It's a question of whether women are equal to men ?

[kentuck]

It's not just about the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. It's about equal rights in the big picture. If women lose the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, they have lost much more than just the right to have an abortion. They have lost their claim to equality with men in this society. They will have lost their constitutional rights as stated in the Constitution of the United States. It is not just about abortion.

[MadisonProgressive]

1. Remember...

"All MEN are created equal"

[MindPilot]

2. Absolutely and it is also about privacy

particularly medical privacy. And that affects everyone so this is as you say not just about reproductive rights, but everyone's rights to have government stay out of your most intimate life decisions.

[BrklynLiberal]

44. That is absolutely right..and that affects men as well as women!

This is also about sodomy laws, the right to birth control and many other rights that are guaranteed to us by our right to privacy that is the foundation to Roe v Wade.
Once that foundation is undermined, everything else that is built on it is endangered.

[Greybnk48]

3. Thanks Kentuck

that is is exactly right and I'm amazed that many don't see that.

One thing that no one has mentioned is that overturning Roe would likely be founded on the Sanctity of life argument, which grants the right to life at conception. Overturning Roe and reinstating this line of reasoning would open a Pandora's box of changes.

Potential practices that would be affected:

Some (many) contraceptives, IVF, *organ donation, living wills and the right to die. *Organ donation requires that the patient's heart is still beating when the organs are procured. It takes very little thought to see that all of this would be called into question. We got a hint of this with the Schiavo case.

So all of you mysogynists out there, this may affect you or your children as well.

[Ravenseye]

4. I disagree

I don't think the anti-choice argument is about equal rights. It's a severe conceptual difference of opinion.

There are people on this planet who don't view infanticide as 'illegal' or wrong. If they can't afford to support the infant, they'll just bury it by a river. A crying screaming baby. I'm pretty sure you'd think that's totally wrong.

These anti-choicers are at the opposite end. Who'd have thought that pro-choice pro-abortion is the moderate choice eh?

They see the fertilized egg as LIFE, no different than that screaming infant. They see no difference between abortion and burying a screaming infant by a river.

It's not about equal rights for women, per se. It's about equal rights for people with differing world views which we feel is appropriate. In the infanticide example, the vast majority in this country would find that wrong. In the abortion example, not as much. Where do we draw the line of our conceptions? Do we legalize infanticide? I don't think so. Do we make abortion illegal? Again, I dont' think so. But that's my world view. That's what this battle is about. World Views. How we see the world. How do we determine our laws based on it?

It's a complicated issue, but I don't think it's really about womens' rights, per se, but everyone's rights to act how they feel is appropriate to their own world view within the scope of an overarching societial common view.

Or something...who knows.

[DURHAM D]

7. I disagree with you - it is about equal rights for women.

The "world view" argument you articulated is the result of the Repugs fishing around for a way to control their chattel and they have clearly managed the language and the argument over the past twenty years with a tremendous amount of success judging from your post on the DU.

[gkhouston]

12. yup. I've noticed that when this analogy is made

the fertilized egg seems to exist in some magic state -- people usually forget to mention that it's inside the body of living, viable human. Anybody can walk along the riverbank and pick up the abandoned baby. For the fertilized egg to become a viable life, a woman has to risk her health and life growing that egg into a baby -- and even then, it might not survive until term.

[Ravenseye]

24. This is my problem with that argument.

If a fertilized egg is considered 'life', then what is the crime in removing that egg from the uterine lining. Yes that action causes it to die, but that is because it is incapable of sustaining life by itself.

Most often with infanticide the child is actually killed and then buried, or simply buried alive which of course causes death very quickly. There is no chance or option to pick up that abandoned baby. My point though was that people have different conceptions of what life is. For some life doesn't begin to adulthood and even an older, walking, talking child is 'in danger'. Now of course that almost never happens, but in different cultures many things are more relative than they are in ours from concepts of life, to that of family, and so on.

The different conceptions in the anti-choice movement than those of ours are just as 'valid' in a relativistic sense. The problem is when they want to restrict what you can do based on their world view. I don't see it as a women's rights issue, honestly, but a human rights one.

[Ravenseye]

22. Cultural Relatvism

My argument is one of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual. It comes from my background in Anthropology, not any Republican argument.

There probably are those members of the anti-choice movement, who honestly want to do something to take away rights of women, but I can't imagine there are many of them. They simply hold a different world view than yours. Their world view states that an abortion is no different than infanticide. Our world views disagree with them. Both beliefs are 'valid'.

The problem comes from legislation, where one side tries to legislate their world view over yours. That's the issue. They are trying to prevent someone from doing something that's contrary to their world view through laws. When the majority of the american public want one thing, and a minority wants to legislate to make it illegal because their world view conflicts with the majorities...Well that's a problem. Even more insidious is when a majority legislates to restrict the rights of a minority, say polygamy (which is a whole 'nuther ball of wax).

My point though is that simply because their world view disagree's with yours on one point, doesn't make it different on all points, nor does the belief that life begins at conception (or even more absurdly before that point) necessarily converge with equal rights for women.

[donsu]

17. it's about women's rights

world wide

[tavalon]

35. I hate to be the one to tell you this

But anti-abortion has nothing, not one thing, to do with the life of the fetus and every thing to do with keeping women/poor people under thumb. If it were otherwise, the anti-abortion folks would be gung ho about protecting that fetus and it's livelihood throughout its life. They wouldn't try to take away social programs, they wouldn't be for the death penalty, they wouldn't be itching to send our (poor) young to battlefields to die. Haven't you ever noticed those non sequiters? They stop being non sequiters when you place them all into the subjugation of women/poor people.

Fetuses aren't sacred, dominance is.

[Ravenseye]

39. Sorry

But when someone says something like that it just sounds ludicrous to me. I know plenty of anti-choicers. My wife at one point was an anti-choice protester, she'd go to clinics and stand outside with signs. The people who are out there marching aren't there to keep women and poor people down. When liberals say things like that it pisses me off because it makes us look absolutely insane.

Oh, they protest abortion because the man wants to keep us down? No, they do it because they honestly think it's murder.

If infanticide were legal in this country and people could take their two month old child and say "hey you know what, I was wrong, I dont' want to do this anymore". Then take the child to a clinic to have it killed...would you protest that? Would you want that to stop? Would you want poor people to stop commiting infanticide?

Abortion is NOT infanticide, my point is that these people see NO difference between the two.

Yes it's hypocritical that they do nothing to help these people feed or clothe or get health care for their children (well some do, but most definately don't), but that doesn't mean that they're about keeping the poor people under thumb...it means they're small minded hypocrites. People react to the big noise, not the whimpering in the corner.

[tavalon]

40. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree

I'm not talking about the small people here, I'm talking about the people who control those small people. The people who protested at the Schiavo site were those small minded people you mentioned. The people who control them though, are neither stupid nor small minded and their reasons have nothing to do with the foot soldier.

I'm sorry that my differing opinion pisses you off. I guess you're just going to have to deal with it.

Now, it's time for me to go to work and help people birth their babies and make their choices. It's what I do. I've assisted in everything from the nine week abortion to partial birth abortion to delivery of happy and healthy newborns. Been doing it for close to 16 years. I'm quite entitled to my point of view.

So are you.

[Ravenseye]

42. Yup

That's sort of my whole point. They are differeing points of view. Every point of view is 'valid'.

That doesn't mean though that I'm going to sit quietly when people talk crazy. If you can't see that the conspiracy theory you are touting isn't just that, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

[zanne]

74. Ravenseye--When you "agree to disagree",

you don't call the other person's opinion "crazy", especially after saying that "every point of view is valid". You just gave yourself away.

[Skittles]

45. they would also give a damn about children dying in Iraq

they don't f***ing care about "life"

[Ravenseye]

51. That's why I use the term anti-choice

I slip up sometimes and say pro-life but it's obvious they are NOT pro-life. How can you be pro-life if you're pro-death penalty, pro-war, etc.

That doesn't mean though that the reason they are anti-choice is because they're anti-woman.

[Skittles]

65. oh, I believe they are anti- women

indeed I do - strong women, women making their own decisions, really threatens "conservatives"

[bettyellen]

67. a lot of men don't want to own up to it.

but they have a certain nostalgia for the days when women were under their thumbs.

[Skittles]

72. nostalgia?

they F***ING SALIVATE AT THE THOUGHT OF IT. Not just women either - let's add those "uppity blacks" too. :puke:

[Inland]

50. I disagree--Orrin Hatch's statements prove it's about using the woman

as the birthing chamber and commandeering her body.

When the stem cell debates go on, he said that the blasocysts were not human life UNLESS they were implanted in a uterus.

Note the happy coincidence--not only are the embryos in the fertility clinic "not life", but the precondition for something being "life" is someone else's uterus, which then has to be commandeered and forced to assist in Hatch's interest in THAT embryo.

The fact is quite simple: their interest is limited to controlling the woman, not the embryo.

[Ravenseye]

52. I see no 'proof'

I see a different definition.

You say "note the happy coincidence" that he defines life as when it implants on the uterine lining. An anti-choicer would say the same thing about us, like "Note the happy coincidence--not only are fetuses 'not life', but the precondition for being 'life' is being birthed." They would see someone arguing for late term abortions in the same way as you look at Hatch. As being a hypocrite.

Yes, I admit, by the reasoning that what they want to do only directly affects the woman who is having an abortion, they are trying to limit what control over what that woman can do. Just as if they limited say male circumcision. They would be having an interest in controlling the man.

This doesn't mean though that the reason they are looking to 'control the woman' is to actually, literally control her. Where you see people who would call even the unfertilized egg 'life' as completely bozo the clown hello nurse batty, they see you the same way.

Different world views. Is it about controlling women? Ok, yes to the extent that what they want to do only directly affects women and their fetus/embryo/blastocyst/egg/whathaveyou, but when people say that they say it as if the INTENT is to specificaly establish 'control' over women. That's what I disagree with. The intent is, on their part, to stop something which they find far more reprehensible than how we feel about Orrin Hatch's position.

It doesn't make them 'right'. It just makes them 'different'.

The problem is that they want to apply their definitions of life to everyone, and that's where I have a problem.

[Inland]

53. But Hatch's "definition" proves it isn't about the "life"

There isn't any difference between the blastocysts except location. In one, there is a woman who can be commandeered to bear the child and the blastocyst is life. In the other, there isn't and the blastocyst may be killed. Exact same set of cells, exact same genetic makeups, exact same type of conception of sperm meeting egg. But no woman and the "definition" is conveniently changed to be "not life".

Forget the semantic definition game. The plain fact is that if there is no woman to control, there isn't a life worth keeping frozen much less bringing to term. Put another way, Orrin isn't interested in paying tax dollars (or even making private enterprises pay dollars) to keep the blastocysts frozen, get them adopted, or anything of the sort. It's not about what needs to be done to keep these things alive. It's about having a woman handy and who gives a shit if she bears the burden?

They can deny an intent to control women all they want, but the fact is that criminal penalties do just that--establish control, either by making them avoid the abortion to avoid the punishment or by placing them in jail after the fact.

I have a lot more respect for those parties who are against these fertility techniques because they believe they actually create a life that then must be saved then the 99% of anti abortionists whose sole interest is making the woman pay for play.

[Ravenseye]

55. It's more than semantics

One could also say that there isn't any difference between a third trimester fetus and a living (albeit premie) human, except location. Maybe that is semantics. It's all a matter of where you draw the line. People draw the lines all over the place. For some the line is past birth into allowing infanticide, for others even using a rubber is considered wrong. Human belief on the subject runs the gamut. Lines are drawn everywhere.

I agree though that I have more respect for the consistency of the belief that 'all life' is sacred when the practice what they preach and are against all fertility techniques, etc. At least, i find, their view is consistent. I don't agree with it, but it's a valid 'belief'.

When someone says that their 'intent' is to 'establish control' over women or 'control' women, I am forced to disagree. This is by far too broad a statement. Saying that implies that 'they' actually don't care one whit about the fetus. Whether a baby is born, or aborted, or an egg is fertilized or not, or implanted, or not, is unimportant to them. Saying something like "Their intent is to establish control over women" implies that all they care about is keeping those pesky females in line. This is simply not true.

I'm not saying there aren't Mysoginists. I'm not saying there aren't cigar smoking, fat white men, sitting in a plush red leather chair chortling about how women today are uncouth...I'm just saying that they aren't behind the anti-choice movement.

Abortion is a question thousands of years old. The early catholic church allowed them, disallowed them, allowed them up till the 'quickening', disallowed them again, and so on. This isn't something that has recently sprang on the scene, and the question has always been about "When does 'life' begin?"

Simply because the actions the anti-choicers are taking would remove the ability of a woman to do something, she currently can do, does not make their intentions those to 'control' women. Their intentions are to stop, what they see, as mass genocide. Where you see simply someone telling you what to do (which is wrong), they are trying to (in their eyes) save the lives of innocent children just as if they were already born. That this action to 'protect' children would restrict your 'womens' rights is to them, a side effect.

[Inland]

56. But nobody is saying there's a difference between third trimr and "living"

That's my precise point. It isn't about when "life" begins, or Hatch wouldnt be forgiving about the blastocysts being created or not created. Hatch is using this bizarre defition of life that means no more and no less than an available uterus. He might as well not use the word.

Nor does Roe depend on when "life" begins. True, the constitution only protects persons "born" but Roe relies on the mirror image of Hatch, namely, location. Roe assumes that the woman has rights to privacy and therefore can't be forced willy nilly: Hatch assumes that the woman has none and therefore can. Roe and Hatch don't disagree on the nature of the blastocyst at all.

Therefore it clearly ISN'T about protecting children, even without going into the entire life begins at conception and ends at birth joke. But the joke is telling: after birth, there isn't a woman to commandeer anymore, and it starts looking as if fathers and governments get involved, so the interest in the child's welfare flags.

It isn't just coincidence that the supposed rights of the blastocyst rights infringe on the rights of the woman: the supposed rights of the blastocyst don't exist EXCEPT TO the extent they infringe on a woman's rights, not one speck more.

[Ravenseye]

57. I'm not arguing that, ok part of it I am

It is about when "life" begins. Hatch is forgiving about blastocysts because he's a politician who doesn't hold any beliefs other than what he's paid for. He's paid to be against abortion, he's paid to be for business. The happy political middle he's found is to draw the line there. The people who are against abortion are ignorant enough to not see the hypocritical nature of this, and the companies who want to use them for science get to do what they want. For Hatch, all of his constituents win.

Roe doesn't define "life" directly, but indirectly it does. By saying that the constitution doesn't protect the unborn, it's defining an unborn child as not alive. Heck our laws protect dogs and cats better than the unborn. This is directly because of Roe saying, essentially, that they're not alive and have no rights. Roe defines it by as you said, location.

I see this as being clearly about protecting children. It's all a matter of perspective. Yes, they aren't as active interested in children after they are born, but by the same logic does an animal rights activist not care about human children's rights? People pick 'pet' causes, and then normally choose one or two to put their heart into. Simply because these people believe the greatest threat to children is abortion, doesn't mean that they simply don't care about them after they are born. It just means that people, all people, have a finite amount of time, energy, and money to put into a certain situation. Nobody has enough. You have to choose where to assert yourself.

I agree that there is much hypocracy on the anti-choice side of the issue, because their non-hypocritical extreme is just so restrictive. I also understand and agree that the position WE take is the right of women over their own body. My point is that because our position is "Women have a right to their own body" doesn't necessarily mean that their side is "Women don't have a right to their own body". I understand that's how many see it, but it's just not true.

If you feel, for instance, that senior citizens should be tested more regularly in order to determine whether they are capable of driving, you might be doing it because your sister was killed by such a driver. Their side might say that you just want to restrict their rights. While your idea would in fact restrict their rights, you're not doing it in order to restrict their rights, per se, but to make the roads safer. The argument that "It's just about infringing upon the rights of women" is, as I see it, the same as an elderly person saying "They just want to restrict the rights of the elderly." While both statements are technically true, they also carry a very different meaning.

Another way to look at this logic is to say that because the anti-choicers would say "We are for protecting and saving the lives of the unborn." it would mean that your position is "We are for endangering and killing the unborn". Different points of view, different world views, different arguments.

[bettyellen]

61. there are plenty of people fighting this tha want to tell me what to do

with my body. all the money poured out on bullshit abstinenece programs support for activist pharmacists who don't want to fill scripts for contraception.
give me a break, you fail to see the limitations propsed and supported by these people because they don't affect you.

[Ravenseye]

62. I don't know how to explain it better.

The opposite position of yours doesn't necessarily have to be diametrically opposed in order to conflict.

I do see the limitations supported by these people, and they affect everyone. A woman's right to choose affects how we view everyone's ultimate privacy. Medical privacy, Reproductive privacy, Genetic privacy. Each issue affects the other. Don't say it doesn't affect me.

I don't know what's so hard to understand on this point.

You = It's my body, it's my choice, you have no right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body. Don't take away my right to choose.

Them = It is your body, but that's a living thing. Your freedom doesn't let you commit murder.

They don't say "My goal is to take away your rights." even if that is what they are doing. Am I writing in english here? I don't think I'm being understood at all.

You are upset because they want to take away your rights, but they're not taking away your rights, just to do so.

It'd be as if it was totally legal to commit murder (it's not, this is their viewpoint) and you could go around and kill anyone because you're Samurai. Well they are anti-samurai. Samurai shouldn't be allowed to kill people just because they want too. The Samurai stand up and say "Hey, don't take away my rights as a Samurai. You're anti-Samurai!" While there are plenty of other wonderfull things Samurai do, and in fact killing people is an extremely rare and minor aspect of being a Samurai. The anti-samurai people may want to restrict that right of Samurai, but it's because they want to save lives, not because they just don't like Samurai.

[bettyellen]

63. it seems you take at their face value the RW arguments

and take issue with and ignore large aspects of progresive ones.
it's not hard to understand. it's hard to fathom why.
infanticide and samurais, huh? way to muddy the waters and stealthily label women who seek abortions as murders.

[Ravenseye]

64. It seems you don't even try and understand your enemy

I don't take issue with large aspects of progressive arguments. To my knowledge the progressive argument is that a women's body is her own, and that what she does with it is her choice and a private matter. I agree with that 100% and believe that to be an accurate description of the progressive argument.

Do you have absolutely no understanding of your opponents? Way to be like Bushco. Why should we take the time to understand what they're thinking right?

If you can't understand that the anti-choice argument is one that sees abortion on par with infanticide then you have a problem. Just because they see it that way doesn't mean that I see it that way, nor does it mean that it's a correct viewpoint.

My postings are because I severely disagree with the assessments of many who are insistent that anti-choice activists don't care about life whatsover, they just care about keeping women down, and making them not equal to men. This is ABSURD. If you can't see that you're so blind to reality then I don't know what to say.

Do you honestly believe that the goal of anti-choice activists has nothing to do with saving lives, and everything to do with taking away women's rights?

Oh and I'm not stealthily labeling women who seek abortions as murderers. I'm trying to explain to you that this is how they see it. Not me. I'm trying here to get people to understand them. We can't defeat them if we dont' understand them god damn it.

[bettyellen]

66. i'm blind? you're the one making this a simple black and white, one or the

other issue, you're the one not getting a lot of what's been said to you on this thread while putting forth an incredibly facile argument. people were not just talking about the protesters, i.e. your ex wife, but it seems her motivations are all you do understand here. yet you ignore these RTL peeps have a load of other ways they'd like to impose their morals on society, all at the expense of womans freedom. they lie about how contraception works just to try and impose their moral code against pre-marital sex. - and women are the victims. it's not just about life, it's about legislating a to impose a certain morality, and we are the easier targets.

the motives of all politicians and activists are not the same as your ex's.

you may believe that men never act in their own self interests and hide behind god, but history shows it's a poplular ploy.

and fyi, please refrain from personal attacks in the future, aside from being against DU rules, it's the sign of an intellectually weak argument. please stick to the issues.

[Ravenseye]

68. I'm sorry if you took offense

I can't see how what I said was a personal attack, but if you felt it was then I apologize.

I'm getting what people are saying, I just disagree with it. I have to deal with anti-choice people alot with my in-laws. Granted they're not the big wig fat cats, but they act and more importantly vote on their beliefs which are as I've stated in previous posts. Through family, in-laws, college, work, life I've met many different people from different walks of life and being the outspoken jerk that I am, I tend to bring up political arguments to feel people out. I don't want to be friends with people that I disagree with too vehemently on issues like this. sure it's all anecdotal and personal data, but it's what I've got to go on. Their views are how I've represented their 'side' in this thread.

Now, did I already say that there ARE people like you describe? Yes. There are. Hell there are people who want not just women to lose sufferage, but black people, kick out anyone non-white, etc. There are some nutty people, with a disproportionate amount of power in this country. I can see that. I'm not dumb.

Everyone's motiviations are different and in my posts I've talked about how the views on this topic are widely varied, from the position, to the motivation, to where the line is drawn.

As far as men never acting in their own self interests etc etc...In fact I believe the opposite. I think that except for rare exceptions EVERYONE, man and woman, acts in their own self interests. When someone acts for the good of the community it's because they feel it's in their own self interest to have a good community around them. Hence what I believe is one of the major differences between the progressive and conservative mindset. The conservative pursues their self-interests primarily but focusing on themselves. The progressive pursues their self-interests primarily by focusing on others and the environment surrounding them. The conservative keeps himself afloat at the expense of others, the progressive helps to build a boat for everyone at the risk to themselves (knowing that if it gets built it will be much easier than treading water).

Anyway the fact that Dobson or some of those other lunatics might want to keep their women barefoot and pregnant doesn't mean that the world view of theirs is a driving factor in the argument. What I've been disagreeing with is that, overall, the desire by some cabal of men to destroy the rights of women is controlling the anti-choice movement is I feel a conspiracy theory. By far the vast majority of people who vote on this issue don't feel that way, and no matter how easily brainwashed they apparently are by fox news, I don't feel that this is one of those cases. It's a severe ideological world view difference that has existed for millenia not just since 1973. I've never claimed it to be a black and white issue, it is extremely complex. I'm just saying that for the vast majority of people who VOTE for the anti-choice candidate, what I've been writing is what they think.

I'm saying this because if this is the case, then we are better prepared to take an argument to them which places holes in their world view. If we can do that, we can convert people. It's possible. My wife, I have no ex-wife, was a protester. Now she as EXTREMELY pro-choice. These people can be educated, but only if we know how to approach them. If we approach them in the way that has been suggested, we won't reach them.

[bettyellen]

69. thank you. i see your point much clearer now, and we seem to agree

that your post is about part of the resistance to choice- the strict life ones. i have to say that i feel it's a slippery slope/ heavy overlap with those who want to roll back all reproductive freedoms and legislate our morality.
and while you may see it as their pragmatic solution, we women know that solutions placing some burden on men just aren't being developed because there ain't enough interest from the powers that be. is that a conspiricy or just guys being weaseley, LOL?
it doesn't have to be a conspiricy or cabal to make it oppressive, just the same bunch of guys calling all the shots. lookng after themselves. it an't so much of a plot as a situation many men are content with. it's just the way things work. and i think the OP was trying to remind on the fence people why it's vitally important to women. it's about self-determination. that sentiment is dead on, and it's not too often expressed.

that all said, i am dead curious what turned your wife around. so she was an ex-protester, not an ex-wife ooops, sorry for the confusion. wow, what changed for her? i'm really curious as to what if anything you think would convert people.
thanks.

[Ravenseye]

70. I wish I had the magic cocktail

that I could deliver and make people reasonable, but I don't.

As far as my wife, she was standing outside a clinic one year, and a year later she wasn't. We've talked about it a few times. It always comes down to the fact that, before, she wasn't really thinking about it at all. She was just instinctively reacting to what she'd been told. After, she was listening, reading, and thinking on her own. I think probably it's about establishing a dialogue with people on grounds they can understand and building them a bridge that they can understand.

I think you're absolutely right, it's an incredibly slipperly slope and no ground can be given. There should be full medical/reproductive/genetic privacy in this country for every living being with no execptions at all.

[bettyellen]

71. boy i wish we had that recipe, too .

that's scary stuff, just instinctively reacting to what you're told. i've been cynical since the third grade so it never occured to me. doh. i bet you were a bit of a good influence on her too. well , here's hoping for more stories like that one. :D
cheers.

[Inland]

54. But Hatch's "definition" proves it isn't about the "life"

There isn't any difference between the blastocysts except location. In one, there is a woman who can be commandeered to bear the child and the blastocyst is life. In the other, there isn't and the blastocyst may be killed. Exact same set of cells, exact same genetic makeups, exact same type of conception of sperm meeting egg. But no woman and the "definition" is conveniently changed to be "not life".

Forget the semantic definition game. The plain fact is that if there is no woman to control, there isn't a life worth keeping frozen much less bringing to term. Put another way, Orrin isn't interested in paying tax dollars (or even making private enterprises pay dollars) to keep the blastocysts frozen, get them adopted, or anything of the sort. It's not about what needs to be done to keep these things alive. It's about having a woman handy and who gives a shit if she bears the burden?

They can deny an intent to control women all they want, but the fact is that criminal penalties do just that--establish control, either by making them avoid the abortion to avoid the punishment or by placing them in jail after the fact.

I have a lot more respect for those parties who are against these fertility techniques because they believe they actually create a life that then must be saved then the 99% of anti abortionists whose sole interest is making the woman pay for play.

[pnb]

75. I pretty much agree

Many anti-choice people are not necessarily misogynist...they truly believe it is murder. I don't agree with their assessment but in their minds, they are indeed fighting against exactly what you mention. That makes many of the other statements regarding the attack on women as moot in my eyes, at least as far as those being the reasons why people are anti-choice anyway.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[gkhouston]

6. gold star for kentuck

It is a way of saying women are not equal. Not only are we less important than men, our actual lives and health are held to be less valuable than the potential, unrealized life inside us. For a lot of people, though, being anti-choice seems to be about wanting to make women "pay" for their sexual freedom -- apparently women are not ever supposed to have sex unless they're willing to have a baby, regardless of their financial circumstances or health. I often wonder if those people would hold the same belief if humans were a species where gestation randomly altered between male and female, such that you didn't know who was going to actually "cook" the baby when you had intercourse. ;-)

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. "...less valuable than the potential, unrealized life inside us..."

Well, of course.

That life might be male.

[gkhouston]

13. I was thinking that really loudly

you must have heard me. :7

[CrispyQ]

18. Excellent point.

I often wonder if those people would hold the same belief if humans were a species where gestation randomly altered between male and female, such that you didn't know who was going to actually "cook" the baby when you had intercourse.

Have you read Ursula Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness"? It tackles this exact topic. There's a bumper sticker that says something like: If men could become pregnant, abortion would be sacrosanct.

That half the population, who will never, ever face pregnancy, think they have the right to impose their will on the other half of the population, who face that risk, is such total arrogance I can barely comprehend it. I don't understand how any woman could be attracted to men like this.

[gkhouston]

19. I did read it, but about 25 years ago

so I've pretty much forgotten it. Always liked that bumpersticker, though.

Can't believe blivet** picked a rich white man and the RW talking heads are saying he picked a candidate that "represents America". :eyes:

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

29. This issue has enormous potential negative

consequences for a woman's right to control anything at all in her life during her reproductive years.

Aside from the obvious need to have control over one's body, health etc, consider how being able to choose pregnancy or not impacts a woman's life activities.

Work, income, physical activity, food and drink etc.

And then consider that the same people who are anti-choice also support the very ineffectual abstinence only way to birth control and safety from STD.

And in the meantime, viagra has been "prescribed" very 'liberally.'

You connect the dots, add up the totals.

The intention of those who wish to overturn Roe v Wade isn't all that relevant to the debate.

The defacto impact on women is very relevant.

Ursula Le Guin. I read that book a long time ago too. Wonderful sci fi writer. Daughter of Franz Boaz, father of American anthropology wasn't she?

[CrispyQ]

8. The 14th Amendment states:

"All persons are citizens -- and no state shall deny or abridge the citizen rights . . ." Even though the amendment says 'persons', it didn't apply to women. Through the 14th Amendment, corporations were granted full legal existence & constitutional rights of personhood; women, however, derived these rights only through their husbands. Women didn't exist separate from their husbands.

Women didn't get to vote until 1920. The Equal Pay Act wasn't passed until 1963. And the ERA still has not been ratified.

I fear where these neo-con nutcases are taking us. And I'm PO'd to the max at every woman who supports & votes for them, including my own mother.

[Hosnon]

26. Funny that the same reasoning was used to have Roe decided the

other way by saying that a fetus is a person under the Constitution but Blackmun said it wasn't because all indications were that person, within the Constitution, implied already born.

[Yupster]

48. The Fourteenth Amendment has been used for more s*^t

when it was really passed for a very specific purpose.

It was passed right after the Civil War and close to two other amendments.

The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves.

The Fourteenth Amendment made freed slaves citizens.

The Fifteenth Amendment allowed freed slaves (males) the right to vote.

It's pretty simple to see what these amendments were intended to do, though they've been used to argue everything from abortion to corporate rights.

BTW, the Fourteenth Amendment also did two additional things. It made it illegal for many former Confederates to hold US government positions and it made it illegal for states to redeem Confederate bonds.

[Bluerthanblue]

37. corporations have full constitutional

rights, yet according to Roberts- they don't have the responsibilities.

Roberts not only doesn't see 'women' as equal- he prefers corporations over individuals- this bodes ill for all of us-

Please read the article here- it's adobe acrobat pdf, or i'd post the relevant portions- this is bigger than 'abortion rights' this is scary shit-

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf

[tubbacheez]

10. One big glitch in this debate is the word "equal".

Lots of people are using multiple meanings of the word.

What matters most in law, in my humble opinion, is political equality, where women wind up with the same political power (to enforce their rights, to influence policy, etc.) as men.

Where a lot of confusion set in is when people make value judgements. Equal value in society is not the same as equal power.

And the Freeper-classic error of assuming we mean mathmatical equality is clearly inapplicable when comparing apples and oranges, or males and females... as distinct from the 'minds of men' and the 'minds of women'.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[tubbacheez]

21. That's exactly my point.

The connotations of the word are not the same in all contexts.


This becomes confusing in debate.

[Hosnon]

28. I agree 100%. Men and women (and everyone for that matter) are not ever

going to be equal in every way nor perhaps should they be. The only equality that I think is necessary is political.

[tubbacheez]

30. I'm with you on this.

And I think this distinction needs to be made clear in other discussions. In talking about politics, equality means political equality.


Peace.

[rumpel]

32. I think we have to first separate Church and State. As a democratic

society, the government should ensure the freedom to choose any faith, any religion or denomination thereof. The government therefore should not co-mingle or impose legislation based on any one favored belief of one or the other religion or it's denomination.

It is as such, that none of us know for fact when a blob of cells is a viable being. Either scientifically or spiritually speaking.
Do we know if bacteria, or a worm are viable beings? Is the issue a question of the ability to feel pain and suffering? How do you define a being? These are questions that no one will ever be able to answer with concrete certainty.

I think people are confusing religiously moral and ethical questions with legally ethical and moral question defined by government. Ask any religion and it will say do not kill.
As a child, I was catholic, the Father was teaching us at the time, that God created everything on earth for the use of us, human beings. That animals, have no feeling no consciousness and and God created them to serve mankind. I vehemently disagreed.
Buddhists believe all sentient beings are equally precious, nothing is above or below.

The abortion issue is ultimately an ethics and moral question for each individual and for each individual to decide themselves. A very private personal issue, I tend to think, does not affect society as a whole, such as dumping massive pollutants, which should be regulated by the government.

No one will enjoy a decision of an abortion, no one. It primarily may be a woman's right, as she carries the main burden, but it takes two to get into such a position. Ironically, both are "equally" responsible. So in a sense I agree, but equal rights come with equal responsibilties.
But it is a private matter and people should rather concentrate on creating a society that is responsible and ethical by example in action and words.
"youthful indiscretion and all".

Roe vs Wade is best left "As-Is", the government has to allow the freedom to choose, isn't that what democracy is all about?

[Child_Of_Isis]

11. It's about everyone knowing exactly what a woman should be

doing at any given moment. Ask anyone and they can tell you exactly what she should or should not be doing. She shouldn't be hanging out with her buds after work, she should be at home with her family...she shouldn't allow her child to walk to the store alone...she should be cooking dinner instead of buying Big Macs...it goes on and on. Men should consider how abortion will effect them also. They no longer have the luxury of financial irresponsibility when an infant is born. The state can go right to his work place and pop a 100 dollar bill out of his paycheck. Whether he likes it or not.

[kentuck]

14. Good points ...

Far-reaching consequences if this law is over-turned.

[gkhouston]

15. Oh, it's better than that

if the state can tell a woman she doesn't control her body, today they might say she can't have an abortion, tomorrow they might say she must have one. Precedent cuts both ways. Have the anti-choicers chewed on that one?

[Totally Committed]

16. I saw a great bumpersticker about this the other day:

"If you don't trust me to make the right CHOICE, how can you trust me with a child?"

Badda-BOOM.

TC

[Hidden Stillness]

23. Equal, but Powerless

Beautifully put, and Thank You! The threat, of course, is that somebody can just come along and take your rights away, indicating that you were never a first-class citizen with guaranteed, untouchable rights at all, but only "going along" until the real power decided it wanted to take whatever it wanted from you; and that is now. It hardly matters what "right" it is, as this will be only the first step anyway.

[bloom]

25. We should hold the Republicans to this ->

according to a leaflet the Republicans put out...


"I believe that good government is based on the individual and that each person's ability, dignity, freedom and responsibility must be honored and recognized."

also...

"I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex or national origin."


Of course WE know that Republicans do the opposite of what they say and say the opposite of what they do. But there are plenty of opportunities to hold them to their own supposed ideals.

It's crazy that they can make such a statement and then say the state has a right to decide whether a woman can have a particular medical procedure when she is just trying to assert her individual dignity, freedom and responsibility.

[Kraklen]

27. It's about men deciding what comes in and goes out of vaginas.

It's like a debate on legalizing rape.

[DianeK]

31. the 14 words of the equal rights amendment...

have yet to be included within the constitution of the united states...constitutionally women are not equal to men and do not hold the same rights

[Totally Committed]

33. Can you imagine what would happen if we told

White men they needed a Constitutional Amendment to be considered "equal"? All hell would break loose. And, we women are 52% of the population!

TC

[bobbieinok]

34. Scalia said in WI 2001: women and minorities only have the constitutional

rights given (for blacks) in the ammendments right after Civil War and (for women) the ammendment giving women the right to vote........he said the US problems all go back to the federal courts ignoring this and other 'original intent' aspects of the constitution for the last 60 years

he said 'if this bothers you, elect people to change the constitution'

this info was published in a Madison newspaper reporting on speeches he gave to the U of WI law school and the law school at Marquette

he also said the constitution is a 'dead' document, ie interpretations cannot vary to adapt to a changing world

there was much discussion about this in DU.......speeches were in Feb or March of 2001

[Mythsaje]

36. Scalia's an ass...

The founders KNEW that times would change and the Constitution would have to be reinterpreted as this happened.

[bonito]

38. Obviously you don't know

my wife. This girl won't be dictated too period. more the reason to get Sen.Boxer to run in 08.

[JerseygirlCT]

41. Absolutely agreed. The right to control one's own body is

about as central as you can get. W/o it, you control nothing.

[WinkyDink]

43. I know you mean well, but!

This phrasing implies that MEN are the standard by which women are measured; thus, women are sub-men.
I prefer to judge both equally.
MEN just happen now to have most of the political power.

[kentuck]

46. Yeah, but....

the obvious standard is one which will say that men are superior. I agree it would be best to judge both equally. However, this judge could shoot that idea all to hell.

[sendero]

47. Women...

... should have equal rights in our society. But they don't, and it's clear that they won't for a while yet.

It's really too damn bad.

[lumpy]

49. I am on the road to approaching my 80th

year. I don't want to see women lose the rights that they have gained over the years; equal pay, control of their own person (choice), marriage rights, legal rights against sexual harassment, and a host of other supressive values that have been heaped against women. Believe me I experienced all of the above in my lifetime. I really believe that most women and a lot of men would not want to regress to the back-seat treatment that women experienced during the pre-60s.

[ibegurpard]

58. To me, it's a question of government intruding where they have no business

Which is a very scary line to let them cross.

[93ncsu]

59. With or without abortion ...

women (and men) wouldn't have the right to do what they want with their own bodies anyway. Can women legall inject heroin into their bodies ? No. Can women legally attempt to cease the function of their bodies by committing suicide ? No. Can young women get any medical procedure they want without their parents' consent ? No.

If we are to be a consistent society, then we must remove all of these barriers to personal freedom.

[rman]

60. equal rights and all that, but i quite like the differences.

to me, there's no question about it.

[nicknameless]

73. I can't believe what I've been reading on DU the past week.

One misogynist is denying that back-alley abortions ever took place! At first, I thought he must be young (and callous), then I realized by his other posts that he's at least in his 50's!

There has been a lot of talk about sacrificing Roe v. Wade in an effort to attract anti-choice voters. But the Roe decision has saved women's lives. So the proposal to sacrifice Roe is in fact a proposal to trade women's lives for *possible* votes.

How un-f***ing-believable is that?!

[nicknameless]

76. Am I the only one who is observing a marked misogynistic streak on DU

these days? Isn't DU supposed to be a progressive board? Does that only apply to the war issue?
I don't understand what is being allowed here.

The aforementioned scumbag poster has been writing that he doesn't believe that backalley abortions ever took place and characterizes them as "inflammatory hyperbole."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1647864&mesg_id=1651321

Regarding women's reproductive concerns, he recommends that they "practice a little personal responsibility" and "keep (their) knees together."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1647864&mesg_id=1651803

Pure right-wing bile.
Some progressive board.