The Conservative War On Women

What happens to women denied abortions? This is the first scientific study to find out.

It's a pretty small scale study, but interesting.

TL:DR

We have found that there are no mental health consequences of abortion compared to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. There are other interesting findings: even later abortion is safer than childbirth and women who carried an unwanted pregnancy to term are three times more likely than women who receive an abortion to be below the poverty level two years later.

Also, for people wanting to cut entitlements

When a woman is denied the abortion she wants, she is statistically more likely to wind up unemployed, on public assistance, and below the poverty line. Another conclusion we could draw is that denying women abortions places more burden on the state because of these new mothers' increased reliance on public assistance programs.

Thus is proven that it's an efficient way of punishing sluts!

Can what's left of the fiscally conservative Republicans (if there's any) explain this to the social conservatives in their party? If not, can they turn the lights off when they leave so we know that the Grand Old Party is really just God's Own Party now?

Kraint wrote:

Did this story get posted?http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html

He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

You edited out the important part. She died after five days due to septicaemia. You can follow the developments on Broadsheet.ie. I could explain how this situation has occurred that women are put through these ordeals in our country, if you like?

Axon wrote:
Kraint wrote:

Did this story get posted?http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html

He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

You edited out the important part. She died after five days due to septicaemia. You can follow the developments on Broadsheet.ie. I could explain how this situation has occurred that women are put through these ordeals in our country, if you like?

Everything happens as God intends!

So much for preserving life.

It is not about preserving life but preventing abortion on demand. The whole farce actually dates back to 1861 but if you want this wikipedia article is fairly level on the details. By the by, rape isn't even discussed as an option for abortion over here, what we are debating about is termination to save the mother's life.

This clip from the radio will give you a clear idea of how this debate is going. Mayo Fine Gael TD Michelle Mulherin (government backbencher, she is the first interviewee) and legal affair correspondent Dearbhail McDonald.

This whole issue has literally convulsed the nation.

So... the fetus was confirmed to be on its way to still-birth, there were no options to save it... and even THEN the save the life of the mother option was off the table? For... what reason? So the fetus could enjoy a slow death spiral? If, as all these billboards in my neighborhood suggest, this fetus could feel pain, how do doctors just LET that happen for both parties?

Instead of a quick death for the fetus but hopeful recovery for the mother... there was a long slow lingering death for both of them. I can't believe that anyone would choose the second option there.

*brain ragequits*

Demosthenes wrote:

If, as all these billboards in my neighborhood suggest, this fetus could feel pain, how do doctors just LET that happen for both parties?

Well, the pro-life voting bloc is generally also against allowing physician-assisted suicide, because you know, God's Will, etc etc. So actually that's internally consistent for their arguments. Sadly.

You see this all hinges on a series of events. 1861 Offences against the Person act makes abortion illegal and open to criminal punishment. This is the legislation until 1983 Referendum add an explicit right to life for the unborn.

However the government doesn't legislate and update the 1861 act.

1992, The X case involving a 13 year old incest victim asserts that a women (or girl) can have an abortion if the mother's life is in danger (in this case the girl was suicidal and this is key). The Supreme Court says its unforgivable that we haven't updated the 1861 act.

Government still doesn't legislate.

The ABC case appears arrives in 2010 in the ECHR and they decide that while we are perfectly fine in having strict abortion policy we need to clarify when women can actually have abortion.

Government still didn't legislate.

See the reason why they didn't is because if they legislate they have to legislate for when abortion is allowed. It doesn't matter how tightly they define it, abortion will be allowed in Ireland and that is a red line for about 20% of the population. 20% who make their voices heard and vote. So, its just left alone. The 20% even support not doing anything as they see the reality of actually legislating.

Unfortunately, this leaves medical staff opened to criminal prosecution on the basis of a 1861 act. The current guidelines on how to treat situations such as this are;

Medical Council wrote:

In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.

The problem here are many. What are "exceptional circumstances"? At what point do you protect the mother over the baby? There is only mention of "life" and no mention of "health" of the mother. By the by, this isn't law and is only guidelines by the Medical Council on foot of the X case. It hasn't been tested yet in court.

So, tragically, a Indian woman met this unholy fcuk up of a Irish system and as long as the fetus had a heartbeat, Savtia was left to suffer. The problem is there was no guarantee that it did threaten her life so they wouldn't/couldn't terminate. Put simply, people may well have acted perfectly legally.

I hope that explains it.

I can't believe that anyone would choose the second option there.

The slut needed punishment.

Axon wrote:

Depressing political stuff

Thanks for taking the time to explain, it was very enlightening/depressing/infuriating.

Malor wrote:
I can't believe that anyone would choose the second option there.

The slut needed punishment.

I get what you're saying there, but I don't think that really applies in the hypothetical I was laying out.

Still, the idea that this lady could be made to suffer because politicians don't want to rock the boat on a woefully out of date piece of legislation while religious extremists in our country try to make our own legislation the same... just infuriates me. It's ridiculous. If you really consider something that in no way affects your day to day life outside of your thinking in your head "ZOMG, BABIES ARE BEING MURDRED! MUST STOP!!1!" as something that is this important... please, get a hobby or something. Take up knitting. Make a video game where you can "shame sluts" and play that all day long. Allowing medical decisions of life and death that can very easily be answered by a qualified physician to be trumped by a book more than 1000 years old is ridiculous. Baaaaaaaah!

The Bible doesn't even say anything about abortions. In the one spot where I've heard it mention them (if a man injures a pregnant woman, and she loses her baby), then the woman is entitled to reimbursement for property damage. It's not a person yet, even in the Bible.

All the anti-abortion stuff comes from the original sin doctrine, in which women in particular are evil. They're all sluts, and they all need punishment, for what Eve did. Giving a woman an abortion is letting her escape God's wrath for her sinfulness. But that's not actually in the Bible, it was all made up afterward.

Malor wrote:

The Bible doesn't even say anything about abortions. In the one spot where I've heard it mention them (if a man injures a pregnant woman, and she loses her baby), then the woman is entitled to reimbursement for property damage. It's not a person yet, even in the Bible.

All the anti-abortion stuff comes from the original sin doctrine, in which women in particular are evil. They're all sluts, and they all need punishment, for what Eve did. Giving a woman an abortion is letting her escape God's wrath for her sinfulness. But that's not actually in the Bible, it was all made up afterward.

Was it not this thread that we talked about this already? Older interpretations definitely agree with you but the phrasing is not concrete and there's room for a very pro-life interpretation.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Was it not this thread that we talked about this already? Older interpretations definitely agree with you but the phrasing is not concrete and there's room for a very pro-life interpretation.

That's because evangelicals rewrote Exodus 21:22-24 to have a very pro-life interpretation back in the 70s.

In Jewish Orthodoxy life begins at birth, not conception, not at quickening. I would defer to the experts on the Jewish Scriptures when it comes to their interpretation and application.

KingGorilla wrote:

In Jewish Orthodoxy life begins at birth, not conception, not at quickening. I would defer to the experts on the Jewish Scriptures when it comes to their interpretation and application.

If it comes to passages from the Old Testament, that seems like a better idea than Christian theologans. The whole point of the New Testament is that the Old Testament just wasn't good enough for them.

We address this in the Atheist thread, but the Christians changed the cannon of their old testament to suit the Christian Church. This has more to do with making it seem that the Jewish Prophets were predicting Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, less to do with abortion.

But it does bear repeating that a witch as was understood in America, and in Western Europe was a woman who was skilled in folk medicine, midwifery, and abortions. You have a whole butt load of threats to the Baby Jesus there.

So if anyone forgets, this is a woman's rights issue that has been fought for 500+ years.

Came across this article today on Facebook.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...

NathanialG wrote:

Came across this article today on Facebook.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.

Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.

Surrender to your nature!!

clover wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

Came across this article today on Facebook.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.

Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.

IMAGE(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc3imxVCOR1ryqktl.gif)

"Surrender to their nature" -- that, right there, is 100% pure misogyny.

From a slightly different angle: "Women should surrender to their nature" is a direct and literal synonym for "Women should do what I think their nature is," which translates to, "what I tell them to, even if they think it's a bad idea."

They're supposed to be subservient, it's their nature to obey men and do laundry.

For bonus points, it looks like the article author was female.

NathanialG wrote:

Came across this article today on Facebook.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...

You’ll never hear that in the media.

Ummm... dumbass, we're hearing it in the media right now. You're saying it. Also, see what I addressed you as for all other inquiries on what I think of you and your opinions.

Malor wrote:

From a slightly different angle: "Women should surrender to their nature" is a direct and literal synonym for "Women should do what I think their nature is," which translates to, "what I tell them to, even if they think it's a bad idea."

They're supposed to be subservient, it's their nature to obey men and do laundry.

My wife is certainly good at doing laundry, but if it's her inherent nature to be subservient, then I have questions about her... and me. She's the take charge person in this marriage and I'm very much a go with the flow kind of guy. She asked me what cake I wanted for my birthday next week and I had to stop myself from texting back that I was good with whatever she and mawmaw wanted because I took me most of the time I was typing that to realize giving the scenario, that was not going to be an appropriate answer.

So, "Nature" is the aggressor in the War Against Women, and if they would just surrender to it, the War would be over.

So simple. So trite. So Fox.

No, no, the aggressor is women, for fighting against their natures. Nature doesn't surrender, so women have to.

It's the War by Women, not on them!

(What's that? Conservatives do all the talking for Nature? Nonsense, it's all in our Holy Instruction Book. Of course that's nature. Says so, right on the tin.)