them" huh?

I think your slip is showing.

[leftyohiolib]

24. i took that out for a reason

[TBF]

26. No kidding.

[leftyohiolib]

28. it was too judgemental

[TBF]

33. The word is "judgmental" and you are correct

that your statements are way too judgmental.

A woman's body is her own. It's not yours to use as an incubator or otherwise.

[leftyohiolib]

37. her body is her own but the baby belongs to us both

[TBF]

44. Wrong - a fetus inside a body is a collection of cells.

It is not a baby and it is not yours. Geez louise ...

[leftyohiolib]

168. collection of cells is your term for it. not mine,but that collection of cell that will be

a baby is ours not hers alone to decide the fate of

[TBF]

184. Yes - as long as Roe stands

the woman decides. Your definitions aside ...

[Ineeda]

235. this enrages me so much I'm going to say something awful...

...if this collection of cells is YOURS, leftyohiolib, she can give them to you in a jar. After.

Sorry folks - I know this is disgusting, but so is this jerk's horrible POV.

[smirkymonkey]

278. If you feel that strongly about it, then you should always make sure that any

woman knows UP FRONT, before you have sex with her, that this is how you feel. Therefore, she will know what she is getting herself in to. Still, even if she decides to get involved with you and changes her mind later, you still don't have the right to force her to do anything. Her body, her choice.

Take responsibility for your sexual decisions and you probably won't ever have to face this problem.

[LeftyMom]

48. You're angry at a particular woman, aren't you? Somebody who didn't want to be your brood mare?

This seems personal for you.

[leftyohiolib]

154. no im not mad at anyone.

[CreekDog]

208. you're not mad at her anymore, you're mad at all women now

[Moostache]

66. I have 5 children...I own ZERO.

No one "owns" their children....you are responsible for their care and for raising them to the best of your ability....you SHOULD provide for them if they have been born, but you don't OWN them.

The concept of owning another human being in any way was settled CENTURIES AGO!

[laundry_queen]

124. Thank you for saying that

One more thing that was bothering me about that person's posts. He's talking like he has ownership over a cluster of cells - that he calls a baby - but you don't ever OWN a baby, so it's just another example of how this person thinks.

[smokey nj]

165. Thank you. I was going to post something similar, but you covered what I wanted to say and did so

much more eloquently than I would have.

[StevieM]

299. Actually...no it wasn't. Women in Saudi Arabia are little more than property.

Check out their ID cards. They carry the pictures of their fathers or husbands. Interestingly, when I first started writing that last sentence, I instinctively wrote: "driver's licenses." Not kidding. Then, of course, I remembered that women in Saudi Arabia cannot even get a diver's license. Oh, and forget about leaving the country to start over. You need the permission of your husband or father in order to do that.

[CreekDog]

75. when is it a baby?

and if there is any health risk in giving birth, should you be able to force her to give birth? yes or no.

[passiveporcupine]

210. according to the google dictionary, and Webster

a very young child, especially one newly or recently born

I know this poster has a different belief, but that is all it is (his belief). Thankfully, in this country, they cannot force their "beliefs" on anyone else.

And to the poster above, who said, nobody owns a baby. Thank you.

[catbyte]

98. Again, a fetus is a PARASITE, unable to live outside my uterus. Until it can survive on its own,

it's not "your baby."

Sheesh.

[KittyWampus]

47. Question- have you told every woman you've ever had sex with that you would try to force her

to give birth against her will if she should end up getting pregnant by you?

Because if you really believe that you need to tell women before you even start foreplay.

[leftyohiolib]

61. when i was younger i dont recall having convo's like this but then i probably didnt care

bu my wife and i did have a conversation about it. .

[CreekDog]

52. it was too semi-literate.

[Jamastiene]

356. So was your question about what to call a woman who has an abortion.

You didn't edit that. You are a real piece of work. I'm surprised any woman would want to be with you with that attitude of ownership that you seem to have. It's sickening.

[CreekDog]

54. .

Original version with no edits.
17. i do respect women, why cant women respect the life inside them

your post seems to be accusing ALL women of something.

you know, maybe you shouldn't be using DU to work out your own psychological issues.

[CreekDog]

135. Original version with no edits

Original version with no edits.
leftyohiolib
17. i do respect women, why cant women respect the life inside them

[Squinch]

258. You appear to be unaware of the neon sign over your head that says that you don't respect women.

Everyone can see it, even if you don't know it's there.

[Warren Stupidity]

192. welcome to "flagged for review". nt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=272200

[Squinch]

259. Took friggin' long enough. This wasn't the first time he spewed this women-hating nonsense.

[TBF]

332. Democratic party platform @2012 -

Strongly and unequivocally support Roe v. Wade

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

[TBF]

19. So you think a dead body has more rights than a woman?

Talk about "twisty pretzel logic".

[leftyohiolib]

23. your words not mine - i dont think those two things are relatable

[TBF]

25. Oh I think I understand exactly

how you feel on this issue. Edits and all aside ...

[leftyohiolib]

31. good, then we are done with this?

[TBF]

46. No one is holding a gun to your head and

forcing you to write such gibberish. I think it's up to you as to whether you are "done". That's what one would call "bodily autonomy".

[Cal Carpenter]

56. ...

[cyberswede]

77. !

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

64. No, it really isn't twisted at all. It doesn't claim that pregnancy IS a blood transfusion or

an organ donation.

It makes the very straight point that in other instances one is not compelled to use one's body to support or save the life of a fully formed human (probably with family and friends who love an maybe depend upon that person.) There is nothing pretzel-like about that logic.

[NealK]

95. Speaking of pretzel:

[Bryce Butler]

137. ...

[DeSwiss]

252. Hehehehehe -- NO!!!

I used to try and ''reason'' with 'em. Now I just put the ''undeveloped ones'' on Ignore.

- Saves a lot of time and anguish over the level of ignorance we still must overcome.....

[The_Commonist]

172. You did know what a can of worms you would open up with this, right?

I do think there's an unfortunate strain of "feminism" or something that is prevalent here on DU, and elsewhere. It's basically, "the woman has the right to keep or terminate her pregnancy, and if you're a man, and don't want her to get an abortion, if that's what she chooses, tough shit, and STFU!"

And it's quite a can of worms, indeed!

I'm a man, and I chose to have a vasectomy, so that the women I've had sex with were not the only ones responsible for birth control. But before that, I was involved in 2 abortions. It was both of our choices at the time. And I feel fine about it. What if I had felt differently?

Again, unfortunately, the conversation has taken a turn in "liberal" circles, so that it leaves the men irrelevant in the decision making process. And, you'll get a LOT of crap for wanting to be part of that process, if you, as the man, feels differently than she does.

Do I think a zygote is a "human being"?
Almost. I think it's a "potential human being."
I don't think the "spark of consciousness" kicks in until after birth.
I think every abortion is sad, but I can deal with a little sadness.
As can we all.

Do I think that a woman who is "on her own" and wants to terminate her pregnancy should have the right to do so?
Absolutely, and unequivocally.

Do I think that if a man and a woman who make the decision together to abort should have the right to do so?
Absolutely, and unequivocally.

What if a man and a woman are together in a relationship, and she gets pregnant, and she wants to abort and he wants to have the baby?
Can. Of. Worms...

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think it's as simple as "she has the right to chose, and he just has to deal with it." I've known several men who were in this situation and were devastated. This is not to get all "Men's Rights" and stuff, because basically, I'm a feminist. I think 98% of the "Men's Rights" people and issues are ridiculous.

But to say "you have NO RIGHT to be a part of this decision-making process, and just STFU" is not the right approach either.

I don't know what the answer is, and that's all I have to say about that.

[cyberswede]

183. "I do think there's an unfortunate strain of "feminism" or something that is prevalent here on DU"

Really?

Again, unfortunately, the conversation has taken a turn in "liberal" circles, so that it leaves the men irrelevant in the decision making process. And, you'll get a LOT of crap for wanting to be part of that process, if you, as the man, feels differently than she does.

"feminism" and "liberal" in quotes? Do you think the people you're referring to aren't feminists? or aren't liberal?



Women should have autonomy over their own bodies, and in that respect, men are irrelevant.

[The_Commonist]

187. OK, you've come right out and said it.

As far as this issue is concerned, "...men are irrelevant."

And so continues "The Battle of the Sexes."

(I like to use lots of quotes. And parentheses. Don't read too much into it.)

[TBF]

188. And so have you -

you've made your view of liberals and feminists crystal clear.

My question would be why you even bother to post here ..

[The_Commonist]

193. Ah yes, there's the broad brush. Right on time!

You and I probably agree on 98.7 percent of things.
We probably don't agree on 1.3 percent of things.
(based on a quick scan of your journal)

And because this might be one of those issues where we have disagreement... I have "made (my) view of liberals and feminists crystal clear?" And what, pray tell, is it that I'm being crystal clear about?

Am I the enemy now?
Because I think that men who want to be part of the decision-making process when it comes to keeping or terminating a pregnancy should not be simply told to STFU?

And you question why I "even bother to post here?"
That's just silly.
I've been coming to DU since Conservative Idiots #1. You might have more posts than I do, but you're a relative newbie compared to me. I mean, do you really need to go there? DU is by far the best news aggregator on the internet. And the discussions are lively and informative. But there are strains of thought that bother me. This was one of them.

Am I required to think and act in lock-step on every single nuance of every single issue?

My, how "liberal" of you! So c'mon, cut it out. We're all friends here.

[TBF]

196. Sadly I've had this disagreement with other men

who consider themselves leftist.

I think perhaps it's hard to understand until you've been in the situation of having your rights suddenly challenged. As a young girl in the 70s I watched as women fought for rights in the universities and workforce only to now see conservatives trying to take as many rights away from women as they can.

Well-meaning leftist men have told me that if the revolution happens we will all be on equal footing so we have to work towards that (focus on economics) and let the other issues go.

I can't do that and I'm sure many others who have been oppressed due to their gender or race understand why it's a dual battle.

[The_Commonist]

201. I was a young boy in the 70's.

And I watched the same struggles.
My mother was one of those people who did the struggling.
With my father's help and support.

And I too, find it hard to accept that ANYBODY'S rights are being challenged.
And the mindless, heartless "religiosity" in which the oppressors wrap their insane hatred of, well, just about everything! Personally, I think we are experiencing the death throes of the old religions, and of the patriarchy as we know it. That's why they're fighting so hard. It's the end of their game and their privilege, and they want to do as much damage as they can on the way out. Not very comforting in the short run, but in the long run, I think we'll be all right.

So the question becomes... If a man and woman have sex, and she becomes pregnant, does he get to play a part in the decision-making process when the question of whether or not to terminate the pregnancy comes up? Or is it acceptable to tell him to STFU? What I'm getting from this thread, and from much of the discussion on this issue, is that a hearty STFU is perfectly acceptable.

That makes me uneasy. It doesn't seem to be a very "liberal" point of view. (Hence, the quotes...)

[geek tragedy]

220. what part of "her body, her choice" is too complicated for you?

the man can offer his opinion and can communicate his point of view, but he has ZERO authority to control the woman's body.

ZERO.

This is not a complicated concept.

[The_Commonist]

243. You're right, it's not a complicated concept!

What, did you think that was going to be a revelation or something?

[geek tragedy]

253. Autonomy does not mean

"Unless her husband disagrees."

It is a very simple question for actual feminists and liberals.

[TBF]

242. Got it - I understand your question and

my answer is no it's not the male's choice. The female is the one who has to carry to term and give birth - it's her choice. I would also argue her financial responsibility if it came to that. I have a family member who actually came to that agreement with her male partner. She wanted to carry to term & she did. He wanted nothing to do with the baby after birth and signed away all rights. She assumed all responsibility and that was it. No rights for him & he does not provide any child support. She raised the baby herself.

So, that would be my view but thanks for taking the time to talk it out. Sorry we don't exactly agree on this, though it seems we have other issues in common.

[catbyte]

244. He has the right to an opinion, and it's her right to disagree with that opinion.

She then has the right to proceed in the way she sees fit.

[cyberswede]

194. How is a man relevant to the topic of a woman's autonomy over her own body?

Be specific.

[The_Commonist]

197. I can't be specific.

That was the whole point of my post!

And this is not simply "the topic of a woman's autonomy over her own body." There's another layer to it. That's the point leftohiolib was making, which started this subthread.

I don't know what the answer is.
Everybody in internetland wants to be right about everything all the time.
I don't know what the right thing is here.

But I do know what the wrong thing is.
The wrong thing is to tell a man who wants to see and raise and love his progeny, even if it was "an accident," and if his partner chooses to terminate her pregnancy... the wrong thing is tell him that he's irrelevant and that he should STFU. Much of this thread is basically a rah-rah for that point of view. I don't agree with that point of view.

I think there must be another way, although I don't know what that is.

[cyberswede]

200. Seriously. If the woman doesn't want to be pregnant and give birth, there is no other way. The end.

In an ideal scenario, naturally there would be a discussion between the parties, but there doesn't HAVE to be one.

The man's opinion of whether or not the woman should give birth might be considered by her, but it might not, and if it's not, his opinion simply doesn't matter. Period. Bottom line: one person has no right to require another person to undergo a risky health situation if that person doesn't want to.
.
.
.
And leftyohiolib(*) is flagged for review for his extreme views on this subject, by the way.


(* neither letfy, nor liberal, imo, but might be from Ohio)

[geek tragedy]

225. your anti-choice buddy is a literal forced birther

who thinks a man gets a property right in a women's uterus if he impregnates her.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025206323#post21

and who thinks abortion is infanticide, and that a woman who aborts against her impregnator's wishes is a murderer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025206323#post50

You should really be smarter than to ally yourself with a forced-birther extremist.

[smirkymonkey]

279. In a perfect world, hopefully a couple would discuss the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy

upfront and come to an agreement on what they would do if such a thing were to occur. However the world is messy and while most couples should care for and respect one another, ultimately it is the woman's choice on whether to carry the fetus to term.

[Squinch]

262. Obviously, men are irrelevant when a woman is deciding what to do with her body.

This isn't a battle of the sexes. This is a situation where a small subset of men need to get over the idea that their preferences are more important than the agency another person has over her body.

If men don't like this, they need to learn to keep it in their pants unless they have an airtight agreement about pregnancy with the woman they are sleeping with.

If they don't have that airtight agreement, it is their own fault. And the fact that they don't get to tell the woman what to do with her body doesn't change.

This small subset of men simply need to grow up and learn that everything doesn't revolve around them, and their actions have consequences that they might not like.

[passiveporcupine]

214. I think the man in a relationship has a right to voice his opinion

If he is offering her an option to having an abortion or carrying the child to term and raising a child herself, that of raising the child together, or by himself, if she does not want to, then fine...offer that choice, but you still cannot be the deciding factor in her actually going through with the birth. You have to accept her decision about her body.

But I will not say you have to STFU. Opinions and options are fine, force is not.

[The_Commonist]

227. And that's probably the most rational, reasonable thing said here so far.

I don't see why that was so difficult.
I may have missed it elsewhere on this messy thread, but I find it interesting that it took this long for someone to say it quite like that. "But I will not say you have to STFU. Opinions and options are fine, force is not." And I can totally agree with that position. If the man involved can offer options, support, opinions and make himself available to the mother, he has a role in the decision-making process. After all that, if she still wants to terminate the pregnancy, there's really nothing else he can do about it. Maybe not an optimal situation, for anybody involved, but so it goes.

leftohiolib totally stepped in it here.
Frankly, I think he may have learned that DU is NOT the place for honest conversation.
Unless, of course, you are willing to be in lockstep with the prevailing attitudes.
He said some dumb things, and will pay a price for it.

However, elsewhere on this thread? Not a pretty sight:

"We have two words in English for the involuntary use of somebody else's body: slavery and rape. "
"...you have no say over any of them. None, at all. The end."
"So every woman who has had an abortion is a baby-killer, according to you."
"So NO, YOU NEVER HAVE A SAY IN WHAT A WOMAN CHOOSES."
"You CANNOT be a Democrat AND be anti-choice!!!!"
&quot It's) the FUCKING LAW, dude. Get a clue."
"None. Of. your. Business."
"When as a male you can DIE from pregnancy or childbirth, come back and talk to me."
"If it's not your body... Its none of your business...Whether you are married or not..."
"with his attitude he may never find one ... maybe over at FR"
"Respect women or GTFO."

On edit - I should add this one, which just popped up about me:
"your anti-choice buddy is a literal forced birther..."

(ummm.. he's not my buddy, and I don't get the sense that he's completely anti-choice, if the man is not at all involved, or is fine with an abortion. I might be wrong about that.)

My goddess, the hyperbole!

[catbyte]

257. Are you fucking kidding me? Do you REALLY think that forced birth, abortion=

infanticide has ANY place in a Democratic forum? That there is really an "honest discussion" to be had? Seriously? That's total caveman thinking that completely devalues the living, breathing HUMAN BEING making the choice to carry a fetus to term or not. Wow.

[geek tragedy]

289. hey now, we must be profoundly respectful to forced-birther misoynist trolls

and allow them to sparkle their wisdom upon us.

[catbyte]

297. It's also interesting that these so-called male feminists call our opinions "hyperbole"

& "hateful." Expressing a strong opinion is Just.Not.Lady-like, I guess. Shame on me!

[catbyte]

298. keeo sweet, lol!

[geek tragedy]

288. This statement indicates a profound failure to understand pro-choice vs anti-choice

I don't get the sense that he's completely anti-choice, if the man is not at all involved, or is fine with an abortion

Since you are apparently not getting this:

anyone who wants to give a man physical control over a woman's body by virtue of his impregnating her is 100% anti-choice.

anyone who says this:

i think a father should be able to force the birth, it is his baby as well.

is an anti-choice, forced-birther (literally!) troll

[bravenak]

230. To say to a man that they have NO right in the decision making process, just stfu,is perfectly fine.

What if he wanted the woman to HAVE and ABORTION? Should she have to allow him into the decision making process then? What if she just never wants kids? Should he get some of that power over her then?
No. You cannot give one person decision making power over another persons body against their will. It places women in a position of subservience to the men and will lead to a woman needing a permission slip from some man to get an abortion.

[Squinch]

248. Took the words right out of my mouth in your header. Who the everloving fuck are these people?

[bravenak]

249. I shouldn't say cult members. I would never even think it's a cultish thing. Nope.

I swear i don't think that we have some cult members in here. Not at all.

[Squinch]

254. What should we call such a thing? The religion of men who can't tell a woman from a breadbox, maybe?

The "I own that fetus so make me a sandwich, woman," group?

The possibilities are endless.

[bravenak]

260. The Night's Watch?

Dammit, that won't work. They don't want to father children by force. I'll come up with something. Some sort of Cabal.

[StevieM]

300. The man has no right to say whether or not the woman carries the pregnancy to term.

That is her decision, and hers alone.

But once that child is born, you better believe the man has rights. Or at least he should.

Let me use your own analogy. Should a man be allowed to demand that a woman give her child up for adoption? No? Then a woman also has no right to demand that a man give his child up for adoption. A married man would never be required to do this, and neither should an unmarried father.

NOBODY should be forced to become a birth parent. And children should not be forcibly separated from their blood relatives.

Men have responsibilities. And that includes the responsibility to pay child support--even for a child they wanted to be aborted. But men also have rights, and that includes the right to raise and love their own children.

[bravenak]

301. I was talking about the right to force her to HAVE the child.

The rest of what you wrote had nothing to do with my post. You are talking post birth rights.

[StevieM]

302. Ok...point taken. (eom)

[bravenak]

304. Although i agree with you about the fathers having the right to co parent.

In case of a split up my husband i have agreed to 3 1/2 days a week each. Then we decided to not ever split up. It's hard alone.

[StevieM]

308. I am glad that you and your husband are on solid ground. My brother and SIL's marriage

has flamed out beyond belief. A total shock to the family...and a total contradiction to what I proclaimed in my toast to them at the wedding.

They are also splitting time with the kids equally. Probably the only thing that has gone right in this nightmare of a divorce.

[bravenak]

309. I feel for you.

I have a cousin who is having some issues to say the least. I won't blame him so i am the bad guy. I just feel like i should stay out of it in case they get back together like usual. I'm glad your bro and his wife are sharing parenting. It's the best thing for the kids.

[catbyte]

251. Yeah, Commonist, We uppity "liberal feminists." How DARE we make our own decisions!

[The_Commonist]

267. This level of negativity and hyperbole...

...does not surprise me coming from someone who says that a fetus is a "PARASITE."
And now that I see it, your other response to me above.
My goodness. Such anger!
I suppose it's the anger of thousands of years of oppression, but you're taking it out on the wrong person here.

And I think you've missed the point. So let's try a little thought experiment:

You and I have sex. (stranger things have happened! but of course, all of my sexual partners over the years have been "liberal feminists," so it probably wouldn't be a strange situation at all.) You get pregnant. (despite the fact that I have had a vasectomy. because for the most part, I am a "liberal feminist," and at a fairly young age (26) I decided that it was not right to leave all the birth control decisions to the women.)

Now what? You want to abort the parasite, I want to raise the child. Who wins, and why?

My point here, all along, was that I don't think it's right to simply be told to STFU, that I have no say in what happens to my genetic material. If my views of life, its sanctity, when it begins and ends, are different than yours in this situation, so be it. I suppose I'll have to deal with that. And frankly, I don't even have a dog in this fight, unlike (from the sound of it) the fella who started this whole subthread. (that poor sucker. people really need to learn when to keep their mouths shut around here.)

But I know that, because of those thousands of years of oppression, that you don't want to be told to STFU any more. And rightly so. And now you're going to turn around and do the same thing? The oppressed becomes the oppressor? How old is that story? Isn't there another story we can enact here? Isn't there a "third way" or we can "think outside the box" or some other cliche like that? Can we get past the hyperbole, and discuss things like reasonable people, who just shared that beautiful moment of orgasmic ecstasy together?

So yes, I do think there's an honest discussion to be had here. Because we're human beings. We can discuss things. Some people are cavemen, and some aren't. You're talking to me like I'm a caveman. I'm not. I'm a highly evolved individual, and I'm sure you are too. This thread is filled with people who should be highly evolved individuals yelling at each other like cavemen. It's really pretty gross. This discussion forum is infected with "liberals" and "feminists" who should behave like the highly evolved individuals that they are, rather than yelling at each other like cavemen. It's really kind of distressing, and it's getting rather boring.

[bravenak]

270. This was an eye opening post.

Shocking in many ways. It seems that you think that just because your genetic material resides inside of a female's body, that it gives you a right to have a say in her deciding to terminate.
I have so many questions.

1. Do you realize what pregnancy does to a woman's body?
2. Do you realize that women die giving birth?
3. Did you really say the oppressed becomes the oppressor as in Misandry?
4. Still stuck on the genetic material thing. Reminds me of sacred sperm.
5. Read this to your wife.
6. If a man raped a woman and she got pregnant, should he get a say in her decision? Or is she then ALLOWED to tell him to STFU? I saw that on Law and Order SVU.


Please answer i'm dying to know.

[The_Commonist]

274. My wife and I are about to sit down to dinner.

We will discuss this, and I will let you know what happens.

[bravenak]

275. Thank you.

My husband once felt like you until he spoke to me.

[The_Commonist]

345. OK, so we had a nice dinner, a nice conversation...

...did a few other things and then got nekkid and rolled around in each other's sweat. Because that's what adults do! I didn't have time to get back to this until just now. Life and jobs and stuff...

Basically, she thinks that OF COURSE!!! men, at least the ones who are involved in the woman's life, should never be told to STFU about what they want. Whether it has to do with kids or abortions or anything else for that matter. Does the woman have the ultimate say when it comes to keeping or terminating a pregnancy? Of course, that's a given, and I have never disagreed with that. Should the man's opinion carry some weight? Absolutely.

Now this doesn't mean that one night stands, or abusive, controlling men who will use a pregnancy to "keep her down" should have the same say as someone who is married and expecting to have children anyway. Unless I'm misreading it, that was something like leftohiolib's situation. Yes, there are assholes out there. But to treat someone you are in a loving relationship like one of those assholes is, well, assholeish.

It was pretty much the conversation I was I expecting us to have, and then it turned to the expected darker side. Which was, of course, when I mentioned that this was because of thread I was involved in on Democratic Underground. I didn't mention that until after we talked about abortion, because I didn't want to color her perceptions of why I was asking the question. She doesn't like you people. And understandably so. Maybe she would in real life, in fact I'm sure of it, but she believes that the anonymity has turned too many of you into raging assholes. Her words, not mine.

"You actually went to the comments and you actually went against the prevailing orthodoxy there? What is wrong with you? You know better than that. Those people are largely attention seeking, black and white absolutists, lonely old crones and shut-ins who don't seem to realize that life happens in the grey areas."

"I know, I thought it was interesting..."

"Yeah, well, removing a scab can be interesting as well. Do you find the comments section at Fox News to be interesting? Because a large number of DUers are their ideological mirror images."

Please understand that my wife is a registered Deomcrat, (I am not. I'm a member of the Working Families Party) an Elizabeth Warren fan, has been all over the Hobby Lobby thing on Facebook, reads the Rude Pundit on his blog, not here, has several "gay boyfriends," and has slowly but surely helped and applauded as her very conservative sister has come to see the light. Among other things.

"Look, it's a great place to quickly find all kinds of news, but between the tribalism and the cliquishness, the constant outrage and constant bickering, I can't see how you can spend more than about two minutes at that place. I think it was YOU who called it a pit of vipers! (it was) And now you want me to get involved?" I asked her if she would be willing to look over this thread, and if she wanted to read and/or approve my reply before I posted it. She did not.

Then we talked about outrage. She is, rightly, tired of the outrage. And this place, along with so much of the internet, and our society in general, is addicted to outrage. It's an adrenaline rush. It's like a roller-coaster ride of constant outrage. It's become a cash cow. The owners of this website (and so many others) profit from YOUR outrage. It's so tiring. Constantly harping on allies over minutia. Constantly dehumanizing our "opposition." To the point of turning our allies into "the opposition" just because there's nobody else handy to lash out at. No wonder this country is so fucked up. We treat people with whom we agree on 98.7 percent of everything like shit because there's one point of disagreement on some anonymous discussion forum.

Anyway, that's just scratching the surface. I don't really want to get more into it, and really don't want to get banned from this place. I have a more highly tuned outrage filter than she does, and I don't really want to share any more of the words she had for and about you, our friends and allies.

It was interesting, it was pretty much what I expected, it hasn't changed my mind that men or anyone else shouldn't simply be told to STFU, and I understand a little more about why my wife never comes here anymore.

Cheers!

[bravenak]

347. Your answer makes lots of sense.

Your wife is lucky she's not with an asshole. I never have to tell my husband to stfu either, i just reserve the right to if he starts bugging outz.
It's nice that you realize that many women are in relationships where a good stfu is necessary.

[geek tragedy]

283. there is no honest discussion to be had as to whether a man can control a woman's body

after he impregnates her.

He can discuss it with her, but he does not have any say in what she does with her own body, including getting an abortion.

He doesn't need to STFU, but he has and needs to have zero legal recourse.

[Sheldon Cooper]

285. Seriously, there is nothing to discuss here.

It's the woman's choice, period.

You can certainly feel free to babble on to anyone willing to listen, but there is no actual debate to be had here. Your "genetic material" (jesus, is every sperm sacred?) ceases to belong to you once it shoots out of your penis. You are not suddenly "oppressed" because some woman chose not to carry (and birth) your DNA for nine months. That's simply a ridiculous argument.

And she does indeed get to give you a hearty STFU, if she likes. You seem to be especially irritated by that, and I cant help but wonder why. Is it because not only can you NOT force something on a woman, but she can also get sassy about it, too?

Here's how I see it: it's the one area, ONE AREA, that men have no control over and it positively eats them alive. It's so galling to have no say in something, isn't it?

You can attempt to diminish it by calling it "negativity and hyperbole" but sorry, them's the breaks. Now go ahead, call me an angry feminist - that's your go-to response it would seem. But we've got your number.

[catbyte]

293. I used the term parasite because biologically that is what a fetus is. And I am not

angry. I have seen that a lot when a woman epresses a strong opinion, men tell her that she must be "mad" or "hysterical." Look up the origin of THAT word. I believe that men can have an opinion. I also believe that it is a woman's right to disregard that opinion & do what she thinks is right. All of the consequences fall upon her. A man can change his mind & just walk away unscathed. A woman can't. So what have we said that is so "hyperbolic"? We cited the very real risks and very real consequences for women that men just don't face.

If a man can't live with a woman's decision, it's incumbent on him to keep it zipped until a more compatible partner comes along. Forced birth is barbaric.

[Bartlet]

326. This was decided back in 1976

You should do a little research.

Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976)

[tenderfoot]

211. I hope you fail your review

go crawl back to the cave you came from.

[mwooldri]

284. well there's something being transferred in pregnancy.

The foetus gets nutrients and oxygen through the umbilical cord and placenta. In pregnancy the mother is "forced" to give the foetus nutrients and oxygen.

I disagree with you. I think the comparison has merit.

[Bartlet]

320. Foolish response

The point obviously want over your head. Bodily autonomy is not up for debate, ever. You don't get to decide if someone else should or should not carry a pregnancy to term, it is never your decision under any circumstances. Your opinion on the matter is no more relevant than is my opinion on whether you should be allowed to have any surgery.

The message you missed is butt the fuck out.

[LuckyTheDog]

335. I am not a fan of abortion. Who really is?

But here is the thing: Making it illegal causes many, many more problems than it solves. In fact, the only "problem" solved by banning abortion is that of women getting safe, legal procedures. The problems created include women dying from unsafe, illegal procedures, emergency room visits for abortion-related complications and, oh yes, the fact that women lose control over their own bodies.

If a woman in my life was pregnant asked my advice, I'd recommend against abortion. There are a lot of infertile couples out there looking to adopt. And, sometimes, the biological father or a family member might be willing to raise the kid, if asked. Those are options worth exploring and I'd help in any way I could.

But these are not always realistic options. Some women have health problems that would make pregnancy extra risky. Some fear losing their jobs once they start to "show," or simply don't have the resources to deal with a pregnancy. And biological fathers are not always nice, agreeable guys that a woman would want to have involved in the decision, let alone in the raising of the child. Family members can be judgmental, unhelpful assholes.

So, if a woman in my life was pregnant and did NOT ask my advice, then I'd keep my trap shut. None of my business. Her call.

[AlbertCat]

354. pregnancy is not a blood transfusion or organ donation.

No. It merely a gene transfusion.

[RockaFowler]

4. That was worded perfectly

[kwolf68]

5. Awesome response

Incredible comment. But the pro lifers (in some cases) are beyond reason on this issue. Although perhaps those on the fence can jump off.

[Jenoch]

8. The pro-lifers will not be moved by this argument, so I think so much satisfaction over this

reply is not warranted.

[TBF]

51. Who cares what they think? They are wrong. nt

[Jenoch]

102. Of course they are wrong.

If what they think does not matter, what's the point in responding? (Other than self-satisfaction, which feels good, but does not do anything to help the battle to keep abortion safe and legal.)

[A HERETIC I AM]

107. I didn't post this thinking it would sway anyones opinion

I put it up because it is a perspective I had not seen before and thought this board would appreciate it.

The idea that there is "self satisfaction" regarding the message is, I think, a bit silly.

It is a well written, lucid argument. That was my motivation for sharing it.

[Jenoch]

109. You sort of missed, and then made my point.

"It is a well written, lucid argument." An argument is intended to sway somebody's thoughts and ideas on a subject. This argument will not do that to a pro-lifer.

[A HERETIC I AM]

114. Then "argument" was a poor choice of words.

I didn't miss your point.

It won't sway a pro-lifers opinion. I got that.

Is this concept one you had thought of before?

From what I gather reading the responses, it is being considered by many on this thread as an idea they had not contemplated in the past and are receiving it in the spirit with which it was presented.

If I thought it would really change minds, I might have said something like "This will stop the anti-choice crowd in their tracks!"

But it won't, so I didn't.

[jeff47]

131. The stupidity in your post is believing there is an argument that would move pro-lifers.

They believe in fairy tales, and things that medical science has proven to be absolutely false.

There is no argument that will move them.

Instead, arguments like the one in the OP are useful in getting other people to not follow pro-lifers.

[Jenoch]

344. Thank you for making my point for me.

[Marrah_G]

9. That is really well thought out and well written

[SamKnause]

12. K&R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bemildred]

42. +1. This notion of bodily autonomy has a lot of possibilities. nt

[LittleGirl]

57. Thank you

for posting this. I have rec'd and replied and bookmarked for a sensible response to this issue, once and for all.

Damn, thanks!

[A HERETIC I AM]

108. You're welcome! n/t

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

58. Wow. That is an excellent point, and well illustrated!

Can't believe I'd never heard or thought of that line of reasoning before.

[ZombieHorde]

59. Very good. nt

[Sweet Freedom]

71. It is well written, but

Unfortunately this type of argument is not persuasive to Christians who believe that abortion is murder. The only time that I've ever been successful in discussing pro choice with a Christian, is when I have spoken in terms that relate to them spiritually and have pointed out the following—

• Genesis states life does not begin until you draw your first breath (God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being) so until a child can breath on its own, it is not yet a living being.
• If God is omnipotent then He is fully aware of the child's fate.
• God gave humans free will and forgives.
• Only God is supposed to pass judgment.

I also point out abortion is actually something Democrats would like to prevent and the way to do that is through education, proper healthcare and contraception, so if they voted for a Democrat, they would actually be doing more to help prevent abortions then if they voted Republican.

And by successful, I mean I had a civil conversation where they thought about what I said and agreed to disagree about being pro choice, but they did agree to think about voting Dem.

[BrotherIvan]

121. +1

Anti-choicers will never get the argument that a woman has rights as they have put the life of a clump of cells above any living woman. The largest problem is the insidious idea that was introduced to heat up this debate that "life begins at conception" and a abortion is murder (of a fully formed baby) because the Bible contradicts this. Just as the very misinformed poster above stated, he thinks that a fetus is a baby, his baby which he has equal rights to. If there was some way we could right that wrong, many people who were on the fence about choice could be reasoned with. And I think these are mostly men because I have yet to meet a woman who hasn't thought very deeply about this issue which profoundly affects her. That is why churches target young women with propaganda.

Some men don't see anything about reproduction as important. They don't care about birth control and they don't care about choice. As we have seen on this board, they have been taught that having children (as well as raising them) is a "woman's problem." The more you buy into the extreme gender norms, the clearer that is.

I had a discussion just the other day with a guy (and many guys, unless faced with the issue, have never really thought about it and are usually some strange version of pro-life because they don't have to weigh the physical risks), and he basically said he didn't care about choice or birth control. For him, children were an economic consideration and nothing more. He didn't see why a woman wouldn't just carry a fetus to term and give it up for adoption as if it was a simple as that. When I explained to him the risks and toll of his idea, he started to listen up. When I told him that the posters that anti-choicers hold up are fake, to look up the size of a fetus at 20 weeks, he was surprised. He had believed the same silly idea that every human fertilized egg is sacred and didn't know that spontaneous miscarriage was very high.

He didn't know any of those things because the religious right has taken over the conversation. Their lies have seeped into everyone's minds and now it will take extra effort to deal with them. The right was very smart to call abortion "baby killing" because who wants to kill a baby? Especially the illiterate/uneducated person to whom the word fetus means nothing. I think the heart of the matter is educating anyone who will listen that it is not a baby. It is a potential baby once the mother's body has sacrificed its own nutrients and energy to grow it (I won't even use the passive term incubator). It's not a baby until it can live separately from its mother (he didn't know what viability meant).

And until the unwanted fetus can be implanted in the man who insists it be brought to term, he gets absolutely no say. None!

[jeff47]

138. You're assuming the argument is intended to sway anti-choicers.

There is no argument that will sway committed anti-choicers. The only thing that changes their mind is when they want the abortion, and that change only lasts until their procedure is complete.

Instead, arguments like the OP are useful for people who are "on the fence".

[Sweet Freedom]

155. I have always attempted to sway the vote of anti choicers

I started preaching pro choice back when I was a teenager and I have continued to do so for now three decades. I don't ever expect to change minds about pro-choice, but I have on numerous occasions been able to change a vote, which I think is important. I find most anti choicers are conditioned to believe pro choice people are evil and heartless. I have found if I speak a language they understand and I am thoughtful and compassionate, it opens up the conversation and I can make a difference.

[annabanana]

174. The "first breath" argument IS persuasive to fundies capable of thought.

After all, Adam was just a lump of clay until God breathed the breath of life into it.

[Sweet Freedom]

182. True

A little lightbulb always goes off on that one!

[Starry Messenger]

92. "I personally do believe that life begins at conception."

So a miscarriage is manslaughter?

Life, as established by Roe vs. Wade, begins at viability and/or birth. Unless you're going to issue SSN to fetuses, that bunch of cells is just a larval stage.

[justanaverageguy]

110. Legally speaking no

of course it's not manslaughter.

Roe vs Wade is a legal standard not a moral standard....but let's look at Roe v Wade says. I'm paraphrasing here but basically what Roe V Wade says is that after it becomes viable for the fetus to live out of the womb it is then a legitimate government interest to protect the fetus. (that's why late term abortions can be against the law) Of course in 1973 that was a point much further along in the pregnancy than it is today. How do you apply Roe v Wade when medical science learns to save a fetus that is just weeks old? In 1973 it would have been unheard of for a fetus of less than 22 weeks to survive....but no more. The current record is 21 weeks, and 6 days.

If life doesn't begin at conception when does it begin? When does the fetus become a life worth protecting? Should a person who kills a pregnant woman be charged with 2 murders?

[Starry Messenger]

117. I already answered this. Viability and/or birth.

Just like Roe said. There are no objective "moral standards", there are the standards that we apply through law, which is based on shared human experience in our society.

You rely on the right-wing wheeze that women are aborting babies right and left who are over 20 weeks. Not even close to fucking true, which makes this a gigantic straw-man on your part.

Fetuses are only aborted above that cut off date when they are not viable, that is, damaged and likely to be born dead, severely deformed, and/or in danger of killing the mother.

[justanaverageguy]

127. I rely on no such thing.

No did I make any assumptions or implications about when women have abortions. I in fact have no idea when women commonly have abortions. Your answer to my question was to reference Roe v Wade. By the way it's not "and/or" it's simply "or". According to Roe v Wade it is when a baby is born or is viable outside the womb.

My question to you was, since you are seemingly comfortable with the Roe v Wade standard, are you going to be fine when medical science advances to the point that a 15 week or even 10 week fetus becomes viable, then as a result abortion after that time become illegal? I ask this because the reasoning of Roe v Wade would be ok with it.

The legal definition of person-hood under Roe v Wade reasoning will forever be a shifting point as medical science progress. I prefer to think that the beginning of life is more objective than that.

[Starry Messenger]

157. Why bring up 20 weeks if you're not talking about aborting after that date?

If medical science causes a 10-15 week fetus to be viable outside of the womb, we'll be in uterine tank territory. People won't be carrying babies in the womb, because why would you if one could be raised completely outside of one, which is what this would be at that point.

Women commonly have abortions before 15 weeks.



So now you know, and don't need to keep waving around 20 weeks like it's your promise of salvation.

If a fetus is viable outside the womb, it's been born genius.

[justanaverageguy]

170. Where did I bring up 20 weeks?????

You are reading things into my words that simply aren't there.

Born is born genius.

In conversations regarding this topic "viable outside the womb" is a reference to the time frame of a pregnancy in which "IF" for some reason through one manner or another the fetus can no longer remain in the womb is it vaible....in other words could it be kept alive so as to continue to develop into a full grown person. Viable outside the womb is not synonymous with being born genius.

[Starry Messenger]

173. You:

"In 1973 it would have been unheard of for a fetus of less than 22 weeks to survive....but no more. The current record is 21 weeks, and 6 days."

The week that comes before 21 is the 20th. Duh.

If a fetus is in the womb, it is not born. Life does not "start" while you are in the womb, legally speaking. To solve the practical medical issues, we say a fetus may or may not live, ie, be viable. If your fetus is actually "outside the womb", it has been born. You were hairsplitting on "or", which is stupid. It can be "and/or".

And a fetus is still never going to be viable, in the sense you'd like it to be, at 10 or 4 or 15 weeks. So I'm perfectly comfortable with Roe just the way it is, because it deals with science and reality, two things your posts haven't displayed a familiarity with.

[gcomeau]

100. Oh really???

"Is the fetus at any point a life worth protecting??

If you say yes....then you can not agree with post. "

Is a 6 year old kid a life worth protecting?

If you say yes then you must agree that if a compatible organ donor was found that could save that life without giving up their own by donating a non-vital organ, like say, one of their kidneys or some of their liver... then they should be required by law to have to donate that organ whether they want to or not. And we'll just have law enforcement march them to an ER to have bits of their body sliced out against their will if they try to resist.


That is the exact same logic you just employed. So, do you think we should be performing forced involuntary operations on people to save kids lives? Or is, maybe, the value of the kids life real and apparent but NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERIDE OTHER PEOPLE'S BODILY AUTONOMY?????


Edit:

Additionally, asking when "life" begins is a ridiculous question.

1. The cells involved are *always* alive. The egg is alive. The sperm is alive. It's all alive. Always. There is no "when life begins" except at one point, and that point was many hundreds of millions of years ago.

2. My grass is alive, who gives a crap? Nobody is charging me with assault when I mow my lawn because "alive" doesn't matter for things like this. The question is when we stop dealing with a mass of cells and start dealing with a *person*, which is a completely different question that actually has some relevance and also involves the development of consciousness and something at least resembling personal identity. Which, no, does certainly NOT happen at conception.

[CreekDog]

106. welcome back to DU, you haven't posted in over two months

now you're here to back up a pro-life poster who was getting his butt handed to him.

smoottthhhhh.

[justanaverageguy]

116. Thank you....

For you warm welcome. I have a full time job and two kids. I've been a poster here for years....but go for months at time without ever looking at the DU. It's fun when I have the time. Which I usually don't.

I like to chime when when the conversation is on of interest. The question of when does an embryo/fetus become a life worth protecting is one that has always interested me. I confess I don't know the answer in a way that I could state in a factual manner. My belief that it starts at conception is soley based on my inability to answer otherwise. It's kind of like erring on the side of caution.

[CreekDog]

119. so you just happened to go on DU and deep within this thread decided to respond?

mmmm hmmmm.

just strolling along one fine summer day at DU --your 5th post this year!

wow.

and you hit gold. of all the places to post and all the days to post, to back up leftyohiolib in his pro life, anti women posts, you were here to back him up.

lightning strikes twice i guess!

[justanaverageguy]

148. Typing as I chuckle a bit....

Yes as a matter of fact.

You can question my motives all you like, but yeah I was basically surfing through the DU today avoid any real work as I recover from my most fantastic but tiring holiday weekend.

Conversations on this particular subject have alway interested me, if for no other reason than I don't know the answer. I have my beliefs but that's about all they are is beliefs. You can disagree with my beliefs I really couldn't care less. I just enjoy the conversation and other people's insights. Even those that disagree with me.

As to this being my 5th post this year....yeah that sounds about right. I'm not sure what you do with your life that allows you the time to post some 4,000 times a year or why the hell you'd want to be in front of a computer than long. I however simply do not have the time nor desire to spend that much time on a computer. I'd much rather be at the ball game with by 2 boys, or tubing down the river, or enjoying a day at the amusement park. Really looking forward to the new Harry Potter ride at Universal Studios!!!

as to this guy "leftyouhiolib" I have no idea who he is.

[CreekDog]

202. yes, go on, you're too busy to know what goes on at DU

yet you find an argument buried in this thread.

and you jump in to offer a second pro-life argument after the first pro-life poster was failing.

uh huh.

[TBF]

149. Amazing timing. nt

[justanaverageguy]

164. not amazing...simply coincidental nt

[niyad]

296. and the sun rises in the north

[TBF]

331. These 2 aren't fooling anyone -

not sure why they're still here ...

At least the democratic platform is crystal clear on pro-choice even if this website is not:

Strongly and unequivocally support Roe v. Wade

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

[niyad]

353. you are so correct about them. and thank you for including that plank of the dem platform.

sad that the reminder is necessary.

[PDJane]

120. Life begins when the foetus can live outside the womb.

Rabbinical law says that the foetus doesn't become a human being until it is born.

Modern medicine puts the age of survival at about 25 weeks. After that, abortion is permitted for life-saving reasons: for example, if the child is effectively dead and carrying to term would cause problems for the mother, if there is a spontaneous abortion in progress, if the mother's life is in danger. If there are twins, twin to twin transfusion syndrome may mean that the only way to save one twin is to abort the other. And yes, I consider there to be good and practical reasons for abortion under those circumstances, although early term abortion is the most common.

Please note that if you consider that a fertilized egg is a human being, mother nature is a serial murderer; most fertilized eggs never implant.

[justanaverageguy]

130. I have no idea what Rabbinical law is....but I will Google it later LOL!!

That modern medicine puts the age of survival at about 25 weeks sounds reasonable to me. No disagreement there. But I want to know does your opinion on abortion restriction change as the 25 weeks become 23 weeks....then 20....then 17.....then 15?? As "modern medicine" advances that number is logically going to get lower and lower. At what point does that number become so low that it begins to conflict with a woman's choice? Does it ever?

[PDJane]

146. Modern medicine can do nothing about some things.

You cannot keep a foetus alive in the first weeks of implantation; it's not possible without building an artificial womb, and that presents its own problems. http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week. A cluster of cells is a cluster of cells. The 'heart' that is beating at first is a tube; the organs aren't there to support life.

There is only so far you can push 'life' and 'survival' back.

Frankly, we shouldn't be trying to do that anyway; a fair number of those spontaneous abortions are due to foetal abnormalities. There is a trade-off.

[justanaverageguy]

167. I agree with your last statement.

However, I think it is in the nature of science to keep pushing and advancing. Even if they shouldn't be trying I think they will.

[historylovr]

132. You too. Just as lost as your friend up thread.

[TBF]

143. Maybe but you've picked the wrong question -

it comes down to when does legal personhood begin.

Scientifically I would argue you have a hard case with the "life begins at conception" argument because the collection of cells cannot survive independent of it's host.

[justanaverageguy]

160. I think people are purposefully being too literal

In the context of this conversation I'm pretty sure it is easy to understand that when I ask "when does life begin" what I'm asking about is personhood. When is it a life worth offering protection to.

[TBF]

163. I answered your question -

when it can survive independent of its host. I would not advocate using a woman's body as an incubator, for example, after an accident (such as the Marlize Munoz case).

[passiveporcupine]

222. My feeling on that case, as a woman

I don't know all the details of the case, but if she was not expecting to be in an accident, and she was planning on having a baby and raising it with her husband, I would think that if she could, she would have given consent to let her body be kept alive artificially, till the baby was born.

I know I would have, in that circumstance. Perhaps that is something that should be determined before you become pregnant with your partner (or as soon as you find out you are pregnant). What do you call those medical documents...a living will? To let the legal world know what you want to happen to you if you become unable to live without life support and cannot give consent.

[LeftyMom]

234. She had been without oxygen for some time and there was reason to believe the fetus was damaged.

Her widower did not want to raise a potentially very ill child alone, and did not feel this was in the best interest of their existing child.

It wasn't a matter of keeping the meat warm until a healthy baby falls out. It almost never is, even when the woman was very near term (which this woman was not at all- she wasn't even showing yet) because whatever killed her usually cuts off circulation to the child for some time before it can be restored medically.

The anti-woman right usually tries to withhold enough facts that our cultural standard for women to be self-sacrificing can kick in, but when you dig around more people aren't being selfish in these culture war cases, they're applying common sense.

[passiveporcupine]

240. I should have read up on the case before replying

I remember now that the widower was not allowed to make that decision for her, and was worried about the resulting birth. I didn't remember that she was that early in the process. Nope...that doesn't make sense at all.

In that case, it should never have been forced on her by the state (or whomever was behind it).

Thanks for reminding me.

[TBF]

238. You'd have to put that in writing before it happens -

she was brain dead. "DNR" is the legal order for do not resuscitate. I think it evolved mostly with elderly folks.

Some women may give the consent, some may not - you can't assume (fwiw I probably would have - if not with the first definitely with the second - but each individual is different). That's the whole point. Each woman decides.

The only time it may get particularly dicey is when the woman is under 18 and the parents are the responsible parties in charge. There are gray situations as always when humans are involved.

[jeff47]

150. Life began about 3.6 billion years ago. It hasn't stopped.

For life to begin at conception, the things doing the conceiving can't be alive. Otherwise, it makes no sense to declare it the beginning of life. Everything involved was already alive.

Both sperm and eggs are alive before conception. So there isn't a "no life" to "life" moment at conception. And the cells that made the sperm and eggs was alive, so life didn't start when they were created. Those cells were made by something alive, and so on and so forth.

So life began 3.6 billion years ago when a cluster of chemicals started replicating itself. Before that, there was nothing alive, so it makes sense to call that when life begins. And there is a continuous link of life from that lump to a baby conceived today.

When is a pile of cells a new human being? When you can deduct it on your taxes. Anti-choicers tell a story of when life begins, but they ensure that they do not have to pay for that story. Kinda indicates it's not really "when life begins".

FYI, implantation fails about 50% of the time after conception. If we apply some basic statistics to your definition of when life begins, virtually every heterosexual woman has killed a child. Kinda indicates there may be a flaw in your definition.

[TNNurse]

96. If you can work out one detail

I would be in favor of a Constitutional amendment for "Bodily Autonomy". At what age does the person gain autonomy? Can a child refuse to donate bone marrow for a sibling? Please remember there are children who were created for that purpose. I am not saying their parents do not love them, but it does bring questions. Can a 12 yo girl decide whether or not to carry a fetus to term?

I am sure that some of you may come up with some other issues.

And please be sure that if you engage in discussion with people who call themselves "pro-life", be sure you ask them their beliefs on food, healthcare, education, and housing for those who enter life without those provided for whatever reason. And please be sure that you remind them that people are not "pro-abortion" unless they are delusional. We just understand that their are valid reasons to not continue a pregnancy and that the continuation may cause irreparable harm and especially harm to that child they are so in favor of "supporting" but only until it is born.

[jeff47]

152. Not really a difficult detail. Age of majority. Currently 18. (nt)

[LexVegas]

99. Is it acceptable to be anti-choice on this forum?

[A HERETIC I AM]

103. Well, this is DEMOCRATIC Underground....

and since a womans right to choose is in the party platform, you'll probably get a lot of flack for espousing an anti-choice position.

[cyberswede]

104. It shouldn't be. nt

[catbyte]

112. If a man is advocating forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term, I think it shouldn't be acceptable.

That is not a Democratic value. That is placing a higher value on a clump of cells than on an actual living, breathing human being, and that is wrong. We are not brood mares.

[TBF]

144. You're asking the wrong folks -

we are not the admin. If I were in charge it wouldn't be.

[Starry Messenger]

159. +1000

[DURHAM D]

219. Amen. nt

[steve2470]

205. I don't think so, the 2012 party platform is explicitly pro-choice

see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025206323#post203

[CreekDog]

263. Yes, anti choicers are acceptable to a few here

of course, not acceptable to most here.

but the few, they count.

[Iggo]

310. Nope.

[tclambert]

111. Yes, but what does Hobby Lobby have to say about it?

So the point is dead people have more rights than women. But I'm sure corporations still have more rights than dead people. And what about dead women? Where do their rights stand in the legal hierarchy of rights? (I think I recall a case where a family was not allowed to "pull the plug" on a brain dead woman because she was pregnant, and there was slim chance her corpse could give birth to a severely damaged but live baby, if they kept the machinery running for a few more months.)

[doxydad]

139. K & R

[felix_numinous]

141. The abortion issue is about a double standard

-everything else is just a ruse.

Before Roe vs. Wade hospital OR schedules were full of 'D & C's' ... dialation and curettage' , done on any woman with enough money to pay for it. A quiet discreet way of having an abortion.

Abortions are a fact of life, if they are made illegal this will only change the availability for safe and affordable procedures to all. It has NOTHING to do with ethics. Does anyone here actually believe that these people respect life? No--they are tools of the 1%-- and abortion is a key wedge issue to divide this country.

Reproductive freedom is the key to an advanced, balanced and educated society--we cannot allow the Dark Ages to come back. These people believe that Armageddon is inevitable so are blind to their enabling it to happen.... We cannot buy into their dystopia.

Peace FN

[felix_numinous]

151. And the poor women can just bleed out

in back alleys and ERs where botched procedures tore up their bodies from the inside. If you are comfortable with this REALITY then you have no respect for women. Period. Done. These are the choices in THE REAL WORLD.

[A HERETIC I AM]

333. Ummmmm ...did you mean to respond to someone else?

Because your post is a response to my OP and I in NO WAY WHATSOEVER am in favor of what you insinuate.

I am about as pro-choice as they get and I resent the implication you made in your post. Please be clear as to who you are/were responding to.

[felix_numinous]

355. This was meant as a general response

I apologize, Heretic I Am, I have terrible internet where I am and this reminds me why I should not attempt posts from here.

[redstatebluegirl]

162. Fabulous response!

I need to remember this for my weekly conversation with my crazy neighbor!

[steve2470]

203. 2012 Democratic Party Platform on choice

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

So, since this is the official 2012 platform position, maybe the TOS can be altered ? It seems PRO-CHOICE is the OFFICIAL position, and this is DEMOCRATIC Underground, not Discussionist.

[TBF]

239. You should send this post straight to the admins -

maybe the democratic party platform would take precedence over the DLC for once.

[steve2470]

247. ok good idea, I'll do that nt

[locks]

209. Thanks for all the responses

Generally, I never try to convince a right-to-lifer of anything as they only become more stuck on their "respect life" as I do on choice.

As some of you have said, when someone believes they are committing murder most of us would not force women to have an abortion as China tried to. The problems with the "faith" people's beliefs, however, are many and often illogical or hypocritical. They often feel it is ok to execute or kill an enemy though they both are living beings. They usually think "personhood" begins when a fetus is "viable." They often believe their religion does not morally allow them to abort but have no trouble killing the animals we live with on this planet. They often use contraceptives with no scruples even if their "faith" tells them it's sinful.

What was true for a very long time is that children were necessary for the survival of the clan; they were needed to help with the family's work and care for the parents and grandparents, and to fight off their many enemies. Many religions still teach that sex is for procreation only and it is the duty of men to spread their seed, women to incubate, and the tribe to have as many of their kind as possible. And it was their right and duty to conquer and convert everyone to that thinking who disagrees.

About all we can do until those beliefs are changed is ask them: On the only planet we have is there so much room that if all those millions of cells you call "babies" are allowed to be born will you make certain that every one of them will have health, shelter, food, education and every opportunity you've had? US laws say that fathers should support children even if they never see them; should that apply to every child born where women are not allowed contraceptives? How many men rush to take care of children born when they got free Viagra but forgot their condom, to women who did not want them and who need 24/7 special expensive care?

When women are not oppressed, when they no longer have to be subservient to men in a patriarchal society, when they become smart, educated, and thoughtful adults, they are usually able to make good decisions regarding their bodies, their health, and what is best for the community they live in. If that's abortion, God bless them.

[A HERETIC I AM]

329. Thanks for thanking everybody for responding to my thread!

I appreciate it!

[DeSwiss]

246. K&R

- The lawyers should have used this argument. Not that it would have mattered with the dickheads we have on the SCOTUS.....

For those who may want to save or send these words to others......

I Am Pro Choice

Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.

See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this…cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon.

Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy.

To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died.

You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies. link

[SunSeeker]

264. K & R

[Vattel]

273. That is a serious and usually neglected argument,

originally advanced in an article by Judith Jarvis Thomson called (if I am remembering right) "A Defense of Abortion."

[calimary]

286. "Is it really just your body?" Ummmm...

YES.

That is all.

[smirkymonkey]

287. K&R!

[ErikJ]

290. I tell pro-lifers that govt forcing women to give birth is communism

They are dumbfounded by that.

[Uncle Joe]

291. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, A HERETIC I AM.

[littlemissmartypants]

305. Beautiful darling. I love you. Arrive alive.

And with you bodily autonomy intact, please.

Love, Peace and Shelter.

Thanks for your post.

[A HERETIC I AM]

306. Awwwwww!

Saw this and had to pull over to respond!

What a sweety.

On the way back east out of LA now.

Man, did this thread take off!

Be good, doll face.

[littlemissmartypants]

307. IKR!!