"Brr-footed and Pregnunt"The South Still Trying to Control Women

dolf250

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Posts
769
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
238
Age
34
Location
The Great White North
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
...Take away their money and see what "fine" people they are. See how much they love God then.:biggrin1:

That is a pretty sweeping statement and condemnation. Ignoring my own situation (I have made a good living, and I have been flat broke; unpaid bills, collection agencies ect...) I would like you to look to the poorest of nations. I am not going to say that people in parts of Africa or South America are not manipulated at least a little by religion, but look at the true love of God in those with nothing. If you are like some friends I have will say that it is just them clinging to straws and one last irrational hope. The translation is that rich men would not love God without money and poor men don't truly love God; just the hope of something better.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,176
Media
37
Likes
26,249
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
'Creeps'? I also happen to believe that life begins at conception. I've always found it rather interesting how society conveniently renames or uses scientific terms (fetus, blastocyst, zygote, embryo,etc.) for a human life to make it more palatable when we abort it.

As I've said before though, however much I disagree with abortion, I support one's right to make that decision.

I think you've misunderstood that guy, Rocket. He's not calling you a creep unless you, like the creeps, ONLY believe life is sacred from conception to birth. If you, unlike the creeps, believe that the lives of all people, regardless of age are sacred, then you are not a creep.

Abortion is a messy issue, but guilt-tripping women is not going to do anything but ruin lives further. Of course, this was probably put through by men who can spunk all day long and not worry about the consequences. I'd have thought better education and protection measures should be put in place. (Yep, condom adverts).

Yes! Yes! This was entirely my point. I'm not even upset that they are making it more difficult to obtain a safe abortion in some states, because I figure it'll get challenged in the Supreme Court. I'm so numb (sad but true) to the ongoing battle for the right to control women in this world. But the part that shocked me is that they have legalized torturing women with these bills. This is (as I heard on the news) "emotional blackmail".

Imagine you are a woman. You didn't want to be pregnant. Whatever happened to you, or whatever you chose to do, you've become pregnant. You know you are carrying a life. You know it is ALIVE, that's what's wrong with it. You have made the difficult choice to terminate your pregnancy. For you, keeping this baby is not an option. In fact, you have decided not to think of it as a baby anymore, because that is too painful. You will abort this fetus. You will have the parasite removed. Yeah. Now you're at peace with your decision. But when you get to your final consultation, the counselor or physician asks you gently,

"Would you like to hear its heart beat?"

And You'd worked so hard to forget he was your baby. You shake your head, and decline. Your eyes well up, and you try to review the reasons. You don't have the money. The adoption system worries you, and you wonder how you'd feel if you ever saw another murdered or tortured foster child or adoptee on the news, and thought they looked a bit like you and your man. You'd be a pariah. You don't know how you'd finish school, and you're so close to that degree. You never wanted kids. You like the nightlife. You can't imagine not drinking or smoking for 40 weeks. Remember Lent? Yeah. Never happen. You really need to abort that fetus.

But your baby has a heartbeat, and the friendly people at the clinic are asking you to listen to it. It has a heart. And it's still beating. No. You won't listen to it, thanks. But now it's embedded in your mind. The baby had a heartbeat, and you ended it. It may not be possible to put that unwanted pregnancy behind you now- regardless how you came to be pregnant when you really didn't want to.

If you'd needed any other parasite removed, they'd not have shown it to you before removing it or killing it. If you wanted any other organ operated upon, they'd not have made you look at it first. There are animals who abort pregnancies (and some who take birth control, believe it or not) when the conditions are not right. They don't want to use resources for a gestation unless the offspring would have good conditions into which to be born. But the other animals don't shun them, don't call them murderers, and don't give them grief the day the dead fetus comes out. I guess we're not as good as wild animals, though.


Anyway, what about pregnancy due to rape cases?!?

Damn.
According to the article, the women can seek abortions following a rape, but not following incest. And either way, must still be subjected to being offered the opportunity to listen to the heartbeat, or forced to view sonograms (depending on the state) in order to have the procedure.
 

dolf250

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Posts
769
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
238
Age
34
Location
The Great White North
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I may be letting my conservative side out to play or it may just be my crappy day and wanting to play devils advocate. Either way I have not studied the issue enough to know if the following is true and if most scientists generally agree on it or it if is hype. However, if
...at 20 weeks an "unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain."
is honest and true then giving somebody information is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it would be attempting to sway the outcome, but it is better to have information before doing something than after. Basically, a woman should be given ALL of the information that relates to her decision to have an abortion, both good and bad. Yes, tell her how much it will cost to raise a child, but also include the reasons to have one.

Oh, and lest anybody consider me a hypocrite for disagreeing with abortion in general (yes, a womans body is hers and I would not presume to force anything upon her) I did, when I was much younger offer my sister that if she ever got pregnant I would take it. We were fairly close, she was careful, and I would almost guarantee that she would have kept it anyhow, but I feel strongly enough to offer her an option and take financial responsibility for a child that is not mine. Quite often though I think that it is more than just the financial hardship that weighs into the decision to have an abortion, which seems to be what some others are saying.

*For those that care she is expecting twins by April 1st and is happy about it.*
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,176
Media
37
Likes
26,249
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
I may be letting my conservative side out to play or it may just be my crappy day and wanting to play devils advocate. Either way I have not studied the issue enough to know if the following is true and if most scientists generally agree on it or it if is hype. However, if

is honest and true then giving somebody information is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it would be attempting to sway the outcome, but it is better to have information before doing something than after. Basically, a woman should be given ALL of the information that relates to her decision to have an abortion, both good and bad. Yes, tell her how much it will cost to raise a child, but also include the reasons to have one.

Oh, and lest anybody consider me a hypocrite for disagreeing with abortion in general (yes, a womans body is hers and I would not presume to force anything upon her) I did, when I was much younger offer my sister that if she ever got pregnant I would take it. We were fairly close at the time and she was careful and I would almost guarantee that she would have kept it anyhow, but I feel strongly enough to offer her an option and take financial responsibility for a child that is not mine. Quite often though I think that it is more than just the financial hardship that weighs into the decision to have an abortion, which seems to be what some others are saying.

*For those that care she is expecting twins by April 1st and is happy about it.*

Congrats to your sister! What wonderful news. Please tell us how it goes in a week or two!

I have mixed feelings about the timing of the information you highlighted. 20 weeks is very late to terminate a pregnancy. Very late. However, a woman who decides to abort does so once she has made peace with the idea, and not a moment sooner. Any and all attempts to make her feel guilty about her decision are atempts to derail whatever work she may have put in to feeling better about her decision. On the other hand, I can't exactly say that she is making a fully informed decision if she didn't already know. It's a toughie. Personally, I wouldn't want to hear anything but, "We can do this procedure Tuesday at three."
 

bigbull29

Worshipped Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Posts
7,577
Media
52
Likes
14,088
Points
343
Location
State College (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
Pansexual
Gender
Male
That is a pretty sweeping statement and condemnation. Ignoring my own situation (I have made a good living, and I have been flat broke; unpaid bills, collection agencies ect...) I would like you to look to the poorest of nations. I am not going to say that people in parts of Africa or South America are not manipulated at least a little by religion, but look at the true love of God in those with nothing. If you are like some friends I have will say that it is just them clinging to straws and one last irrational hope. The translation is that rich men would not love God without money and poor men don't truly love God; just the hope of something better.

It's true. I've seen it with my own eyes. Some of the world's happiest people are its poorest. No doubt about it.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I think "giving information" assumes that the woman is a complete idiot and doesn't already know what is happening. Yes, thank you, I would certainly hope a woman would enter into such a decision having gathered all the information she wanted. The only "information" that should be forced on her should be her aftercare. Obviously, a woman is free to ask whatever questions she wishes, but the force of morality is criminal.

I UNDERSTAND that this offends some people morally, I get it- believe me. But why should your morals dictate mine? (Dolf- this is not at you, I know that although you wouldn't do it if you had the choice, you still support a woman's right to choose.)

Again, if men carried the babies, this would not even be a discussion.
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
131
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
This issue is very close to my heart and just reading about these laws makes me sick. This is a very PERSONAL and HARD decision to make for any woman (and her "partner in crime" should he choose to be involved in the process). Feelings and emotions are running raw at this point and introducing this kind of information is nothing but emotional blackmail to force a woman to reconsider her decision. I am pretty sure that most women going in for this procedure are fully aware that their "blob" has a heart beat. Most if not all women take this decision very seriously and there are always hard circumstances that have led them to make this decision and if someone has decided to go down this path, the govt has no fucking right to try to convince them otherwise.

Slightly OT, but I dont care what you label them as conservative, liberals, moderates or fundamentalists, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that Human Beings get off on telling other Human Beings on how to live their lives.
 

B_Hickboy

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Posts
10,059
Media
0
Likes
60
Points
183
Location
That twinge in your intestines
I almost swallered my dip when I read this. I mean, I had to take a break from having a three way with my and and my sister and so forth.

This ain't none a yore damn Yankee business. women and children is chattels in south carolina. git used to it. and if the peasants are revoltin', don't look at 'em. Just go home and leave us alone. We don't need a fence across the Mexican border. We need one at the Mason-Dixon Line that goes all the way to the Mississippi, takes a left, and goes down to the gulf. It's the best way to keep our beaches clean down here.

Ah git so mad...

Tillie! Aint Chloe! Y'all ready fer rand two? YEEEEEEHAWWWWWW!!! Ah may be yore cuzzin but Ah'm steeyull yore daddy! On yore knees, whore!!!

Ah got ta go.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
What an appalling attempt to scare or guilt women into continuing an unwanted pregnancy.

Unfortunately I can't entirely object to their suggestions. The key to any decision is being informed. These are unpleasant tactics they're trying to introduce but none of the information mentioned being given the pregnant women is untrue. Once the fetal stage of development is reached the details of abortion are gory to say the least. The mother shouldn't have these things shoved in her face but I do think it her responsibility to inform herself as to what occurs. If she does this then she can face her decision with confidence and not be cowed by those who seek to shock her.

In the spirit of being fully informed leading to better decisions, I propose that after a woman expresses a desire to carry her pregnancy to term, she be required to view statistics on:

the links between child poverty and early parenthood
how many single mothers live in poverty
the costs of raising a child to age 18
divorce rates following the birth of a first child

as applicable.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
<...>
Wow, I'm impressed! That's the first actual solution I have ever heard suggested. I can't think of anyone who would object to allowing a fertilised egg to be removed and given to someone who wants it- I think that's an amazing solution. But yes, until the time comes that that becomes an option, abortion is all we have. It's a bad solution to a bad problem, but we also don't have the technology of 100% effective birth control, and don't even get me started on abstinence. If MEN were offered abstinence as the only viable option for anything, it would be sneered at, and promtly rejected.
Of course no man should be forced into fatherhood - nor should a woman be forced into motherhood. I have a slightly different take on abstinence than you do, Madame. But this does tie into the convoluted non-logic the "head-in-the-sand" crew take. They think "if you don't teach children what causes babies, then they won't have sex. Just say no! If they do have sex and make a pregnancy, well, then suffer the consequences." The part that they are leaving out of the equation is that being born into circumstances where they are not wanted may not be such a great thing for the baby.

My take on it is to thoroughly educate every single person on the biology and the sociology of conception. Make sure that they understand that the only 100% effective way to avoid diseases and pregnancy is abstinence. If abstinence is not the choice, the ways to reduce risk are these: blah blah blah; if you choose sexual activity over abstinence, then these are the possible consequences: blah, blah, blah; be prepared to accept the responsibility for the consequences of your choices and your actions.
 

Gillette

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Posts
6,214
Media
4
Likes
95
Points
268
Age
52
Location
Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
In the spirit of being fully informed leading to better decisions, I propose that after a woman expresses a desire to carry her pregnancy to term, she be required to view statistics on:

the links between child poverty and early parenthood
how many single mothers live in poverty
the costs of raising a child to age 18
divorce rates following the birth of a first child

as applicable.

Unfortunately that would be viewed as trying to convince the mother to have an abortion.

All of this is key information. Just one thing I'd like to see different. All the information and statistics regarding having a child and having an abortion should be required learning for all females before conception at all. A healthy education regarding safe sex and contraceptives prior to sexual activity would be nice too. What are the chances of that?


Sidenote re - the costs of raising a child to age 18. My mother once outlined this in detail for me during an argument. I think she was trying to guilt me into being a more obedient daughter.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Of course no man should be forced into fatherhood - nor should a woman be forced into motherhood. I have a slightly different take on abstinence than you do, Madame. But this does tie into the convoluted non-logic the "head-in-the-sand" crew take. They think "if you don't teach children what causes babies, then they won't have sex. Just say no! If they do have sex and make a pregnancy, well, then suffer the consequences." The part that they are leaving out of the equation is that being born into circumstances where they are not wanted may not be such a great thing for the baby.

My take on it is to thoroughly educate every single person on the biology and the sociology of conception. Make sure that they understand that the only 100% effective way to avoid diseases and pregnancy is abstinence. If abstinence is not the choice, the ways to reduce risk are these: blah blah blah; if you choose sexual activity over abstinence, then these are the possible consequences: blah, blah, blah; be prepared to accept the responsibility for the consequences of your choices and your actions.


Honey, I was raised in the 70s and that WAS pretty much my experience. Surely, you can see where I'd find it hypocritical for a gay man to say hetero women should be prepared to accept the consequenses of having sex. Would YOU, honestly, be prepared to accept the consequences of bringing an human being into the world, raising it for eighteen years (everyone who's ever been a parent knows that responsibility does NOT end there), see to their education, put them first in every decision you make and plan you life around their well being, every time you wanted to blow a load? There is a GIGANTIC difference between wanting to have sex, and wanting to become a parent. The latter should be entered into with great solemnity, and with the knowledge and consent of both people involved in its conception.

Children are not God's punishment for sex. The truth is, we simply don't have the technology to prevent pregnancy absolutely, but I don't like hearing that MY sex should have consequences about which outsiders should have a say, but yours does not. FWIW, I find both suggestions equally appalling. And yes, I do understand that they are different, and why.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
Unfortunately that would be viewed as trying to convince the mother to have an abortion.

Well, yeah. That's why you'll never see that kind of info in a South Carolina OB/GYN's office.

As usual, the people writing these anti-choice laws are fine with excluding/ignoring those facts that don't suit their position.
 

naughty

Sexy Member
Joined
May 21, 2004
Posts
11,232
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
258
Location
Workin' up a good pot of mad!
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Well, yeah. That's why you'll never see that kind of info in a South Carolina OB/GYN's office.

As usual, the people writing these anti-choice laws are fine with excluding/ignoring those facts that don't suit their position.


Actually, I have seen the sin of omission committed on both sides of the argument...
 

naughty

Sexy Member
Joined
May 21, 2004
Posts
11,232
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
258
Location
Workin' up a good pot of mad!
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I almost swallered my dip when I read this. I mean, I had to take a break from having a three way with my and and my sister and so forth.

This ain't none a yore damn Yankee business. women and children is chattels in south carolina. git used to it. and if the peasants are revoltin', don't look at 'em. Just go home and leave us alone. We don't need a fence across the Mexican border. We need one at the Mason-Dixon Line that goes all the way to the Mississippi, takes a left, and goes down to the gulf. It's the best way to keep our beaches clean down here.

Ah git so mad...

Tillie! Aint Chloe! Y'all ready fer rand two? YEEEEEEHAWWWWWW!!! Ah may be yore cuzzin but Ah'm steeyull yore daddy! On yore knees, whore!!!

Ah got ta go.


Stop playin' man!

This is serious. There are no easy answers in this debate. No easy answers at all.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Zora, I think you missed my point. What I'm saying is that if we, as a society, did a better job of properly educating children as soon as they are capable of learning, and making it a continuing, reinforcing, positive sexual hygiene education, then as a society, we would be better equipped to make responsible decisions. It would not remove the problems, but it would certainly minimize them.

If it is drilled into their heads from early on, before they become sexually active, that there are 4 risk categories, and what the consequences of ignoring those risks are, it would help some. The zero risk category is no sexual contact No risk of disease or pregnancy. The low risk category would be condoms + some other form of birth control; The disease risk remains about the same as with condom only, but the pregnancy risk is lower. The moderate risk category is condom only. If you are willing to take that risk of disease or pregnancy, use a condom only. The highest risk category for both disease and pregnancy is unprotected sex. You don't only risk pregnancy, but also any number of sexually transmitted diseases, some incurable and deadly.

I know you are well aware of all the above, I was simply illustrating that one little talk is not enough to educate. And for what it's worth, gay men have never been "worry-free" as far as having sex, although before the HIV epidemic, they were a little more cavalier about it. Before HIV, the one incurable STD to worry about was hepatitis. A small risk of life-threatening disease, vs. a very large risk of a life-altering pregnancy, though, is not the same thing. The women did definitely have a harder time with the "sexual revolution."

There are very very very few women out there who take a cavalier attitude toward abortion, and think of it as just another form of birth control, and they disgust me. Most women who would ever consider having an abortion, though, agonize over it. Not a choice I would ever want to have to make for myself. But it all still really boils down to one thing: a woman's right to make decisions about something growing inside her body. No one but the owner of the uterus has a right to make those decisions for her.

I may be reading you wrong, but I seem to be hearing you say "people are going to have sex, regardless." Well, yes, that's a given. But they do need to be responsible. Whether it is a pregnancy, or a new HIV infection, it's all about responsibility. Just saying "my hormones got the best of me" is not good enough.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
Actually, I have seen the sin of omission committed on both sides of the argument...

It's one thing to omit the other side of an argument to make a point.

I would argue that it's quite another thing entirely to pass a law requiring a party to hear your side of the argument, without requiring them to hear any of the counterpoints.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
DC_DEEP said:
I may be reading you wrong, but I seem to be hearing you say "people are going to have sex, regardless." Well, yes, that's a given. But they do need to be responsible. Whether it is a pregnancy, or a new HIV infection, it's all about responsibility. Just saying "my hormones got the best of me" is not good enough.

No, you understood me right, it is me who misunderstood you. I thought you were implying that if educated, women should then have to "suffer the consequences" of an unplanned pregnancy. I see that I was wrong, so I apoligise for that assumption.

I WAS educated on the subject in high school back in the 70s, and I simply can't believe that this vital part of my upbringing was not given to my daughter, at least not by the school. I went to a small rural high school, and we even talked about homosexuality in our sex-ed class, which was required. I have been an advocate for safer sex practises since I was 14, and have continued nurturing the seed of information that was planted by my school, my mother, and what science has existed on the subject. Despite these careful measures, people from my generation still have abortions. It frustrates me that people just don't understand that "97% effective" means that three out of a hundred times you have sex, you are still likely to conceive. If it comes down to one out of a thousand, you are still vulnerable that one time.

I am no longer young or willing to raise a child, but there's no way in fucking hell I'm giving up my sex life until menopause comes along. If, despite my careful pains, I became pregnant, it would not change my willingness to become a mother. I would just be burdened with the obligation of getting rid of it. A child I conceive in love is a beautiful thing. One that pops into me uninvited is a parasite, and I'd kill it immediately, not much thought needed. I have had an abortion, and I can assure you, it caused me no emotional stress personally at all. Dealing with society is another matter. THAT was stressful.

I've posted about this before, but I asked to have my tubes tied after I had Julianna. I knew I only wanted one child, and I had her. My doctors refused to do it because I didn't meet the criteria of either A) being 25, or B) already had THREE kids! So, I'm not allowed to get my tubes tied, even though I have insurance and can pay for it, I'm not allowed to make choices about my own body, or my future life. I NEVER wanted three kids, and nobody's going to force me to, or guilt me into carrying an unwanted baby. If I don't want it now, I don't want it later. I put forth effort not to conceive, my intentions are clear. I don't owe "society" my celibacy, and the very thought offends me.

I stand firmly behind the suggestion that if it were men who carried the babies, and not the "dirty whore" women, this would not even be a topic of discussion. It's all about subjugation of women, and nothing at all about the "preciousness" of life. That's just bullshit, but it sounds better than the truth.


edit- what I liked about your earlier post, where you suggested the fetus be extracted and implanted to a woman who DID want it, was that it would be a simple medical procedure, and one that would have felt far better to me than an abortion. Doctors who wished to could start a waiting list of women who wanted to take unwanted embryos, and call them up when a woman who didn't want hers came in. We're probably not *quite* there yet, but I doubt it's outside the realm of possibility.

I can't see how ANYBODY could object to that, on either side.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I've posted about this before, but I asked to have my tubes tied after I had Julianna. I knew I only wanted one child, and I had her. My doctors refused to do it because I didn't meet the criteria of either A) being 25, or B) already had THREE kids! So, I'm not allowed to get my tubes tied, even though I have insurance and can pay for it, I'm not allowed to make choices about my own body, or my future life. I NEVER wanted three kids, and nobody's going to force me to, or guilt me into carrying an unwanted baby. If I don't want it now, I don't want it later. I put forth effort not to conceive, my intentions are clear. I don't owe "society" my celibacy, and the very thought offends me.
You have to be fucking with me on this - the doctors REFUSED to tie your tubes? Oh how fucking rich is the irony on that... out of one side of their mouths, the politicians want to say "you may not, under any circumstances, choose what to do with your own body and get a tubal ligation;" out of the other side of their mouths, they say "you may not, under any circumstances, terminate an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy." Motherfucking idiots.

Wonder what your doctor would say if you told him "you will tie my tubes, or I'll do it myself. I have scissors and a needle and thread at home. Your choice, your responsibility."
I stand firmly behind the suggestion that if it were men who carried the babies, and not the "dirty whore" women, this would not even be a topic of discussion. It's all about subjugation of women, and nothing at all about the "preciousness" of life. That's just bullshit, but it sounds better than the truth.
Isn't that the way the fundi-cons always work?