The Conservative War On Women

Xeknos wrote:

The phrase you guys were looking for is bodily integrity, also known as bodily autonomy.

THANK YOU!

And the argument actually hinges on defining a fetus as a person. No human can compel another to provide bodily products, even if the lack of those items result in death. Thus a surgical procedure to remove the offending person should be provided upon request.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Mystic Violet wrote:

There's no contract a pregnant woman signs that states "I hereby transfer all of my rights to the unborn. I agree to carry this pregnancy to term regardless of any medical issues that threaten my life or unforeseen circumstances that may arise." Doesn't happen.

Well - I respect what you're saying here, but I still think this argument only makes sense if you predicate the idea that a fetus isn't a person. Because there kind of *is* a social contract that we try to avoid killing other people (or even letting them die) for comparatively trivial reasons.

That's not true at all. We don't even legally mandate that all Americans become organ donors after death, let alone mandate that anyone donates kidneys, or parts of livers while they're still alive.

The most trivial possible violation of bodily autonomy, orders of magnitude more safe and comfortable than the most gentle pregnancy, would be to make donating blood once a month legally required by all citizens. Not only do we not do that, but I don't think any politically significant group has even pushed that as something we should do.

(Male) bodily autonomy is such a bedrock of our psyche that the idea that a government would try to exert that level of control on us is horrifying, even though it's probably objectively a wonderful idea.

Norman, what would you have us do with the 400,000+ fertilized embryos that are stored at fertility clinics?

It seems your view would assert that, just like fetuses, embryos are people with rights. Therefore we have a situation where there's nearly half a million people being held in suspended animation (most likely against their will).

Should the state take action to free those people? If so, how? Should their biological mothers be implanted with the embryos? What happens if they don't want another child? Should force be used to implant the embryo? What happens if the biological mother is dead or too old to carry to term? Should other women be forced to carry the embryo?

What do we do if the embryos do not latch and are miscarried? Pretty common result of the procedure, to my understanding.

Demosthenes wrote:

What do we do if the embryos do not latch and are miscarried? Pretty common result of the procedure, to my understanding.

That's the answer isn't it? It would be murder to attach those embryos now, we need to wait until our attach rate is 100%, then we'll drag in women kicking and screaming from the street and implant them.

Or, if punishing sluts is something you want to do on the side, you could perform the "baby surprise", every woman who goes in for an abortion is instead implanted with a few extra babies.

The great part is that women cannot orgasm without a penis penetrating them, so as a gender we can do whatever we want to their gender and they will be powerless to do anything to stop us. If they could get better and more reliable orgasms on their own we may be in trouble. Luckily we dodged a real bullet there.

Valmorian wrote:

That was a typo, I mean I've never seen a pro-choicer who says it's impossible for a pro-life person to be a believer in etc, etc...

Yeah, I guess I've never gotten that exact quote from someone who is pro-choice, there's that. But considering the person I just described by three (assumedly) pro-choice folks was called a unicorn in some fashion or another, I'm going to just assume my intended point stands.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Yeah, I guess I've never gotten that exact quote from someone who is pro-choice, there's that. But considering the person I just described by three (assumedly) pro-choice folks was called a unicorn in some fashion or another, I'm going to just assume my intended point stands.

If that point was that Pro-lifers who are also pro-birth control are very rare, then yes, they're right. If there was a significant number of pro-life people who were also pro-birth control, wouldn't we see more organizations that also take that standpoint?

Valmorian wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

Yeah, I guess I've never gotten that exact quote from someone who is pro-choice, there's that. But considering the person I just described by three (assumedly) pro-choice folks was called a unicorn in some fashion or another, I'm going to just assume my intended point stands.

If that point was that Pro-lifers who are also pro-birth control are very rare, then yes, they're right. If there was a significant number of pro-life people who were also pro-birth control, wouldn't we see more organizations that also take that standpoint?

Actually the point was "pro choice people don't think pro-lifers with that stance are real, just theoretical statistics that have to exist... somewhere".

Your second question is something that just deserves a counter-question: If there was a significant number of Democrats who were against war, wouldn't we see the cessation of all war when Democrats ran the White House?

Abortion is, unfortunately, a matter of politics as much as it is anything else. It has been my personal experience, dealing with a lot of pro-life folks in Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Iowa and across the country in organizations like Catholic Charities that they want to see babies live. That's the deal - they are fine with contraception to prevent unwanted babies (yes even the Catholics, I hope you already grasp how few Catholics actually eschew contraception), good with the idea of mothers carrying the baby to term for adoption, funding parent support centers and giving sex education to further prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Now, the fact that folks like this exist in large numbers but have thrown in their lot with the screaming idiots who think any sex education is the devil and whatnot makes sense. And it's a problem, but man the limited imagination folks have sometimes kills me.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Mystic Violet wrote:

There's no contract a pregnant woman signs that states "I hereby transfer all of my rights to the unborn. I agree to carry this pregnancy to term regardless of any medical issues that threaten my life or unforeseen circumstances that may arise." Doesn't happen.

Well - I respect what you're saying here, but I still think this argument only makes sense if you predicate the idea that a fetus isn't a person. Because there kind of *is* a social contract that we try to avoid killing other people (or even letting them die) for comparatively trivial reasons. Per your second point when there's a serious risk to the mother's life, there's a like-for-like clash of rights and the mother should be free to decide.

Even if we consider both as persons, they are in a unique relationship where one is physically attached and completely reliant on the other for survival. Is it right to force her to provide life for the other against her will? That's the issue.

Pregnancy is not perfect. It's a risk that she is taking. One error in the pregnancy cycle (eptopic pregnancy, severe deformity like missing brain or lungs, miscarriage, stillborn) and it's over. Women still die trying to carry babies or give birth to them. It's not a case of a woman roaming the streets and randomly stabbing someone to death.

The only "kinda similar" situation I can think of would be Siamese twins. Two people permanently joined together from birth. In severe cases, they cannot be separated and rely on each other to live. Who's in charge here? Can one make a medical decision for both parties? If one agrees with treatment and the other does not, what happens next? What if one wanted to take the chance of being surgically separated but the other declined?

I don't know. It's a special case where two people are joined together and merely "having rights" doesn't really work. I personally consider the decisions between a pregnant woman and a fetus an easy one since only one party is able to do anything: whether it's carrying the fetus to term or ended the pregnancy for whatever reason (complications, rape, etc.).

Bloo Driver wrote:
Valmorian wrote:

If that point was that Pro-lifers who are also pro-birth control are very rare, then yes, they're right. If there was a significant number of pro-life people who were also pro-birth control, wouldn't we see more organizations that also take that standpoint?

Your second question is something that just deserves a counter-question: If there was a significant number of Democrats who were against war, wouldn't we see the cessation of all war when Democrats ran the White House?

But that's two different standards, the theoretical organizations that push strongly against abortion and for contraception don't exist in any large numbers or affect the national discourse in any significant way.

Anti-war organizations exist, they are much quieter now, but even when Obama was already President, but before we pulled out of Iraq there were still demonstrations and whatnot. And there are also demonstrations and organizations about all the done nonsense, albeit not as many as I'd like.

But anyways, there are two tiers here: evidence of some significant amount of popular support, and then that platform actually being successfully enacted. You are staying that "anti-war Democrats" have not reached the second tier, but that doesn't address whether or not they reached the first tier.

I would argue that anti-war Democrats absolutely have reached the first tier, and considering that we are out of Iraq and have dramatically wound down in Afghanistan it seems disingenuous to say there was no progress on the second tier.

Anti-abortion pro-contraceptive people aren't even close to hitting that first tier.

Mystic Violet wrote:

The only "kinda similar" situation I can think of would be Siamese twins. Two people permanently joined together from birth. In severe cases, they cannot be separated and rely on each other to live. Who's in charge here? Can one make a medical decision for both parties? If one agrees with treatment and the other does not, what happens next? What if one wanted to take the chance of being surgically separated but the other declined?

You can make your "kind of similar" example more exact if, instead of having the Siamese twins "depend on each other" one was objectively a parasite. If one twin had all of the vital organs, such that he could easily survive without the other, but the second twin had no chance whatsoever to live independently, then what is the law?

If the operation could be done solely with topical anaesthetic (so that no medical procedure was done that would directly affect the "parasitic" twin, and which that twin would obviously get to veto), and all incisions and whatnot could be performed on the "dominant" twin, would he be allowed to have the other twin removed and abandoned to certain death against his will?

Yonder wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Valmorian wrote:

If that point was that Pro-lifers who are also pro-birth control are very rare, then yes, they're right. If there was a significant number of pro-life people who were also pro-birth control, wouldn't we see more organizations that also take that standpoint?

Your second question is something that just deserves a counter-question: If there was a significant number of Democrats who were against war, wouldn't we see the cessation of all war when Democrats ran the White House?

But that's two different standards, the theoretical organizations that push strongly against abortion and for contraception don't exist in any large numbers or affect the national discourse in any significant way.

They're two different standards if you don't understand the point of the comparison - group politics often mean people don't campaign exactly how or for what they want.

Anyway, this went from me trying to point out the viewpoint was not so radical or obscure to now having to pass some test about just how effective or widespread it is through a nebulous goalpost of "effective", when I never purported that they were somehow affecting or driving the national discourse. Hell, I even noted the opposite.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Actually the point was "pro choice people don't think pro-lifers with that stance are real, just theoretical statistics that have to exist... somewhere".

Again, never seen a pro-choicer say that. I am a pro-choicer who thinks such people really exist, they're just a minority of the pro-life whole.

Your second question is something that just deserves a counter-question: If there was a significant number of Democrats who were against war, wouldn't we see the cessation of all war when Democrats ran the White House?

What? How is this even remotely similar? I have looked for ANY pro-life organization that is also promoting responsible birth control and come up cold.

Abortion is, unfortunately, a matter of politics as much as it is anything else. It has been my personal experience, dealing with a lot of pro-life folks in Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Iowa and across the country in organizations like Catholic Charities that they want to see babies live. That's the deal - they are fine with contraception to prevent unwanted babies (yes even the Catholics, I hope you already grasp how few Catholics actually eschew contraception), good with the idea of mothers carrying the baby to term for adoption, funding parent support centers and giving sex education to further prevent unwanted pregnancies.

That's great, I hope there ARE a lot of those people out there! I am puzzled as to why so few of them seem to be around whenever these things are debated, or when pro-life organizations are trying to remove sex education from schools, etc..

Now, the fact that folks like this exist in large numbers but have thrown in their lot with the screaming idiots who think any sex education is the devil and whatnot makes sense. And it's a problem, but man the limited imagination folks have sometimes kills me.

I'm sorry, but if these people are really concerned about reducing abortions and yet are throwing their lot in with the "idiots who think any sex education is the devil", that makes them indistinguishable to me. That's part of the problem.

Wendy Davis Redefines ‘Pro-Life,’ Enrages Anti-Choicers

“I am pro-life,” she told a University of Texas at Brownsville crowd on Tuesday. “I care about the life of every child: every child that goes to bed hungry, every child that goes to bed without a proper education, every child that goes to bed without being able to be a part of the Texas dream, every woman and man who worry about their children’s future and their ability to provide for that future. I care about life and I have a record of fighting for people above all else.”
Tanglebones wrote:

Wendy Davis Redefines ‘Pro-Life,’ Enrages Anti-Choicers

“I am pro-life,” she told a University of Texas at Brownsville crowd on Tuesday. “I care about the life of every child: every child that goes to bed hungry, every child that goes to bed without a proper education, every child that goes to bed without being able to be a part of the Texas dream, every woman and man who worry about their children’s future and their ability to provide for that future. I care about life and I have a record of fighting for people above all else.”

A good article, but I liked this line best -

Twitchy, the website that challenges the notion that the content of a post should make more sense than the comment section...
Tanglebones wrote:

Wendy Davis Redefines ‘Pro-Life,’ Enrages Anti-Choicers

“I am pro-life,” she told a University of Texas at Brownsville crowd on Tuesday. “I care about the life of every child: every child that goes to bed hungry, every child that goes to bed without a proper education, every child that goes to bed without being able to be a part of the Texas dream, every woman and man who worry about their children’s future and their ability to provide for that future. I care about life and I have a record of fighting for people above all else.”

I love how she's criticized about using the pro-life label but no one directly addresses her points that people need to care about children after they are born as well.

Nevin73 wrote:

I love how she's criticized about using the pro-life label but no one directly addresses her points that people need to care about children after they are born as well.

One of the tweets featured in that article was actually darkly funny to me along the same line - "so @WendyDavisTexas is now "Pro-Life" here's the catch. You must be out of the uterus & at least 6 months old."

So much packed into that statement.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Basically, my argument is that since even the definition of humanity is super-subjective, we should be applying rights in a more liberal (in the literal sense) way, not a more conservative one. I can't think of any case in the past where taking some group and saying "you are a person with basic rights" has ever been the wrong move.

Although based on the reasoning of St. Scalia & Co., we could define personhood as "any entity capable of directly making political speech."

EDIT:

Bloo Driver wrote:

"so @WendyDavisTexas is now "Pro-Life" here's the catch. You must be out of the uterus & at least 6 months old and white."

Fixed!

D: I don't even...

This really alarmed us this morning. Just one reminder that getting an abortion in Texas can be very dangerous. pic.twitter.com/bdHCZ3F3lM
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYulPU3CAAAsFqf.png)

As a number of people pointed out in response to that tweet: Because kidnapping is a really good idea. :X

Wow. Kidnapping and lying to people. How very Christian.

WTF?

Rallick wrote:

Wow. Kidnapping and lying to people. How very Christian.

Sadly not at all surprising.

LarryC wrote:

WTF?

Welcome to the intersection of religion and politics in America.

How sad.

If those folks were most interested in reducing abortions (a GOOD thing, imo) they'd support policies that reduce the need. Why won't they get behind sex education and birth control?

So frustrating.

Top_Shelf wrote:

How sad.

If those folks were most interested in reducing abortions (a GOOD thing, imo) they'd support policies that reduce the need. Why won't they get behind sex education and birth control?

So frustrating. :(

Because Leviticus clearly states comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives are the work of the devil.

Good point. Who needs all those good outcomes from modern society? Old Testament FTW!

How can they think there wouldn't be consequences for that kind of action?

Bruce wrote:

How can they think there wouldn't be consequences for that kind of action?

Why would they worry about consequences? Having the evil, anti-Christian government oppress them for their righteous deeds, so that they will be rewarded in the next life for their strength in dealing with that persecution, is the best case scenario for them.

Yonder wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

What do we do if the embryos do not latch and are miscarried? Pretty common result of the procedure, to my understanding.

That's the answer isn't it? It would be murder to attach those embryos now, we need to wait until our attach rate is 100%, then we'll drag in women kicking and screaming from the street and implant them.

How would that affect social security for said embryo? We might regard the baby as only 51 years old but according to Xians and the right-wings' opinions of when life begins, that baby will actually be 67 years old.

If embryos are people. And let's say we won't achieve an attach rate of 100% for 15 years, then that means an embryo put in storage today will be 15 years old already when it is successfully attached. Add 9 months for pregnancy and the mother will have given birth to a 16 year old!

That means of course that upon birth it will immediately and legally be permitted to apply for a drivers' learning permit. Wonder what that insurance premium will look like. And two years after birth will be able to purchase a pack of cigarettes and vote in elections. And since young people mostly vote Democrat, the GOP and moral majority might want to rethink this strategy.