So if we (women) do not have the bare basic right over our own bodies,

[efhmc]

what rights do we really have in this land of liberty? There are no laws that countermand what a male only can do to his body. Therefore, of and by itself any law that decides what a female can and cannot do with her body is discriminatory. We do not need to talk about when life begins or anything else. When the law discriminates against me because I am a woman and can become pregnant, then that law is deciding my legal position by who I am and that means the law is not equal for all people. Therefore it is discriminatory.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. It's my right, as a man, to have babies, if I want to...

You can't have babies, Stan! You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?

[kath]

48. LURVE the Monty Python reference! Thanks for the laugh.

[jbnow]

104. Don't give up.

You can find a renegade doctor who might help you. It has been done with mammals. The zygote can be implanted on your intestines> You'd only need hormone shots the first few months, as it seems the fetus triggers the body to put out the right hormone and men do have male and female hormones.
The catch will be the delivery.After the Cesarean you have at least a 20% chance of bleeding to death when the placenta detaches. The uterus clamps down, the intestines don't.

If you get the fertilized eggs and the doctor and it takes and you survive, then take the baby and go to Washington and insist all those fertilized eggs they want to waste on stem cells to heal and save lives must instead be implanted in every man who opposes stem cell research.

We'll call then ball babies.

[efhmc]

112. "Ball babies". Waiting to see this one happen.

[Warren DeMontague]

130. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Lets see DeLay, Santorum

and these other self-righteous asshats put their abdomens where their mouths are.

[mondo joe]

2. In the NeoCon America we do not own our bodies.

Our bodies belong to the churches and corporations.

[bocceballs]

25. SAD

Sad, bleak comment.

[newyawker99]

57. Hi bocceballs!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[efhmc]

64. You are so so right. Welcome here.

[Yupster]

36. Our bodies belong to the lawmakers

They limit what we can and cannot do with and to our bodies with their votes.

They tell us we cannot kill ourselves, we cannot smoke certain things, we can't take drugs, we can't sell our bodies for sex.

Lawmakers have been in controll of our bodies for a very long time. They can expand that controll any time they have the will and the votes.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. And all those things are full of shit.

Consenting adults should have ownership of their bodies. Period.

Choice isn't about you making the choices *I* want you to make, or the choices I don't find offensive, or even the choices that aren't really stupid- Choice is about Choice.

Suicide is a tough one, although for the terminally ill I don't see why the government has any right to say no. I'm not really sure it's the illegal aspect of suicide, per se, which keeps most people from doing it, anyway. It's not like if it became legal tomorrow people would line up to jump off the GGB.

All the other issues you list are none of the government's fucking business so long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.

[stellanoir]

3. We can fight these assholes

by being more aware of our ovulation cycles. It's fairly easy. Teach the young. Don't be fearful. That's what they want.

[warsager]

4. Agree whole-heartedly

but I think the argument is that it is not YOUR body, it is the body and life of a separate human being.

BUT of course, until its born, it IS your body. Thats a weird thought.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. Not according to rightwingers

According to some rightwingers I've talked to about this the fetus and the baby inside is seperate. :shrug:

[warsager]

51. but if you take it out

IT dies, so then what?

[efhmc]

63. Good point. A fetus is not a separate entitiy, otherwise it could grow

apart from the woman and we would not need to have this discussion.

[Solly Mack]

5. and when they define women out of personhood, they break the social

contract.

We are under no obligation to honor a social contract the government breaks...

[efhmc]

9. They are so without honor or integrity or any normal humane

position on these issues that they actually achieve some sort of equality in their ability to discriminate on the positions of race, sex, creed, religion. ethnicity, etc. Those things which do not coincide with their right wing process are discriminated against equally and in that way they achieve a state of egalitarianism.

[Solly Mack]

11. Excellent point! In their upside down world, they are spreading

equality.....much like they are spreading democracy.

[efhmc]

91. Well, that makes sense but since "they" are in control it will not matter.

[Erika]

6. But those arguments will be ruled on by Bush theocrats

You are about to lose the sense of fairness in our laws. Theocracies keep women's rights limited.

You might note that the "new" Iraq constitution is now limiting women's rights in inheritance and family law. Brought to them by W.

[renaissanceguy]

Oh, and it WON'T end with the loss of women's rights.

Any gay rights will be lost (not like many people on this board seem to give a flying f**k). Then they'll come after affirmative action and other racial minorities. And they'll come after religious minorities.

Basically, anyone who is not a white, fundie-protestant, heterosexual, rich male is FUCKED.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.21326737

[efhmc]

15. You made my point so beautifully and so succinctly. All of our rights are

attacked when we attack women's rights. Just because women have a certain set of reproductive organs should not mean they should not have all the rights and privileges of all other americans, even white, heterosexual males.

[lukasahero]

59. But some men (even here) don't think equating women's rights

is the same as "minority rights" because women are "physically different". http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3671068#3671570

[efhmc]

60. So what are minority rights about if they are not about physical

differences?

[lukasahero]

61. You got me.

I didn't say I agreed with it! LOL.

I'm saying that's why some people don't feel threatened when we talk about the "slippery slope" of sacrificing women's rights - they don't think it will touch them, they think we ARE different and it's a small step from that to thinking that makes it OK to treat us differently. That whole "biologically different" and "different = less than" debate that Summers started is going to rear it's ugly head again.

Just wanted to point out a talking point we may have to face - from both sides.

[efhmc]

62. A very narrow and inept talking point to those of us who have sense

and sensibility.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. Those men are correct.(kind of)..we are the MAJORITY

[efhmc]

76. It certainly doesn't feel that way.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. I'd suggest that the majorities you might want to be concerned with don't

involve who has X or Y chromosomes.

In case you haven't noticed, there are plenty of self-righteous, far right GOP women who happen to be control freaks obsessed with telling other people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

There are also plenty of men out there fighting for reproductive rights, access to abortion, and autonomy of self.

The one majority we all need to worry about involves the SCOTUS, obviously.

The other majority the Preznit and his ilk really ought to keep in mind is, the majority of Americans- women AND men- who support a woman's right to choose. The march for womens lives last year, with 1.2 women and men marching on the mall for choice, was the largest assembly on the mall in US history.

The right would do well to remember that pro-choice people... (women and men) are the real majority.

[Gay Green]

125. And it doesn't matter

when THEY count the votes!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. Those men are correct.(kind of)..we are the MAJORITY

[kestrel91316]

17. Correct. You, my friend, get a gold star.

[Mythsaje]

92. Why do you think

"many people on this board" don't seem to give a fuck?
I sure do.

And I know a lot of people do.

[efhmc]

101. Why is it always so important to these nuts to control our bodies?

[Bluerthanblue]

115. honest answer?

cause they are scared shitless- afraid of life- but even more afraid of death, and because they really cannot EVER truly control their lives (accidents, illness, natural disasters, mistakes, betrayals etc) in their desperation, they feel compelled to control anyone and anything they can-

that's my "Lucy van pelt" 5cents worth- but i'd bet money on the reality of it- having lived in a 'control freak world' myself- and seen the 'light'- so to speak.

[efhmc]

117. Well you are square on since most problems with/about control stem

from fear. That is what the repukes have used repeatedly against the american people to achieve their "control".

[Captain Hilts]

7. A man talking about abortion is like a woman talking about the draft. (nt)

[efhmc]

10. Good one. As a feminist, I think that reinstating the draft and then suing

to make it include women (which it should) would destroy it forever.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. Great. I'll just stop being pro-choice, then.

And women are perfectly capable of talking about the draft; who do you think have sons, fathers, husbands who would be drafted? (presuming we're talking about an all male draft)

Personal rights, freedom and liberty are EVERYONE'S issues.

Maybe (and this is just a friendly suggestion) you should find a better way to communicate the real idea that I think is hiding in the unnecessarily divisive statement you made above.

[efhmc]

31. You know I took this in another way. I think he was saying that if one

does not walk in a woman's shoes (being able to be pg) then one should not be making comments about her reproductive rights. I thought he was being sensitive to the fact that males cannot fully understand this issue as we can sympathize but not fully understand the idea that one can be drafted to kill or be killed whether he wants to be part of an army or not.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. I'm not gay, I'm not black...

I can't support equal rights for those folks, either?

I understand the concept but I think when people fly off the handle and say things like "Men Need to SHUT THE FUCK UP about this", they're not really thinking it through. No, I shouldn't decide whether any individual woman should have an abortion, and every woman should only be able to decide whether one woman on the planet should have one... herself. That's because only women can get pregnant.

But that's something other than saying people without uteruses shouldn't participate in the discussion of how to protect reproductive rights.

Fighting to keep reproductive choice legal is everyone's fight, IMHO.

[efhmc]

42. Exactly. to me this is the most precise, exact difference between all

right wingers and the other human folks and that is the idea that one can try, even if she/he fails, to empathize and understand another person's point of view.

[Fescue4u]

40. maybe so

But if one casually dismisses 50% of the world, don't be suprised of that 50% dismiss you and your needs.

[Captain Hilts]

54. Most certainly not dismissing men's views...

but if you're a woman, watching a bunch of white men over age fifty discuss your rights over your bodies must be really weird. These men just can't imagine what it's like to be young, frightened and pregnant. It's that simple.

Just as a woman has limited credibility condemning draft dodgers. If you heard a woman say, "I wouldn't have dodged the draft for Vietnam" how would you react? Should women have a voice in this issue? Sure. Is it the same as a man's? No.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. Maybe if PEOPLE could accept that their own bodies are their own

business, and other people's bodies- even when those other people do things with them that they, personally, may not like-- are not their business... then we wouldn't have these issues.

[mondo joe]

30. Funny - women do talk about the draft. And our civil rights are

appropriate for us all to discuss.

[efhmc]

33. I agree. Being able to be drafted just because one is male is totally

discriminatory. Although that is not the issue we are discussing tonight, it is relevant to all sexual liberties.

[Fescue4u]

37. So you don't want my support?

You might have a hardtime keeping abortion legal if you only want *25% of the country to support you.




(* half the country are democrats and half of them are women)

[McCamy Taylor]

86. Some might interpret this as an inflamatory, even a divise statement.

But Im sure you didnt mean it that way, did you? Too bad that it seems to have provoked bickering which did not end until an anti-abortion poster showed up to unify everyone.

Be careful what you post. Words can be dangerous.

:loveya:

[Misunderestimator]

105. Second place I've seen you make this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4140577&mesg_id=4142653

And I'll respond as I did there:

Not quite... nothing wrong with a man talking about abortion... or a woman talking about the draft... And since the draft would most likely INCLUDE women this time around, women have every right to talk about it with a much bigger stake in it than men have with abortion rights.

[getmeouttahere]

8. Roe vs. Wade was gone on that early November day...

last year when BushCo was re-selected. All this speculation about how it's political football that the theocons would lose if they actually overturned it is bunk. BushCo and his theofascist brethren are on the verge of accomplishing perhaps their biggest domestic goal.

[efhmc]

47. Well, I am not so sure it will be that easy for them. There are way too

many of us that will not simply roll over and take whatever they dish out. Todays women will take control of what happens to them. The backlash from this is going to be HUGE!!

[Booster]

12. Go to this website and start the ball rolling on this. And send it to

everyone you know. www.aral.org

[Lars39]

18. You mean www.naral.org

:hi:

[Booster]

21. Oh, my God. You're right and I was looking at it when I typed it.

I'm worn out and going to bed. Thanks for correcting it.

[bunny planet]

13. Guess that means we don't have to pay taxes then.

Gay people won't have to pay taxes either. That's the way it works, no taxation without representation. Take away our civil rights, treat us like second class citizens, how do you justify asking us for tax money. Hmmmm? It's really very simple.

[efhmc]

93. Good point.

[kestrel91316]

14. News flash: The Equal Rights Amendment never passed ...................

so our supposed "equal" rights are a will-o-the-wisp. Not REALLY there at all.

[efhmc]

19. Well actually it did pass in many states on a state by state basis and

is the law in those states. Many argued that the laws of the US did not discriminate by sex so we did not NEED a separate constitutional amendment to make us equal. I will let your good sense decide whether or not that is true.

[kestrel91316]

44. Passed then, indeed, but that is moot now, the statute ..............

of limitations for its overall ratification came and went decades ago. Not a chance of passing now. The christofascists own the voting machines, so we will lose all control over our legislatures.

[efhmc]

46. Not trying to be a nitpicker here but the way I understand it is that

since Texas passed that law (over 20 years ago) we have the rights and privileges that the law entails in my state. Don't know your age, but you might want to know that I fought hard for the passage of this amendment and actually told my husband that I was going to take our daughters and leave the country if it did not pass. (Unfortunately we are all still here.)

[wovenpaint]

131. That may not be the case....

While I agree with the voting machine issue- IIRC, the ERA was ratified in 35 states and only needed 3 more to pass amendment. I remember reading lately that it could maybe be brought back intact.

This time around, women WILL be drafted along with men - and without equal rights!!!!!!

To all young people: Do NOT take your reproductive rights for granted. Do NOT make the mistaken assumption that men and women have equal rights. You're right, the ERA never passed....... The comments from that time are very interesting-check it out! I soooo encourage all young people out there to research the history of the Equal Rights Amendment movement in light of America's recent turn of events.

www.equalrightsamendment.org

[tocqueville]

16. history of abortion

Ancient History (Prior to 476AD)
Anthropologist George Devereux has argued that abortion has been practiced beginning in ancient times. Before the Middle Ages, women induced abortion with sharpened sticks, poisonous herbs, abdominal pressure, special exercises, and other techniques. Many ancient texts contain specific recipes for abortion or even descriptions of specialized medical instruments designed to remove a fetus from the womb. Although attitudes toward abortion are most likely dependent on cultural context, many ancient civilizations were known to tolerate, or even sanction, abortions performed through the third trimester. Ancient Greek culture, for example, considered abortion to be a necessary practice for the maintenance of a stable population. Early Christians, although not particularly comfortable with abortion, did not consider it a sin before "ensoulment" -- the moment in which a fetus became a person -- usually 40 (boys) to 90 (girls) days after conception.


Middle Ages (477-1517)
1140 - The monk John Gratian completed the Concordia discordantium canonum (Harmony of Contradictory Laws) which became the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the church. In accordance with ancient scholars, it concluded early abortion was not homicide.
c. 1200 - Pope Innocent III wrote that when "quickening" occurred, abortion was homicide. Before that, abortion was considered a less serious sin.
1307–1803 - According to English common law, abortion prior to fetus movement or "quickening" was not punished.

----------------------------------------------------------------

but the PLAGUE changed all that


compared with most European countries + Canada today (except Ireland) the actual US legislation can be considered as backwards...

there is no debate today in Europe about the right to abortion

[Ripley]

20. MEN SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP re: this.

Releasing sperm just isn't the same as 9 months of extreme body and hormonal changes.

Try to imagine your "jacking off right" limited. Huh?

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Okay, I guess I shouldn't have participated in last year's march in DC..

I guess I flew 3,000 miles and spent that day on the mall with those other 1.2 million people -many of them, like me, men- for nothing. Apparently, by virtue of having testicles, I'm not entitled to my opinion, which by the way is 110% pro-choice. For everyone. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Men, women, everyone.

Of course, that means that sometimes people are going to do things with their bodies that I, or you, don't necessarially like. But autonomy and self control means "self" control... not control by me, or you, or would-be moralists of whatever stripe.

Pregnancy is a situation unique to women which is why I am against MEN making that decision for individual women; but likewise I am against women making that decision for other women, too. I don't want Phylis Schlafly or "Dr." Laura deciding whether abortion should be legal any more than I want Pat Robertson doing it.... I think the ONLY person qualified to decide what to do re: her pregnancy is the woman in whose body it is taking place. That's why I'm pro-choice.

I understand what you're trying to say... but when you frame it with a tag like like "MEN SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP re:this" You're quite possibly alienating a lot of people who probably agree with you on a lot of things.

[Swamp Rat]

29. SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Just kidding. :D

She has a good point, and I wouldn't take it personally, nor would I worry about appearances. The rethuglicans certainly don't, except to their own, ignorant constituents. The rest of the world already considers the GOP the New Nazi Party and Bush the New Hitler.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. I think she should find a better way to phrase the "good point'

because a lot of men are pro-choice.

Nice poo, BTW :9

[wovenpaint]

132. I was there, too

with my daughter.
Thanks! :thumbsup:

[Fescue4u]

41. OK, I'll shutup about abortion

and let you worry about this nominee.

If he takes your right to abortion away, I'll keep quiet then to.

deal?

[U4ikLefty]

49. I'll take the opposite approach

I'll see her comment directed towards men who have "decide" that women are murderers because they choose abortion. I will keep my precious ego in check & realize that women have been struggling under male domination throughout history and sometimes generalize.

And I will continue my pro-choice stance & not take her comment personally because, get this...it was not directed at the pro-choice men.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Then how about phrasing it that way?

I guess my "precious ego" keeps me from reading "MEN SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THIS" as something other than, "MEN SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THIS".

I mean, what better time than now to hector, lecture, talk down to (speaking of "precious egos") and insult people who are on your side?

[mondo joe]

56. So you'd feel better if it was a woman denying your civil rights?

Abortion rights are based on a HUMAN right - autonomy over your own body.

[efhmc]

67. No I discriminate against all bigots, including the coulters and the

schlaflys. (BTW, has anne ever had a child?)

[Gay Green]

126. "Jacking off right" limited? You watch.

The christofascists will try to revoke that right, too.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. Scalia has already suggested that States should be able to try:

"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding."

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2003/06/30/passing-thought-on-scalias-dissent/

[getmeouttahere]

22. Shouldn't we be starting an underground railroad....

for women to have access to abortion and birth control, which is already being denied in some parts?

[exsoccermom]

55. What ever happened to RU 486

Is there a way to get it into the country and available via an underground? If Rush can get drugs from his housekeeper, surely there is a way to get birth control and related drugs out there.

[getmeouttahere]

58. I've been wondering about that for a long time now...

[efhmc]

94. I think that one can actually get this drug in some areas. Am I wrong?

Why can't these folks who are so opposed to actual physical abortions see what a difference this drug would make?

[gkhouston]

96. because the same people

who don't give a flying fuck about poor non-white kids who have already been born obsess about the possibility that RU486 might disrupt a 4-cell "pregnancy". I don't know if they actually care about the "pregnancy" or if they're just worried that some woman, somewhere, might be having sex without "paying" for it. :sarcasm:

[efhmc]

99. Their way of thinking is really so anti-human, anti-woman and anti-life.

No matter how caring they try to pretend that they are. Take care of the unwanted children that are being abused and neglected and forced to live lives that are miserable and are here now and then we will talk about bringing more unwanted children into this world.

[FreedomAngel82]

23. It's really depressing to think about

:cry: So many women have fought for my rights and now it could be thrown away. :cry:

[Swamp Rat]

27. Over my dead body will women lose equal rights

:mad:

[efhmc]

34. Please don't die. We need you living and kicking and hollering and

just being yourself.

[Zomby Woof]

32. It's a human rights violation

If one of us isn't free, none of us is free. You are exactly correct.

[The Traveler]

39. The corollary to your thesis

is the observation that if you are not free, my own freedom is either gone or in jeopardy.

Anyone ready to hit the streets?

[efhmc]

45. As I always end my posts to my daughters, "hugs and kisses". I am

ready.

[The Traveler]

133. Great! Then in the words of my oldest step child

"It's on like Donkey Kong!!!"

**hug ya back **

[Tweed]

43. Yes...

because men can't get aboritions either (if abortion ever became illegal).

[Kipepeo]

50. I don't know if you're trying to be funny

or serious.

But if it's the latter I'd hope it wouldn't need to be spelled out that prohibiting abortion singles out women for discrimination under the law.

[ScamUSA.Com]

65. Its not "your own body" that is of concern

It's the body inside your own body that can't speak for itself which people care about.

[efhmc]

But it is my body. It is part of my body and cannot exist without my body.

If it is separate, let those that want it, take it out, adopt it and bring it up themselves.

[efhmc]

70. Double posts.

[ScamUSA.Com]

71. right

you can believe that if you want

[efhmc]

73. Thanks so much for your permission to have clear, true thoughts.

[ultraist]

78. A blastocyst is a body?

It certainly doesn't look one nor does it have the same functions or capacities as a human body.

[ScamUSA.Com]

80. since you asked

the heart beats 22 days after conception

[ultraist]

82. SOMETI MES there is a heartbeat around 6 weeks

I'm fully aware of the process. I have a natural born child (as well as one adopted).

Since when did a heartbeat become the standard for what makes for a viable human body? Hmmm?

Are you willing to ADOPT children and pay increased taxes when more unwanted children are brought into the world?

WHAT are YOU willing to do and WHAT have YOU done?

[RatRacer]

83. I am

My wife and I are trying to save money now and do the groundwork necessary to adopt. It's not an inexpensive process even with the tax breaks involved.

[ScamUSA.Com]

84. go ahead, you define life

If a heartbeat doesnt work for you... what does?

[Warren DeMontague]

102. So I take it you don't support the Human Life Amendment, the main goal

of the "pro-life" movement, which would "Define life" as beginning at the second of conception..

and by the way, sperms and Unfertilized Eggs also are "alive", they also have their own DNA (the exact same DNA is present in the sperm + egg, actually, prior to conception- just 23 and 23 instead of 46) ... should they have "rights", too? Are women murderers every time they menstruate? Do men massacre with every act of masturbation?

Ridiculous, you say. But hardly much more ridiculous than granting single cells citizenship.

[efhmc]

113. God you are good. Great points.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[efhmc]

72. Sure, once it gets out of mine and has one.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[efhmc]

This are very right wing talking points but we can certainly have them if

you want. First and foremost, a fetus is not a person and cannot live without another body supporting it. I do not know if you have ever been pregnant (I have 2 daughters)or studied these matters but that is how it works. You are equating making a choice over whether to have a child with having a child which is the case in both of the scenarios you present. Once that choice is made, by the drunkard and by the killer, a very different set of laws and rules set in. Do you understand now?

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[efhmc]

Again as you so perfectly are presenting to us this is about making

a CHOICE, not your choice, not the bush anti-human (kill them if they are actually up and running regime)choice, not the court's choice, not the church's choice, not anyone's choice except that of the person whose body is involved in this event. All the rest of these delicate little scenarios are about taking that CHOICE away from the WOMAN involved.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[efhmc]

87. Since you want a yes or no answer. Yes a woman has the right to

decide these things for her self and make a choice based on her own decision over her own body and no you and bush and his right wing regime do not have the right to make these decisions. Clear now?

[RatRacer]

79. Ok, playing devil's advocate

The child cannot survive on its own without some human being intervening even after birth. Why is a newborn a person and a fetus is not?

If the fetus has it's own DNA, it's own brain and other organs, it's own nervous system and merely gets oxygen and nourishment from you, is that truly "part of your body" or merely a separate body that is dependent upon another person for survival?

Babies as young as 24 weeks gestation have survived outside the womb with medical attention. Would you support a restriction disallowing an abortion from that point forward unless the mother's life was in danger?

[Warren DeMontague]

100. I'll play devil's advocate, too. Say a relative needed a kidney transplant

to survive. Or a bone marrow transplant. You are the only person who can donate due to compatability issues. Donating could, would actually, endanger your life. Is he dependent upon your body for survival? Is it the right thing for you to do to donate?

Certainly an argument could be made for both of the above.

But more importantly, should the government intervene and tell you that you MUST provide your body for the welfare of your brother? And who should be the one making that decision? Tom DeLay? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? Bill Frist?

...Or YOU?

[efhmc]

75. Deleted double post. My computer is giving me heck today.

[Finder]

85. How about a man getting drunk and disfiguring his wife...

should we have a law specifically against married men who drink?

The issue is about choice and privacy. Hypotheticals can go both ways.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[ultraist]

81. Once it has a fully functioning VIABLE body, yes.

That would be at six months, as Roe stipulates.

[Catfight]

95. Right on the mark, it's about a law against women, period. nt

[AuntiBush]

103. Sad is Right. I'm with you, efhmc.

Nuff said!

[hyphenate]

106. Since this regime

we are creeping back and back further to a time when women WERE second class citizens, and to a more recent time in Afghanistan when women were punished, tortured, infibulated, judged and put to death by men. Women are/were considered property in far more circumstances, and only rarely have women been able to achieve any goals other than to be set upon by men.

What disturbs me in particular are those young girls in the present, who have never had to live through men controlling their lives, who want to bring back that brand of slavery, and those women who still stand by their "man" even while he's smiling in church and torturing and abusing his wife at home.

[Johonny]

107. I think this is wrong

"There are no laws that countermand what a male only can do to his body"

Well there's that whole sodomy law issue. It would seem to me conservatives would love nothing more than to out law men touching other men in anything other than a hearty hand shake.

[gkhouston]

108. actually, are the sodomy laws that gender-specific?

I mean, can't you be prosecuted for male-female sodomy, too? Amazing how the conservatives want to keep government out of big business but can't stay out of our bedrooms, now isn't it? :freak:

[efhmc]

109. Can't the act of sodomy involve a woman also? Definition of sodomy:

"Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality." Guess you are saying that one needs a penis to commit sodomy but the actual definition could include a female partner also, right?

[maddiejoan]

119. Here's one to chew on...

The most intrusive governmental and medical retrictions on what a man can do to his body involve getting gender reassignment surgery in order to live as a woman.

[efhmc]

124. Well, they probably are so blown away that one would want to give

up that male specialness that they want to make sure one is not insane before doing this. Edited to add that I love your logo/sign.

[Gay Green]

127. No, they would define anyone who wants to give up that male specialness

as insane. With no proof what so ever except for that person's wish to give up the specialness.

[maddiejoan]

128. Thanks --love the Darwin fish

and you're on the mark I think.

[Totally Committed]

110. We have the right to pay taxes of we work outside the home,

but no right to compensation and benefits if we choose to be homemakers.

We have the right to earn the same as men do... if we make the minimum wage, but if we work for a salary we make 72 cents for every dollar made by a man in the same position.

We have the right to be considered by society as the nurturer of the children, the keeper of the home, the maid, the laundress, the chef for our families even if we work 40 hours a week as our husbands do.

We have the right to have a uterus, but not the right to decide what happens in it.

I could go on, but it's too depressing....

TC

[efhmc]

111. Those are women's rights that will always be protected.

[Bluerthanblue]

114. well, what about

suicide?..... that is illegal too-
and it applies to men and women- but kind of hard to prosecute.

Actually, i guess we should require rapists to have their gonads removed- that at least would eliminate pregnancies as a result of rape, if not the 'desire' to rape-

seems fair to me.

But, duh, oh yeah, i forgot, that would be like killing alot of potential 'unborns'- even though they aren't even fetuses until they connect with our eggs....

i don't know anymore... i'm thinking Scotty is happy to be 'beamed up'-there doesn't seem to be much hope or intelligent life of the human 'kind' here somedays.

[Sparkman]

116. Wow, a gamete is a life? If it's in a womb-yes? What of all the in vitros?

Is it murder to drop an in vitro-fetal gamete in the laboratory?!
What of all those frozen embryos, is that a crime to not defrost and incubate each and every one in a womb?
You see, people, this issue is scientifically, and theologically SUBJECTIVE in the extreme. If you violate my religious belief...
So in cases like that, government has no business interfering, where there's CLEAR CONTRADICTORY PRACTICAL CASES!!
What if a doctor accidentally terminates a fetus, during mom's life saving surgery? Is he guilty even if the mom doesn't press charges?
What a mine field we'll create if Roe vs Wade is overturned.

[efhmc]

118. Maybe besides being a woman, the fact that I am a scientist is why

nearly all of this mindless, womb control freaky extremism by uneducated numbnuts just is beyond my comprehension. I loved your posts. All good questions.

[bassman79]

120. Problem is there's two bodies...

You have the right to do whatever you want to your body. The issue is that you are denying life to your unborn child. You can argue all day about when a fetus is a person or isn't, the fact is pregnancy results in the birth of a new person, barring miscarriage. Having an abortion is an infringement on the right of your child to live. It's pretty simple.

[efhmc]

122. No this is not "pretty simple" as you might know if you had ever

been pg, which I would bet money on that you have not been and probably never will be. This is very COMPLICATED. A mass of cells are not a body otherwise my liver would be a body, my colon would be a body, my "pick an organ" would be a body. As a woman I am a body and I am a live, thinking body. I am NOT a walking reproductive mass. I have a mind and I have the right to do whatever I WANT to do to myself. You and your bush buddies and your church buddies and your right wing buddies can make different laws and decisions about this but they will never change the fact that I am the human who is here and I will control my own body.

[scarletlib]

121. In my opinion none

A woman can only be truly free when she has the same control over her destiny that a man does. If she cannot decide when and/or if to be pregnant and to bear a child but is under the control of the government on that issue she cannot be called truly free in this so called land of liberty.

Nothing can be more profound in a woman's life than to become pregnant and have a child. Nothing can be more life changing at the most profound level. I acknowledge that men do become parents but no man must go through a pregnancy and risk his health or his life to bring a child into this world.

[efhmc]

123. I loved being pregnant and I loved having babies but that was my

choice. I wish those creepy, crappy right wing freaks would come to the outreach place where I worked and pick up the pieces of the lives of the destroyed children that I worked with who were not wanted. They think "life" is so important, then they need to put their self-righteous selves on the line and do the right thing and take of these children. But they do not want to take responsibility for the decisions that they force on women, they just want to tell them what they should do.