What is your take on the current kerfuffle about abortion and birth control?

Everyone should have access to health care and insurance, and everyone woman’s insurance should cover birth control.

Abortion should be legal and safe. Ideally it should be covered under insurance, because there is no non-religious reason why it should be prohibited.

I think it is based in religion. There is a bizarre mistrust of women that is part of the conservative mindset, and which I think they react to without realizing what it comes from. That is my guess, based on listening to them talk and looking at the legislation they propose. Not being in their minds, I can’t really know.

Outwardly, this seems to manifest as a kind of pride in maintaining high moral standards and protecting families. But when we (as liberal women) say “access to birth control”, they hear “wanting to sleep around” (even though their wives, sisters, and daughters are on birth control). When we say “access to abortion”, they hear “killing babies”. But the point is, they don’t believe what we are saying. They don’t trust us to make good choices.

This rehash of birth control and abortion is deja vu to me. We were married in 1966. At that time the Catholic church started insisting that couples go to counseling before the priest could marry them. Being good catholics, we went to a couple sessions. In the first one, our old parish priest said that birth control pills are forbidden to Catholic couples.

We questioned that position during our second session with the new, young parish priest. He said, “that’s up to your conscience”. Of course our conscience said that were were too young 18 and 19 to have children.

The old joke is what do you call Catholics that follow the church’s birth control method?
Answer: Parents

Only a very small, hardcore group of Catholic couples follow the church’s “natural rhythm method” of birth control. You can tell who they are because most have at least 4 kids.

The American Catholic Bishops speak only for the Pope and a small minority. They make a lot of noise but have very little power among Catholics.

The fact that Santorum brought up this subject shows that he is dedicated to bring theocratic government to this country. Do you really want to revert to the middle ages where the church ordained secular rulers, controlled education, and burned heretic scientists at the stake.

I guess the only way to oppose theocratic Muslims is to make a theocratic Christian country. That way the whole world goes back to the middle ages. We can have a nice holy war with well defined lines on who’s the enemy. We can stop all of this global warming nonsense by burning the scientist responsible for that rhetoric and we can put women back in their place veiled and obedient to her husband or father.

Well, while this is going on, it is stirring outrage and strong opposition. In Virginia, the conservative legislature’s attempts to force women to have trans-vaginal ultra-sounds before an abortion were stopped by protests.

This is obviously a sensitive subject for many but this so called “ridiculous law” in Arizona is not attempting to stop abortions it is merely designed to afford reasonable tort protections to doctors in the event of previously unknown or undetected birth defects at the time of birth.

I’m a man.
Never gave birth or had an abortion.
Never going to experience giving birth or having an abortion.

With that in mind
my opinion of what a woman should do
ain’t worth a pile of warm spit.

I think “Pretty Tony” from the movie “The Mack” said it best. Some of these folks flappin’ their gums over issues that affect other people should…

”...shut the (expletive) up when (they) hear grown folks talkin’.”

In this matter, all men should go watch a ballgame or somethin’ and allow the “grown folks” (women) decide what is best for their bodies.

@SABOTEUR “I’m a man.
Never gave birth or had an abortion.
Never going to experience giving birth or having an abortion.”

I feel exactly the same way and mentioned that to a Republican friend. He said that I was wrong and that a man has the right to stop abortion, regardless of the woman’s desires.

Of course I disagreed and my right wing friend has no idea why I should feel that way and didn’t understand my objection. I think that we will never change their minds because their belief has nothing to do with knowledge, logic, or justice.

You can cure ignorance but stupidity is permanent. The only thing we can do is to insure that those people don’t get a political upper-hand. If they do, our democracy is surely ended.

I think it’s been talked about to death, but I just don’t get why Viagra is so important, but birth control isn’t. I wonder what the argument is there?

These are all very difficult questions. The language in the bill linked may be vague but it not all that uncommon. Rather than immediately screaming “war on Women” it might be better to just shore up the language.

Birth Control is already readily available for all. And pretty cheap$10—$20/month. That’s assuming you insurance doesn’t already pay which most do. The whole thing is a religious freedom issue which shouldn’t be arousing so much grief when there are real issues to be discussing.

Abortion is the worst. If you believe that life begins at conception, then abortion really is killing a living human being. The whole issues centers around when you believe life begins, not religion. Liberals want us to believe that life begins when the baby sticks it’s head out of the womb. That some magic happens in the delivery room that breathes life into the baby. It doesn’t work that way. If you believe that a human is not full developed until the age of 5, does that mean you can kill off the baby anytime before it reaches the age of 5? Hell it should be your choice. At the same time you can be charged with murder for killing a fetus. Ask Scott Peterson about that. He was sentenced to death for killing his unborn child.

Those that want to believe abortion is simply a religious issue are missing the point. It’s not. I believe that abortion should be allowed but it should be decided early on. Before the baby is fully formed. I can see all the reasons for it but it still causes me some internal struggles. At what point does the baby gain the rights of a human being. At what point does the baby gain the right to live and not be slaughtered at the whim of outrageous fortune. It’s easy to say this is a woman’s right to choose but at what point does the baby have a right? It’s not that easy.

Yup, this is just an attempt to control women and women’s bodies.

I believe Favianna Rodriguez said it best – ‘It’s my body. It’s my pussy. Get over it you patriarchal fuck head woman-hater.’

I hate abortion. I understand those with religious conviction who believe that it should be outlawed entirely as murder. I particularly admire those who refuse to compromise their principles even in the case of rape and incest. If you believe that the fetus has equal rights with an adult, then how could you claim that “how it was conceived” matters a damn? If one believes, as @Jaxk has expressed that some do, that “life begins at conception”, then how can it be otherwise? I don’t share that belief, but… when does life begin? At birth, when the infant starts to breathe? When it develops an awareness of self? When it graduates from school?

If a pregnant woman is assaulted and miscarries, then a homicide charge may be lodged against the assailant – and rightly so! – regardless of the recovery of the woman.

So is it just a case of “wanting vs. not-wanting” the birth?

It is a sticky question. It should be! Matters of life and death are not to be dismissed so cavalierly by anyone who considers himself or herself to be civilized. It’s not black and white, either. Not in the case of “abortion is murder” or in the case of “controlling women”. Undoubtedly there are some who want to overtly control women; I don’t take their side, either, not for a moment.

I hate abortion.

But as a practical matter, I can’t see the utility or sense in forcing a woman to become a mother against her will. No good can come of that. On that basis alone I reluctantly support a woman’s right to choose. I think this is one of the reasons that many legislators arrive at what seems a great compromise position for them: Require that a cooling-off period and counseling be mandated so that she may be given an opportunity (and counselor) to change her mind. I’m not fully in favor of that, either, but it’s better than “anything goes!” and “abortion is murder and should be outlawed”.

It’s worth discussing, but it generally turns into hardened positions on both sides, retreat from the center, name-calling, sloganeering and worse. More’s the pity, for fetuses and adults alike.

@Jaxk I was following right along with your post and, while disagreeing vehemently, respecting your position and your wording… Until I got the the part about babies being “slaughtered at the whim of outrageous fortune.” I have said it before here and I will say it again: anyone, man or woman, who believes a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy, at any point during that pregnancy, is made on a “whim of outrageous fortune” has obviously never had to make that decision or known a woman who has. That is an ignorant and offensive statement. Here’s a reality check: the choice to terminate a pregnancy – any pregnancy – be it because of rape, incest, the reality that the baby will live a short and painful life resulting in a very early and painful death, is the hardest decision most women will ever have to face. As for where life begins, while a fetus in in-utero, it is the woman’s life flowing through the fetus that gives the fetus life, that is why before a certain point and without intense invasive medical interventions, the fetus cannot survive outside the womb. I also believe to the core of my being that if men carried the babies abortion would be legal with no questions asked and zero restrictions.

@Ron C, did you hear about the Catholic orchestra? Their rhythm section was all messed up. Ba-da-bum.

If someone is against abortion, shouldn’t they be the biggest supporter of birth control being available to anyone who wants it?

If you’re against both, tell me how that isn’t the same as being against choice?

@Jaxk Imagine discovering in the 8th month of pregnancy that the fetus has no brain or no liver or some other physical disaster. The mother is not strong. Should she be forced to bring that baby to term even though it may cause her great stress, and perhaps death? The baby will not function when born, but it is not dead in the womb. These are the kinds of situations that call for a very late term abortion. Yet these are the abortions that get the most criticism. They are not done on a whim, but are considering both the life of the baby and of the mother. It’s a heart-rending decision and needs to be made by the parents and nobody else.

OMG! That link you provided proves what I have feared. I have been blasted on fluther to suggest to pregnant women to make sure they are seeing a pro-choice doctor when there are possible complications with their pregnancies. I think I was seen as insensitive, which I understand the accusation, because an OP would be asking a question about something seen on ultrasound or in bloodwork, be worried about their unborn baby, and I come along and say make sure you feel confident the doctor will advise you honestly if you want an abortion in the case of fetal abnormatlities.

To answer your main question though, I really think it is mostly about religion, and not to control women. At least not consciously is it a drive to control women. I think it is just how religious people see the order of things determined by God. A matter of right and wrong. It does play as controlling women, in that not being able to control fertility can mean women have few choices in life, but men have few choices also in some ways, when roles are very strict.

I do think some religion does seek to keep women down and controlled. The men see themselves as the head of the household, the final word, and there is not true equality in the relationships, and not equality between the sexes in general. On the other hand many religious people just can’t get past being pro-life, but are otherwise very balanced in their marriages and their view on the abilities of women to lead, work, etc.

@CWOTUS “But as a practical matter, I can’t see the utility or sense in forcing a woman to become a mother against her will. No good can come of that. On that basis alone I reluctantly support a woman’s right to choose.”

This sums it all up for me. Thank you.

So, here’s the thing about counseling periods, copays, waiting periods, etc: They hit poor women the hardest. You know, poor women, the ones we will paint as being welfare queens if they do have kids? Poor women, the ones we won’t provide much help to after the baby comes because that would be using tax-payer dollars as a social safety net and we don’t want to pay for her irresponsibility? They don’t have $10–40 spare bucks for copays. They don’t have extra days to take off work and go to the doctor just for counseling, especially if they’re rurally located and have to drive into the city – or even into another state. It actually makes a lot of women choose between keeping their job and paying their rent now, and being able to pay their rent in the future. And stuff like counseling and waiting periods is paternalistic; yes, it’s a big decision, but so is heart surgery, and tons of other medical procedures, and not one of them requires any of that. Because legislators are typically not medical experts.

“Sex is bad. God says it is and that it is only for procreation. If you do it for the sake of enjoyment you are sinning and should be punished. Pregnancy is punishment administered by God for your sins. You should not be able to circumvent Gods punishment with abortion but be required to live with the conseqences of your sin you Whore of Babylon!!!”

At least that is what I hear whenever I hear Santorum of one of his ilk speak.

Regardless of how it is presented, it is a not so subtle attempt to control the sex lives of women.

@Jaxk, I agree that life begins at conception. I disagree that the life of a brainless clump of cells deserves legal protection. Can you please explain why you think it does?

I also do not believe most of your straw-man caricature of “liberals” states. Of course you probably knew that. We actually seem to be in agreement. I don’t know exactly what point in the preganancy the fetus has developed enough consciousness to gain legal protections. I am comfortable with the status quo, however: limiting abortions in the third trimester, and broadly allowing them before that.

We continue to grapple with this problem of abortion but whichever side your on, it’s not that simple. Laws that make infanticide murder work both for us and against us. as in the case of this woman. Laws that decide murder based on who did the killing just don’t work. I also find it difficult to accept giving a lethal injection to the fetus to insure it is born dead. A clump of cells wouldn’t need that.

I also would like to add that, while it is easy and somewhat accurate to paint the pro-life camp as a purely religious movement, the history of abortion philosophy is not so simple.

The Bible, for example, explicitly says that fetuses are not equivalent to human beings. In Exodus 21, it details punishments for someone who injure a pregnant woman. If the fetus dies, the perpetrator must pay the victim’s family a fine. But if the woman dies or is injured, the punishment is “eye for an eye.”

The early Christians were against abortion—early Church fathers talked against it. But their opposition may have actually come from the Greeks, not the Jews. The Hippocratic Oath, for example, contains a promise to never perform abortions.

You can be opposed to abortion without being Christian or specifically religious. If you believe, philosophically, that something like a “soul” is conjured into being when sperm meets egg, then that’s a basis for opposing abortion. The problem, in my mind, is that this view makes no sense, has no evidence to support it, and thus should not be a basis for public policy.

@Jaxk Well this liberal is not trying to argue when life begins. My point would be the government does not have the right to obligate one human being to support the life of another. No one can make you give me blood or a kidney, why should they be able to demand I support the life of a fetus? It does drain and tax my body, the fetus draws from the mother. It should be an argument of what the government can force a person to do with their bodies, or whether the government can at all, and take gender out of it.

I am baffled by what seems to be happening in our country.

When did we decide that our government should be a religious institution? Teaching high school kids nothing about sex except that they shouldn’t have it – were these people never teens themselves? Come on, that shit clearly doesn’t work. Let’s protect the unborn child, but take away any support system for those kids once they’re born. Let’s leave kids in a crappy foster care system rather than let gays adopt them and infect them with their gayness. Let’s take away a woman’s right to choose, and hey! let’s take it away even earlier by making it harder for her to access safe, effective, affordable birth control.

Don’t like abortions? Improved access to birth controls reduces abortion rates. It’s not a theory. It’s proven research. Sex education reduces the rate of unwanted pregnancies. Proven.

It’s completely reasonable to not like the thought of abortion. Any thinking, compassionate human being would prefer that it not happen. So where are the logical pro-lifers? Where are the activists that want to help women avoid them, rather than autocratically tell them they they have no right to them? That’s not what I see on the news, in the papers, and standing outside Planned Parenthood in my town. I see fucking hypocrites.

My only hope is that this is a wake up call to women everywhere to become involved and to stand up for themselves.

Awe… wow…. again a very Colombia-centric view of this issue.

@Jaxk…. take the zygote and put it somewhere else, please. NOBODY wants ‘birthcontrol’ to end up at the very end and final stage of abortion. As a female and a mother, I can honestly say this. (are you a female and a mother?) I think the whole issue goes back to choice and those who would lord control over others for the sake of being holier than thou and passing judgement. There is NO place for that in a civilised society. If you want to stand over and pass judgement on other people, first you must put yourself upon a pedestal.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A1-16&version=NIV

@JLeslie

I know that makes the argument easier but it doesn’t solve any problem. The point where life begins is the point where the baby has some rights. If you want to argue that the fetus is just a clump of cells, then killing it is not murder. Regardless of who does it. Supporting the baby is not mandated by any abortion position. Adoption is always available.

As I said earlier, I support the right to choose, I just think it should be done early in the pregnancy before lethal injection is required to insure the baby is dead. The Supreme court actually made a fairly good decision in Roe v Wade. Abortion in the first trimester, unrestricted, abortion in the second with some restrictions and abortion in the third only in extreme circumstances. I have no problem with that decision. I still find it difficult to understand the morass of legal problems we’ve developed as a result of the conflicting positions.

@cazzie

I’m not passing judgement on anyone nor am I interested in bible verses.

OH,,,, I find myself agreeing here with @Jaxk. if you know it is wrong, the first trimester is the time. Get it done or decide otherwise.

I guess I don’t know otherwise. Where I live, the decision must be made quickly.

If you want abortions to be done early, take away the restrictions – in most cases, when an abortion is done later, it’s because the woman had to jump through hoops to get the abortion. Like traveling to see a doctor who will perform them, like insurance not per-certifiying coverage quickly, etc. Sometimes it’s because genetic defects aren’t discovered until well into the second trimester, or because the mother didn’t realize she was pregnant (nope, not stupidity, don’t even. Some women actually keep getting their period during their pregnancy.)

@Aethelflaed that is horrible. I fully agree. It seems there are too many double standards. and Statistics show there are far too many people on the planet. Death to the majority of new humans is my new mantra.

@Aethelflaed Or even finding a doctor to perform one. Finding the money to pay for one. Arranging time off and transportation. And then doing it again in those states that require ultrasounds, waiting periods, counseling, etc. Having the courage to walk through picketers that call you “baby killer”. None of these things help to prevent delays.

@syz Sometimes having to go out of state to get to one who performs it!

Of course I don’t mean that… I want birth control… of course…. I posted that for dramatic effect.

@Jaxk I argued no such thing in my stance. You are a grown man, I assume who contributes to society, maybe you are the breadwinner for your family, I don’t know, but I will assume your life has as much value as a fetus I might be carrying if not more. If you need blood, the government can not tie me down and make me donate it to you, we can just watch you die. Even if I agree to donate to you part of my liver, I can back out at any time. Hell, current laws for surrogacy the woman carrying the baby has total control over the pregnancy, not the biological, or soon to be adoptive parents.

What I can never understand is why someone else wants to make those decisions for me. If it affects me why should someone else make the call?

So if we want to put a limit on when during the pregnancy a woman can have an abortion, how do we decide that time? Is it after the fetus can remain alive outside the womb without medical intervention? If so then why not allow women to terminate a pregnancy when the child has no hope of survival without medical intervention? For me the the bottom line here is that pregnancy, the decision to become pregnant, or avoid pregnancy, carry a pregnancy to term, to terminate a pregnancy, whatever is between the parents (with the mother having the final say) and their doctor. It is not up to the government. Period.

@JLeslie

I’m not sure where we are missing each other. Nor do I know how giving blood or a kidney pertains. I think we can agree, that at some point the baby gains some rights. At some point the baby gains the protection of the state. Basically the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. the whole argument is about when that happens.

It seems to me that there are a disproportionate number of males commenting on what a woman can or can’t do with her body. Now I can see that the husband of a woman deciding whether or not to have an abortion should have some say. I see no reason why a live-in boyfriend or unrelated male should enter into the discussion or decision.

Just because you get a woman pregnant, you do not get the right to decide what she will do with the resulting fetus. If a man is not committed enough to be married he forfeits the right to enter into the decision making process.

There is absolutely no right for the government or for unrelated males to even discuss what a woman should or not do with her body.

Would you like a government law to say that you must be castrated after your second child? How about a law that says that men over 50 must have a vasectomy?

I think that all neo-cons should be castrated but I have no right to make a law concerning that.

I find it ironically funny that people can say with all solemnity, as @JLeslie does (though I’m not picking on her specifically): the government does not have the right to obligate one human being to support the life of another yet have no problem at all with confiscatory taxation for that very purpose because people sometimes are unwilling and (maybe) unable to support themselves.

That’s a curious thing, isn’t it?

I’m not even going to mention the avowed atheists and agnostics who quote Biblical scripture to support their arguments against various Christian arguments opposed to their favored policies, although they would (as I would) enjoin “the church” from creating law specifically based on the Bible. Not gonna say a word.

I hate when religion tries to dictate public policy.

@CWOTUS I don’t know why you are bringing taxation into the equation. I am talking about my body, your body, our rights over our own bodies.

@Jaxk The fetus is dependent on the mothers kidneys, blood supply, nutrion, it is parasitic in nature. This is why the law, and many people agree with viability outside the womb as a line for when abortion is unnacceptable, even if they are pro-choice.

@CWOTUS, if you’re referring to me as one of those atheist Bible-quoters, I only brought up the Bible as a matter of historical interest. Whether or not the Bible supports your views on abortion should have zero to do with public policy.

I hadn’t heard about the Arizona bill as my attention has been more on the Personhood and Trans-Vaginal Sonogram bills. More and more bills surrounding this issue are popping up and it disgusts me. States shouldn’t be allowed to create this kind of legislation and I can’t help but shake my head when anyone approves of such changes.

At least Garry Trudeau is making sense, though the papers are hesitant to print it..

I am pretty disturbed by the shit currently going on, but I think the Arizona bill you mention may not be part of the Republican shitshow war on logic and reason. A few days ago, two parents won $2.9 million in a lawsuit against a healthcare provider for misdiagnosing their daughter as healthy when in fact she had Down’s syndrome. There was no malpractice—the diagnostic test is not 100% accurate.

As for the other insanity going on, I suspect you might be right about controlling women. I can’t understand why it’s happening.

@JLeslie

I know kids that are parasitic in nature well into their thirties.

@Jaxk LOL.

@Jaxk Hey, what did I do? Why drag me into this? Lol.

Uh oh, looks like this question has caused its’ own kerfluffle!

I haven’t been through all the comments here, but was caught by something @Jaxk said about abortion:

“I can see all the reasons for it but it still causes me some internal struggles.”

My point is that conservative men and women somehow think that a woman who has decided to have an abortion hasn’t gone through those internal struggles, and can be made to. That is what the “vaginal probe” laws are about.

You need to trust that a woman who chooses abortion has done the struggling, and has made a difficult but necessary choice for her. You need to trust the women involved. You need to let them choose.

@Ron_C It does seem like men have a lot of opinions on women’s bodies, doesn’t it?

Just wanna point out real quick: Sometimes, women don’t want to get married, so if a couple isn’t married, it’s not always because a man is unwilling to commit. Sometimes, the reason for that is because they would lose the right to bodily autonomy within marriage, and give some of those rights over to their spouse. And the husband, not always the father.

@Aethelflaed Wait. What? A women and man loses their bodily autonomy when married?

@Ron_C Why should a husband have more of a right? They don’t own their wife’s body. Not in America.

@JLeslie Many women who aren’t in favor of marriage aren’t in favor of it because they feel like they will lose bodily autonomy within the institution of marriage. Like, having to get a husband’s approval to get an abortion.

@Aethelflaed I have never heard of such a thing.

@Aethelflaed You just made that up.

After doing a little research, apparently the specific issue in Arizona bill HR 2625 is that it removes a protection that is currently afforded women. Specifically, an employer cannot discriminate against a woman who chooses to use birth control, but if the law passes, that protection will be removed.

Here’s one article. There are many.

I don’t know if the removal of that protection is an attempt to control women, or if it’s thought to be redundant with other existing protections.

It seems that we are turning into a Theocracy, and I don’t like it one bit. The irony here is that the people who are pushing us that way rail about the evils of Sharia law; I guess it’s okay when the law is based on your religion.

I propose that Discordianism become the new state religion if we are to have our own Theocratic nation.

@6rant6 Given that employers can already discriminate at will anyways, it may be redundant.

Some people believe abortion is an abomination.
As you may know, I am not one of those. But I know some people who do not want their money dumped into a community fund that pays for it. In most cases I think that is the problem of which you speak.
There are certainly a few misogynists out there, but probably not as many as some folks would want us to believe.
Don’t forget that the whole notion of state sanctioned abortion was a project of the Eugenics movement.
Anyway, I will never have an abortion because I am a guy. And I am not a politician whoring for votes. So I got no dog in the fight.

This whole argument will be moot once the SC strikes down Obamacare and they lose the ability to mandate what we have or can have.

Keep living the dream, @Jaxk.

I like :
Senator Nina Turner’s response in Ohio.
State Rep. Kelly Cassidy’s response in Illinois.

@dabbler those are true genius! Thanks for the links.

@SuperMouse Indeed !
We can only hope some of the barbarians attempting to chip away at support for women’s health start to get the picture, like, at the very least something consistent with their other religions “oh, um, yah! I forgot…personal freedom! Keep the guv’mint out of all the parts of my pants not just my pockets.”
..Even if they can’t face the concept of NOT treating half the population (voters ! hellooooo!) like second-class citizens.

@Jaxk The argument about abortion has been going on way before Obamacare, and it will keep going on for a long time. And arguments about a doctor’s right to refuse prescribing and administering, and informing, and more.

@JLeslie @6rant6 Well, it is a thing, I did not make it up, I actually hear it rather frequently – though, it tends to be within certain circles (obviously, one of those circles is ‘people who are against the institution of marriage’), so if you aren’t ever traveling in those circles, I can see how you wouldn’t be hearing this. The loss of autonomy (not just bodily, but bodily autonomy is the one relevant to this discussion) is one of the leading reasons for people to be against marriage.

@Aethelflaed I was not saying you are lying, just that I never heard it myself. It doesn’t sound anti-marriage to me, it sounds more like something I would hear in circles who tend to hate men, don’t trust men, even afraid of men. Some of those people might also not want to get married, that makes sense I guess. But, most people I know who don’t want to marry never say anything about not being able to control their own bodies. My sister and aunt never married. I have divorced friends who never want to marry again, because they don’t want to deal with a husband, but again, never a mention of the guy posessing their body in some way. Again, I believe you, just never heard it.

[mod says] This is our Question of the Day!

@JLeslie I included the ‘made it up’ part because @6rant6 mentioned it, and I wanted to do one reply.

@Aethelflaed No problem. I just wanted to be sure you didn’t take it that way.

@JLeslie It’s not always that a woman is afraid that any specific man she’d be marrying would treat her poorly, but often rather relates to the law and marriage – like, spousal notification and consent issues around abortion. The question usually isn’t, why have relationships with men, but why get married to that man when you could also not get married or, in some states, get a civil union instead.

@Aethelflaed Spousal notification? What type of bullshit law, probably in the bible belt somewhere, pro-life, trying to usurp Roe v. wade is that? Is there such a law? And, why aren’t these women using birth control? That they even worry about such a thing? I mean, worrying about needing an abortion when married, when suppossedly married to a person you trust? I talked about abortion before I got married with my then boyfriend now husband.

@JLeslie Maybe we should continue this in PM?

@Aethelflaed If you would like.

@Aethelflaed Really, there are circles of people whose commonality is they don’t believe in marriage? Not buying it. There is no such circle. “Loss of autonomy” is real. “Loss of bodily autonomy” is not really about marriage. You made that up. “Bodily autonomy” refers to:
1. The indignities a patient suffers when medical people make decisions for them
2. The lack of safety a woman has in a place where someone might attack her. You can’t use this to excuse making this up. It is never marriage that puts a woman in danger from a spouse. It’s proximity. So if your “circle” was bound by a belief that cohabitation is dangerous you could make a case for that, but not for marriage.

Fluke wants free birth control. Okay, but, “there is no such thing as a free lunch”. She goes broke paying for birth control, I can’t even move out of my parents house because I’m broke paying for my kid. And my child will only get pricier. Soooo birth control is way cheaper than the alternative.

@6rant6 Right… so, first of all, yes, there are circles in which people are not in favor of marriage. Not everyone does it for the same reason, but yes, this is a noted phenomenon.
Second: Let’s say that I am the only person in the world that believes this. This is still not a “made-up” reason – the second someone comes up with the reason, it is out there, existing, as a reason. I mean, I supposed you could say that once upon a time, having a problem with indulgences was a “made up” reason to have an issue with the Catholic Church, but…
Third, and most importantly: you don’t get to decide what makes another person feel safe. You don’t have to believe the same way yourself, but you don’t get to tell me or anyone else that they have to feel safe. The End.

@redfeather No, not free birth control, just coverage under health insurance. You know, because it’s about women’s health?

I am opposed to the notion that an abortion is merely a form of birth control.

Every woman should have the right to decide to have an abortion without interference by any person, party, or group.

Wide spread factual sex education should be made available to every person as part of a complete basic education.

Abortion is a tragic option but it is in some circumstances the only remaining option.
+.

@syz You know what I meant. I’m just saying she should grow a pair (of ovaries) and look at the big picture. Pay for a baby or pay for birth control.

@redfeather Did you have the baby because birth control was not available to you?

Fluke was talking about other conditions besides preventing pregnancy.

@JLeslie I had the baby because I was a stupid high school girl who didn’t care if he used a condom or not. I’m also pro life which is why I now have a 3 year old sitting in my room watching Bug’s Life. Fluke may have used those other conditions to add to her argument, but her main reason to start the whole birth control uproar was preventing pregnancy.

@redfeather Most teenagers are stupid, I hope you don’t beat yourself up over it. Just curious, did you just think you wouldn’t get pregnant? Or, did you think it might be neat to have a baby in your teenage mind?

I am not siding with Fluke, I am pretty on the fence on the topic of mandating birth control coverage, leaning on the side of not mandating it. But, for those women who do take it for health reasons it kind of sucks if it isn’t covered.

@JLeslie I honestly didn’t think it could happen to me, was devastated when it did, but I’m now glad that it did. It didn’t slow me down, I’m a year from graduating college and rubbing my diploma in the face of everyone who thought I wouldn’t be able to do it.

And I agree with you about the birth control thing.

@redfeather, I’m glad that having a baby worked out for you. But unless you can provide some reason why you are pro-life—some reason why, for example, a brainless clump of cells should receive legal protection from the state—you don’t get to make that choice for other people.

I have a feeling @Qingu is not glad and @redfeather is not sorry. ;)

@redfeather So, then when you say ‘pro-life’, how are you defining pro-life? Normally when I hear people label themselves that way, they mean that they are against abortion being legal (in most or all cases), and believe others should not be having abortions.

I have many friends who are pro-life, but vote pro-choice, because they don’t believe in abortion, but realize people have different beliefs about it. They don’t think it should be a legal question.

@Aethelflaed I mean I want babies to make it and I would never have an abortion, but I know others don’t think that way so whatever, do what they want. But my way of thinking is if I have sex, I’m aware of what can happen, and if I get pregnant and I don’t want the baby, I can put it up for adoption or I can learn to want that baby really quick, but I wouldn’t kill it.

All babies want to get borned! All babies want to get borned!

Women should be given access to both birth control and abortions often access means insurance or governments paying for it. I have only ever known one person who used abortion as birth control and I know that she would have been a terrible mother to those children so abortion was the best option since she didn’t avail herself of birth control.

In Canada we have fairly free access to both and I’m glad.

That being said, I know I could never have an abortion. This is something that I had to do a LOT of thinking about after being raped and understanding that a pregnancy could have been a result. But I cannot and will not put my beliefs on other woman. I understand what a struggle the decision is.

That response was not a personal attack. I merely said he had the capabilities of becoming a _____ ____ when he got going. Oh well. Hope he read it before it got modded.

@redfeather So you are actually pro-choice, but merely choose not to have an abortion yourself. Many on the pro-life side are of the misguided notion that anybody who feels otherwise is pro-abortion; that they want all pregnancies to be terminated. Maybe they do so in order to demonize their opposition, or maybe they are too uneducated to actually know what the word “choice” really means.

Many pro-choice people are of the opinion that there are certain things that the government should stay out of. If you disagree with their reasoning then you would have no problem if Uncle Sam told to to sacrifice your first-born to Tlaloc either.

@jerv No, I’m pro-life. I’m just not a loud mouth who forces my views on anyone about it because what’s the point? I want babies to be born, but I can’t make that choice for anyone but myself. And please, don’t think for one second I’m misguided or uneducated. I know what “choice” means, and I don’t think people who are pro-choice want all pregnancies terminated.

In @redfeather‘s defense, pro-choice implies ok with abortion. She is not ok with it. This is why on some of my questions you will see I write pro-abortion, because I define that as a person willing to consider an abortion for themselves. But, that is my own made up definition really.

Yeah. In @redfeather‘s defense too. I’m not ok for abortion when a woman becomes pregnant and has an abortion because she feels she isn’t ready to have a child (for whatever reason). I am ok for an abortion if a life is in jeopardy, so I will not support a law that outlaws abortion completely.

always wanted a little lady army
@jonsblond brings up a good point that I forgot, if a life is in jeopardy, then yes, abort.

takes a breath

Let’s pretend we aren’t in a sexist society and let’s pretend I don’t care that people use religion to tell others what to do with their bodies. This is all about one simple fact: what I believe isn’t what you believe and vice versa. This means, because we have opposing or different viewpoints, that you can not legally expect me to follow yours and I cannot legally make you follow mine. End result: I cannot make you have an abortion and you cannot make me not have an abortion. This way, people who want abortions should get abortions and those who don’t want abortions don’t need to get abortions. Anything else implies that, fundamentally, my body does not belong to me.

“Abolition of a woman’s right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State.” Edward Abbey

@redfeather The statement, ”...but I can’t make that choice for anyone but myself.” makes one pro-choice according to most definitions I’ve seen.

There are many pro-choice people who are pro-choice simply because of that statement; people who would rather see all pregnancies end in children, but who feel they do not have the right to make that decision for others. If you were truly pro-life then you would seek to take the right to make that decision away.

@JLeslie Implies, yes, but that isn’t a hard-and-fast thing, just as not all Republicans are wingnuts like Santorum and Palin. Or does not wanting people to die from back-alley abortions (as a friend of mine almost did many years ago) qualify as “okay with abortion”? IMO, you really cannot prevent them, and I would rather have them take place in a sterile environment by trained medical professionals than… the alternatives.

@jonsblond I also oppose abortion as a form of birth control, but many consider birth control to be abortion. You cannot really keep both groups happy.

What I really want to know is how this helps the economy, Afghanistan, or any of the real issues that should be being debated. I think that this debate over birth control and abortion is just a smokescreen to distract us from more pressing concerns.

You can be pro-choice and personally feel that abortion is wrong. You are pro-choice if you want abortion to be legal.

Likewise, you can want marijuana to be legal without wanting to smoke marijuana yourself.

@jerv, if you really and truly believe that killing a fetus is morally equivalent to murder, I can see how abortion would be a major issue that trumps the economy. I don’t doubt the sincerity of most pro-lifers’ opposition to abortion and the importance they ascribe to it.

@Qingu If abortion and birth control are murder, then what is war?

@jerv It would seem that exactly the opposite is true: the economy is the smokescreen, and this is the real agenda. Hard right Republicans always claim that the economy comes first, but the first things they do in office are related to culture war stuff. It happens again and again.

@dappled_leaves That actually makes more sense….

@jerv I agree that the political definition of pro-choice is believing people should have choice. I think some people have trouble saying they are pro-choice if they live in communities that are staunchly pro-life, so they say they are too, they would never “kill a baby” themselves. I too have corrected people who say they are pro-life and then go get an abortion when there is something very wrong with the fetus. I remind them their abortion is safe because pro-choicers keep it that way. That is slightly different than @redfeather position, my only point is, the terms can be trickier than it appears. I think it is because the topic of abortion is so emotional and so judged, and each group kind of defines terms differently. Technically though, from a political standpoint, @redfeather is pro-choice.

I was wondering out loud the other day if Mitt Romney is still really pro-choice? He has always been pro-life as a matter of for him personally and his belief system, but was politically pro-choice because of a relative of his who died during a botched back alley abortion. I hate to think he lost his mind and won’t keep abortion safe. That he would actually try to take away abortion rights. I think there is still the possibility he is saying he is pro-life the same way @redfeather uses it.

@dappled_leaves What would the right do if they didn’t have abortion rights and gay marriage to pick on?

@jerv, bear in mind that I don’t agree with this sentiment, but: if abortion is murder, then it’s just a numbers game: several orders of magnitude more souls are aborted every year than killed in warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And I would understand this sentiment if I thought brainless clumps of cells had souls.

@JLeslie It’s easier to use the right words when you don’t care what others think. Sadly, a politicians entire job is to make people like them, so they can never really say what they mean.

@Qingu Which brings us back to the role of religion in government…

Well, it doesn’t have to be about religion. If you could show that a clump of cells has something like a soul, then I’d convert to the pro-life position.

People opposed slavery in America when they realized the fact that black people are actually not subhuman. There was a religious component to abolitionism (there was also a religious component to the institution of slavery). But ultimately the idea that “slavery is wrong” is based on the material fact that blacks are clearly human beings. Which is why I’m comfortable with the government outlawing slavery.

If the government is going to outlaw abortion, it should be based on a material fact about the nature of fetuses that shows they demand protection. And “I believe they have souls”—whether or not it’s a religious belief or merely a philosophical one in the Greek tradition or whatever—doesn’t count.

@JLeslie I write pro-abortion, because I define that as a person willing to consider an abortion for themselves, seriously? Are you saying that anyone who terminates a pregnancy “pro-abortion”? Before making a broad generalization such as that you really need to take a minute to consider the reasons women decide to terminate a pregnancy. I have known plenty of women who terminated pregnancies and I would not call a single one of them pro-abortion. They are women who for one reason or another were in a position where they had to make the toughest decision a woman can make and after lots of soul searching decided the best choice was not to carry the pregnancy to term. Please do not lump every woman who has ever faced this horrible choice to be “pro-abortion” that would be very misguided.

One thing that I believe and that @Simone_De_Beauvoir‘s post brought to mind is that we cannot legislate morality. No matter how hard we try, it is impossible to do so. There is no way that, even if he is elected president, Mr. Santorum is going to be able to make every person in the country buy into his moral code. It just isn’t going to happen and taking away a woman’s right to make the choice about what to do with her own body is not going to change that.

@JLeslie “Why should a husband have more of a right? They don’t own their wife’s body. Not in America.”

A husband and wife are a moral and legal partnership. Any child born is the responsibility of both. Therefore any fetus aborted is the responsibility of both. The woman’s vote in all cases trumps the man’s vote. A husband or legal partner in a gay marriage has the right (in my opinion) to express and lobby for his position.

I also believe that if a child is born in to an uncommitted couple, the male has no rights what so ever.

@Ron_C – I may be misunderstand what you’re saying, or extended it farther than you intend, but you’ve insisted there’s a large difference between a husband and anyone else who creates a baby.

The problem with that thinking is that a man should be responsible for the child regardless of whether or not he is married.

He doesn’t have to be committed to the mother to be committed to the child. I agree with you that the woman’s vote should trump his when it comes to the pregnancy, but saying he has no rights whatsoever simply because he’s not married to the mother is oversimplifying. Marriage isn’t the only form of commitment and isn’t the only way to take responsibility for creating a life.

Nice thought, @Simone_De_Beauvoir, and I agree with the sentiment. (Another red-letter day for us.) However, we still have strongly enforced laws against prostitution, drug use, and suicide, to name a few that militate against your argument. One would think (and I would agree with one) that “my body is mine”, but others – those who make the laws – disagree strongly.

@CWOTUS the reality is that the laws you mention probably need a bit of review as well. Some seem rather arbitrary, such as cigarettes being legal while smoking a joint will get you thrown in the big house. I also think we have to remember that abortion is a medical procedure. I cannot think of another medical procedure where the decision making process is between anyone other than patient and doctor, except for euthanasia which is of course another example of people being told what they can and can’t do with their own bodies. Of course in the case of minors the legal adult drives the decision, but that is another situation entirely.

@SuperMouse A few people have torn into me for using pro-abortion. If you come up with a better term, I am willing to listen. I did say I made up the definition, it isn’t like I expect everyone to accept it. What do you want to call people for conversation purposes who are willing to consider abortion vs people who are not willing, but want to keep it legal and safe for others? Someone like @redfeather for instance might like a label that defines her as not willing to do it herself, but wanting to protect othere people’s rights. I can’t speak for her, I am just using it as an example. I wrote a question that had pro-abortion in the title. It was about requiring parental consent, and I specifically wanted to know opinions from people who would be dragging their 16 year down to the abortion line. I can’t understand why several people I know who would want their daughter to abort are voting for parental consent. Anyway, pro-abortion in that case made more sense to me than pro-choice. Pro-abortion, willing to get an abortion, in favor of abortion availablility.

I thought the term was “pro-choice”, as in supporting the right to choose. “Pro-abortion” is ridiculous, as no one wants anyone to have an abortion.

@syz I disagree, there are people who wind up pregnant who want to get an abortion. They may not be happy about needing to do it. They may regret that they did not use birth control, or be pissed the birth control they used failed, but they want the abortion.

I’ll also add that I think from the pro-lifer’s point of view, I bet they think pro-choice is synomous with pro-abortion. I don’t know for sure, I never asked, but I bet that is how they think about it in their mind.

@JLeslie why does there have to be a label to describe someone who decides to terminate a pregnancy? I’ll tell you what, if you insist on labeling these people you could certainly come up with something less offensive and divisive then pro-abortion. I will say it again, I have never met a single woman who wanted an abortion. Of course the pro-life movement considers pro-choice to be pro-abortion, that’s why I find you using it to describe a woman who decides to terminate a pregnancy incredibly offensive and insulting.

@JLeslie Which is why the two camps should be given the labels “pro-choice” and “anti-choice”, which are far more descriptive of their actual positions. Just as no one is “pro-abortion”, everyone is “pro-life”. The “pro-life” label does not describe what that group is for at all.

@SuperMouse There does not have to be a label. I am not trying to “label” anyone. I am just saying as a shorthand that is the word I use, so I don’t have to write it all out in a discussion. Wanting an abortion and being happy about one is too different things. There has been more than one teenage on fluther wanting advice on getting an abortion, they obviously wanted to do it, none of them are happy about it of course. I guess maybe you don’t like the word want, maybe you prefer need or willing to?

@dappled_leaves Pro-choice and anti-choice are better terms for political and legal definitions, I agree with that. But there are subtleties within the two groups.

@JLeslie And I disagree with your disagreement. No woman takes a pregnancy test and says to herself “Oh, yay, I’m pregnant! Now I get to have that abortion that I’ve always wanted!” No sexually active women thinks “I’m gonna hook up tonight, I might get lucky enough to need an abortion!” To use the term “pro-abortion” is disingenuous.

@syz I did not say that. Stop twisting my words.

I’m not twisting your words, nor did I ever say that you used the words that I typed. I’m responding to (and disagreeing with) your statement.

“Pro”, to me, does not mean “willing to have one”.

@syz You make it sound like a I think there are women who have wanted to get an abortion their whole lives so they purposely get pregnant to go through the experience. Give me a fucking break. I guess we are hung up on the word want? I in no way said or implied that a woman is happy about needing an abortion, and I even said as much above.

If I had been pregnant as a teen, my mom would have wanted me to get an abortion.

You are saying want implies wanting it before the pregnancy even occurs. I am saying some women who wind up pregnant decide, want, to abort, not have the baby, and others will not consider an abortion.

@JLeslie That is what “pro abortion“means, and why pro-choice people take issue with that term.

“Pro choice” is simply allowing women to decide for themselves based on their own personal moral code. You can decide against aborting and still be pro-choice.

@jerv Of course you can decide against aborting and still be pro-choice, that is what I said above. But, for instance, that old question of mine I mentioned. I did not want pro-choice people who would never choose to abort commenting on my Q about why they might vote for parental consent. Because that parent would not choose abortion for their child, and so would want to be informed most likely. That parent votes pro-choice, is fine with it for other people, but not for themselves or their family. So, I was just using the term pro-abortion as a way to communicate people in favor of getting an abortion in a circumstance where they determine they need one. There are people who will never determine they need one, it is not an option.

@JLeslie Our argument is becoming a matter of semantics.

In your words: “there are people who wind up pregnant who want to get an abortion”. My point that I’m trying to make is that even those women who choose to have an abortion do not want to have an abortion. They are making a choice, which is why I believe that the term “pro-choice” is the best one.

“Pro-abortion”, to me, means “in favor of”, to “promote”. My argument is that no one wants abortions to happen, no one wants to go through an abortion, and therefore “Pro-abortion” places an unnecessary stigma on those women who have one. I view the term “pro-abortion” as an attack tactic by the right to dehumanize and marginalize those who support the right to choose.

I think some people even are pro-abortion, even in a way I am not even using the term. They don’t want bunches of babies in the world not cared for, born to parents who don’t want them, can’t support them, can’t be responsible for them. Everyone would prefer birth control to abortion. But, many people prefer abortion to thousands and thousands of unwanted children being born. A friend of mine, his son just had his second child out of wedlock, two different women. He barely is involved with either really, and he even let this recent girl move in with him, but he isn’t really into her, nor happy about having the baby. You don’t think some people look at that and don’t wonder, why did they not get abortions? I do. That is an abortion position, more than a choice position in my mind.

@syz I am in favor of abortion being available, and in favor of people who have no business having a baby, who don’t want to be parents, getting an abortion.

I still think “pro-abortion” is misleading. It’s like saying you’re “pro-chemotherapy.” You can believe that chemotherapy should be legal, even that it is the best option to remedy an unfortunate situation, but I don’t think anyone likes having chemotherapy. Which is what the term implies.

@JLeslie So are you looking for some sort of terminology that would segregate you as a supporter of choice from someone who would actually have an abortion? If that’s the case, I still say the the term “pro-abortion” is a poor choice (no pun intended).

If you want to make clear that you support abortion in some cases but in fact would never have one yourself, perhaps a term like “reservedly pro-choice” or “theoretically pro-choice” or “reluctantly pro-choice” would be a better term for yourself.

IMO, those who do not believe that a women has the right to make a decision about her own body have chosen to call themselves “pro-life” as an attempt to indicate that those who disagree are “anti-life” ( a more polite way of saying “baby killer”). To refer to their opponents as “pro-abortion” is to suggest that those on the other side of the ideological divide are proponents and promoters of abortion. Words have power, and that’s why I find the term “pro-abortion” offensive and argue against it.

so… anti-abortion vs. anti-unwanted children?

@Qingu @syz Ok, so what is a better term? I was just thinking of a cancer analogy ironically. If I had breast cancer, God forbid, and the oncologist said, “we are going to do surgery, and then chemo is optional, there have been studies showing reoccurence of the cancer is 30% less likely if you do the chemo.” My response might be, “I want to do the chemo.” No one, including not any jellies, is going to assume I want to have to go through chemo. This is the problem with English, one word can mean many things.

@syz If there were a word like that, then @redfeather could feel comfortable identifying as pro-choice, which she is when she votes. And, to be clear, I would consider abortion, your last post implies I would not.

@6rant6 I am not really taking your post seriously, I assume it is said with sarcasm; but, would you not agree that anti-abortion is more accurate for a lot of the people who identify as pro-life?

@syz While that it’s more accurate, it is also more syllables; not a good thing when dealing withdealing with a culture of sound bites. You need to make it one word, even if it’s a hyphenated one.

@JLeslie Anti-abortion is more accurate, but “anti” has negative connotations; it’s often better to be pro- (whatever the opposite of what you oppose is).

@jerv @syz Sure. The fact is each group is tryng to make their stance sound good, the least offensive, positive. It is in the packaging and branding, there is no question. Just like moving from global warming to climate change. That way if a winter has 20 feet of snow, unusually severe and cold, or if a winter is unusually warm, we can blame crap we are polluting into our atmosphere either way.

Changing from the term “global warming” to the term “climate change” is not about branding, it’s about accuracy. This is beginning to stray ridiculously far from the topic.

@dappled_leaves It is about branding. The world is warming. But, warming overall can lead to sever weather, including very cold snowy winters in some parts of the planet. But, people against the science of global warming walk around saying sarcastic things like, “guess Al Gore was wrong. Haha.” And, “sure the earth is getting warmer, then why can’t I get out of my house because of the snow drifts against my door?”

Why can’t you just say “I’m pro-choice but I wouldn’t ever have an abortion”?

@Qingu Are you asking me or @redfeather?

@dappled_leaves Death tax is another one. Republicans want their constituents to believe that if you die, all your money is taxed when it moves to the people you have left it to. Estate tax is more accurate, most Democrats are not against the first million dollars not being taxed, and I think this year, 2012, it is now the first $5million is not taxed, last I read, but double check me. I bet you the most people, Republicans and Democrats p, don’t even realize the first million has been exempt from tax as part of inheritance for a long long time (the law has varied over the years with how much is exempt).

@JLeslie you made is sound like there are women out there wanting to get pregnant just so they can have an abortion by insisting on using the term pro-abortion. I am getting the sense from this discussion that you believe in a woman’s right to decide to terminate her pregnancy. Well by throwing around a term like pro-abortion, then arguing that it is perfectly appropriate, you are buying into the right wing branding as you so aptly called it, and stigmatizing those women who have to face this dreadful choice.

@SuperMouse First, I am not just accusing the right wing, I blamed the left wing just as much in my statements. Your objection to the term is the right wing being able to say, “see, they like abortion.”

Where did I say women want to get pregnant to get an abortion? That is absolutely ridiculous to think about any woman, unless she has a serious mental problem.

@JLeslie while you did not say iin so many words that women want to get pregnant to have an abortion, using a term such as pro-abortion, insinuates as much. The term is insulting and by using it you are playing into the right wing’s bid to demonize women who have abortions.

Whoever was using the term “pro-abortion.”

@SuperMouse I use pro-choice. But, I have used pro-abortion to define someone who is specifically in favor of abortion as an alternative. People can be prochoice and against abortion. They just don’t believe there should be a law dictating the government can interfere in such matters. My very Catholic girlfriend is staunchly pro-life if you ask her, but she votes Democrat the majority of the time, and does not think the topic should be argued or legislated, because she sees it as an issue of church and state, and she prefers church and state be separate. I don’t walk around using the term pro-abortion when discussing politics, I use it for very specific circumstance only among people I thik will understand or a place like fluther where I would think people won’t freak out.

You are worried about the wording because of how the right will perceive it. On fluther I don’t give a damn about the rights perception.

We can agree to disagree if that is ok. Believe me I see how misunderstood the term can be, I rarely use it, if you search pro-abortiin jleslie and then search prochoice jleslie, you will see there is 1 pro-abortion for every 500 times I said pro-choice (made up stat, but it is truly rare).

@JLeslie More like kidding on the square.

Pro-life, if it meant what it says would preclude capital punishment. But my experience says there are people who declare themselves “pro-life” and “pro-capital punishment” (and “hawk.”) Furthermore, some people in the “pro-life” camp are in the “every sperm is sacred’ way of thinking and others practice birth control. It does seem to me that “pro-life” people are only in agreement about one thing – that they are anti-abortion. So I think that’s clearer, even if less sound-bite-worthy.

I think there are people far more realistically “pro-life.” Like Buhdists who extend so much effort to avoid killing insects. I have yet to hear of a religion that exhorts people to treat a fever with ice water to avoid killing the viruses in ‘em. Now that would be pro-life. Though not their own of course. And all those bacteria as collateral damage.

For my money, conservative are much better at picking words and hanging on to them despite all appeals to reason. It’s often more important than having a real message in the battle for the mind of the public. If you can get the public to hear, “Are you with us on the side of right?” rather than consider what the implications of a position are, you’ve already won half the battle.

@jerv I consider this matter to be a ‘pressing matter.’ Thinking it isn’t implies what half the population stands to lose matters less than what representatives of the other half find important, like war.
@CWOTUS I agree with your comment. I would also not legislate any of what you mentioned. Not prostitution, not suicide, not drug use.

I pretty much assumed that you would agree with me on those topics, @Simone_De_Beauvoir. But the fact on the ground is that these things are all illegal, even though they should be (and someday may be) recognized as rights.

So our laws have yet to catch up to what we perceive our rights to be.

@CWOTUS Be that as it may. Our direction, however, should NOT be to move backwards and legislate more of these sorts of things.

Prostitution and drugs are illegal because of the culture traditionally surrounding them. They are both also areas that are traditionally more likely to lead to abuse of others or addiction. I don’t care to argue for or against in either case, but the acts themselves aren’t the reason those two things are illegal.

There is no culture of abortion. There is no chance of abuse. No one is an abortion junkie. So I don’t know if you can directly compare their legality.

I have no idea why suicide is illegal, so I won’t even touch that.

Suicide often causes traumatic harm in people close to the victim.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I see what you are saying, and I would hate to see women’s rights slip away silently while we are distracted by other things.

My point is merely that those who are trying to take decisions out of the hands of women and put them in the hands of lawmakers and insurance companies really need to get a fucking life. All I am saying is that if they spent one-tenth the time, money, and energy on controlling corruption or conflict as they do trying to control reproduction, we would probably have worldwide peace and prosperity by now.

As it stands, abortion is legal and BC is covered by insurance. They should just let that be and focus on other things. See where I am coming from?

@jerv I do.

@CWOTUS You can see here that what I said is happening is happening. When you think you can tell women what to do, you think you can also ‘clean up’ people’s desires. You try to fight porn, you fight homosexuality, you fight anything you think shouldn’t exist in people and eventually you fight all people. In his book “Speaking Sex to Power”, Pat Califia talks about how all these things connect and that’s what Right Wing Nuts want to do, they want to stand between us and our bodies and they want to inform anyone else how to be properly human but live in a deluded world where no one actually fits the norm they think is the norm. And these attempts are cyclical, every decade or so…we go through this whole ‘kill the homo, ban the prostitute, porn’s the devil, unborn children matter more than anything ever on this hell-ridden earth’ spiel.

Gosh, I wish you wouldn’t say “you” in all of that. I’m a lower-case-L libertarian. My motto is “legalize everything.”

I agree that all of the disagreeable things you mention happen, but they don’t happen because of me, but in spite of me.

Ahh, here is another lovely Arizona law along these same lines. Fired on the spot for wanting to use the pill for want it was designed for. Wow Arizona, just wow.

@CWOTUS Generic you, not you you. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

@funkdaddy I am very old fashioned. I don’t think that couples should have sex before they are committed to each other. To me, there’s a big difference between couples that are just living together and those that are engaged or married. Marriage is a legal and moral commitment (for straight and gay couples).

Having sex without that commitment and proper contraception is just plain stupid, immoral, and disrespectful. I also believe that if you have that commitment, you have rights and responsibilities. No matter what, the pregnant party’s vote trumps everyone elses.