War on Womens Reproductive Rights

[maxcok]

womens decisions basically always ruin lives actually...

opcorn: Wow.

 

[D_Rosalind Mussell]

you need both men and women to make a baby to suggest otherwise meerly suggests your own stupidity

Thanks for the biology lesson, I think I remember this material being covered sometime before I gave birth. If you can't understand that a woman has a right to choose without political, religious and social intervention, you just might be suggesting your own stupidity. Not all women have caring partners with a vested interest in their health, well-being or future. Some women are single, abandoned, abused, raped...does anyone really have the right to dictate what they should do with their reproductive system? My answer is no. Reproductive matters are private and they do not merit public involvement.

 

[D_Rosalind Mussell]

womens decisions basically always ruin lives actually...

Mommy issues?

 

[B_Nick4444]

...does anyone really have the right to dictate what they should do with their reproductive system? My answer is no. Reproductive matters are private and they do not merit public involvement.

curious how none of these advocates can speak plainly to what they're advocating -- killing a human being

look at the contortions in speech

 

[D_Rosalind Mussell]

They can do whatever they want with their bodies; If they spread their legs, they have exercised their "choice", after which there are consequences and obligations to a third party -- At that point the State has a legitimate interest at intervention. Were it not for the presence of a third party, no-one would care.

The other questions are entirely too rhetorical for me to engage, so I will refrain ...[/B]

Do you apply this same logic to men? If you got a ONS pregnant would you be as dedicated to the consequences and obligations? I'm sincerely interested in your answer, as one can easily postulate from your opinion that once a man has inserted himself he has made his "choice" as well. The great divide lies in the fact that women are left with the physical responsibility of the lives they carry. Men can choose to divest themselves of any responsibility, women can not...and ironically, these woman are chastised for decisions they didn't want to make alone to begin with.

 

[D_Rosalind Mussell]

curious how none of these advocates can speak plainly to what they're advocating -- killing a human being

look at the contortions in speech

I'm not advocating killing...I'm advocating a woman's right to choose in general. I suspect that you don't have children or a wife, am I right? If you did, you might feel differently about the rights you would want your wife to have. What if your child was going to be severely deformed or disabled to the point where they would enjoy no quality of life? Do you have the financial means and dedication to care for that child? What about how it would affect the quality of life for the healthy children you already have? What if having that child meant crippling your ability to provide for your family due to the expense of caring for a disabled child (who at some point will grow into a disabled adult that will still require regular medical care.) Do you want a 3rd party telling you and your family what you have to do or do you want to examine your options privately? These are not rhetorical questions, nor do I expect you to answer them. I'm merely providing an example of how difficult these reproductive decisions can be.

 

[FeroxFemina]

womens decisions basically always ruin lives actually...

How can I respond to that. You obviously like women as much as you like fat people http://www.lpsg.org/236404-fat-people.html

you need both men and women to make a baby to suggest otherwise meerly suggests your own stupidity

No one suggested otherwise

did you forget condoms and various forms of birth control?

I was responding to this:

If they spread their legs, they have exercised their "choice", after which there are consequences and obligations to a third party

...where 'they' refers to women and the problem was deemed to be the opening of their legs. There was no point in mentioning birth control because my comment was a rhetorical one.

A rhetorical question is asked to make a point without the expectation of a reply. (Also without the need for a reply)

If politics and women's rights are not your thing I suggest you find another thread.

 

[maxcok]

Do you apply this same logic to men? If you got a ONS pregnant would you be as dedicated to the consequences and obligations? I'm sincerely interested in your answer, as one can easily postulate from your opinion that once a man has inserted himself he has made his "choice" as well. The great divide lies in the fact that women are left with the physical responsibility of the lives they carry. Men can choose to divest themselves of any responsibility, women can not...and ironically, these woman are chastised for decisions they didn't want to make alone to begin with.

FYI, the poster you're responding to is an fundamentalist creationist evangelical Christian misogynist who regularly espouses partyline talking points derived from extreme rightwing political propaganda, though allegedly and peculiarly he claims to be 100% gay, incongruous as that may seem. There might be some 'issues' there. Just thought you'd like to know that before you get too invested in meaningful 'logical' dialogue. :wink:

They can do whatever they want with their bodies; If they spread their legs, they have exercised their "choice",...

Dear god, cross your legs you wanton women and devil's strumpets, and close the gates of Hell!!! :sasmokin:

 

[Drifterwood]

I'm merely providing an example of how difficult these reproductive decisions can be.

Bingo. But you clearly won't get some men to empathize with this. And some women remarkably. I think that they generally must come from the life is black and white school of not thinking.

 

[helgaleena]

curious how none of these advocates can speak plainly to what they're advocating -- killing a human being

look at the contortions in speech

That's right, the zygote that infested her might kill her too. Which one are you going to spare? Oh I forgot, the zygote has a fifty percent chance of having a penis, and we are all about the penis. :grumpy:

 

[dandelion]

FYI, the poster you're responding to is an fundamentalist creationist evangelical Christian misogynist who regularly espouses partyline talking points derived from extreme rightwing political propaganda,

I'd guessed.

curious how none of these advocates can speak plainly to what they're advocating -- killing a human being

But I'm more than happy to speak plainly. No one is guaranteed life and especially not at the cost of someone elses health. If the baby wants to walk out of the mothers body and do its own thing by itself,i have no objection to it doing so. I have every objection to any human claiming they have a right to use someone elses body to keep them alive, and even more objection if that particular human has no mental capacity. Now, the state might chooses to intervene and provide medical help to suffering humans, but I thought generally the US state didnt like doing that sort of thing. Leaving aside that slightly barbaric objection, I repeat, no one is guaranteed life. We are not gods. We make laws regulating how we live so as to provide the greatest good to the most. Heroic medical intervention does not do this. Torturing one human for the benefit of another is not moral.

If you want to save some lives, stop using petrol, sponsor birth control in underdeveloped countries, reorganise company law so the poor can buy cheap drugs, stop eating meat...and so forth.

 

[D_Rosalind Mussell]

FYI, the poster you're responding to is an fundamentalist creationist evangelical Christian misogynist who regularly espouses partyline talking points derived from extreme rightwing political propaganda, though allegedly and peculiarly he claims to be 100% gay, incongruous as that may seem. There might be some 'issues' there. Just thought you'd like to know that before you get too invested in meaningful 'logical' dialogue. :wink:

Dear god, cross your legs you wanton women and devil's strumpets, and close the gates of Hell!!! :sasmokin:

I just got to see this, duly noted for future posts. I do have a question, though. What if the hellfire burns so hot that it forces the gates open?

 

[maxcok]

I just got to see this, duly noted for future posts. I do have a question, though. What if the hellfire burns so hot that it forces the gates open?

I guess we'll just have to haul out the 'firehose' and put out the flames. :wink:

 

[D_Rosalind Mussell]

I guess we'll just have to haul out the 'firehose' and put out the flames. :wink:

Hell yeah, now that's what I'm talking about! Mercury's rising... :biggrin1:

 

[evilgirlie]

I decided to write a horror story about this. It's like the first step toward The Handmaid's Tale coming true.
The Handmaid's Tale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This film is showing in my town. It's cheaper for them to gestate your baby offshore, but maybe Georgia wants that business.

The film - Made in India

This book is the first thing I thought of when I read about it. Scary.

 

[B_crackoff]

I'd guessed.
No one is guaranteed life and especially not at the cost of someone elses health.

Transposed onto other situations, that means the end of the fire, police, & military services!:smile:

I have every objection to any human claiming they have a right to use someone elses body to keep them alive, and even more objection if that particular human has no mental capacity.

That gets rid of the NHS - that'll save £100BN.:smile:

We are not gods.

We play God everytime we invent life saving drugs, medical techniques, or give aid to underdeveloped countries.

If you want to save some lives, stop using petrol, sponsor birth control in underdeveloped countries, reorganise company law so the poor can buy cheap drugs, stop eating meat...and so forth.

Nice sentiments at the end there DDL, not that I agree with them all.

I think lines would be a little clearer if we stopped referring to a miscarriage as "someone losing a baby". Why use that emotive term, when "killing a baby" would be the same term for an abortion?

It's plain to see how fraught with high emotion this whole issue is.

If a baby is born with any kind of lifelong abnormalities as a result of any kind of medical treatment during pregnancy - does that child, or on its behalf, its parents, have the right to sue for compensation for malpractice, negligence etc.?

It seems that it does, even though it did not exist at that time.

Because of this, a child may also sue its parents in later life, & also the medical team that provided care, especially if they had complications in life possibly arising from a premature delivery.

Doctors are liable, & hold a duty of care not only to the legally existing, but also retrospectively to those that they helped come into being.

Now, if everyone is cool with there being absolutely no legal redress for a child/adult, for complications in its life through pre-natal care - then that should be enshrined in law.

However, it isn't, & we have these complicated issues, because ultimately each & every parent does hold the medical profession wholly responsible for the wellbeing of their unborn child, & therefore legal rights do exist for the yet to be born, parallel to their parents.

 

[Industrialsize]

I found this story heartbreaking and then it made me mad:
Anti-abortion law forces parents to watch their 23 week-old child slowly suffocate to death.

The doctors told the Deavers that their baby had a ten percent chance of surviving even with heroic measures and a two percent chance, if she survived, of ever being able to perform even basic functions, like feeding herself. So even if she survived, the child’s quality of life would be nonexistent. A severely damaged body with almost guaranteed brain damage.
Can you imagine the horror of learning this? Can you imagine having to decide whether or not to inflict such a life onto your child? A shortened life of physical and mental suffering if the pregnancy managed to go full term or several minutes of pain and inevitable death if it didn’t. The Deavers chose to end the pregnancy rather than put their own flesh and blood through such torture.
And then they were told they couldn’t because an anti-abortion billed passed only two months earlier made no exceptions except for the mother’s immediate health. Their doctor was too afraid of the repercussions of this blatantly humane decision and refused to terminate the doomed pregnancy. Essentially, they were told you MUST force your baby to suffer because the GOP is pro-“life”.
Pro-“life”. What a sick joke.
The Deavers could have traveled over state lines to find a doctor who would put their child out if its misery, but Danielle was too distraught to go “shopping” for an abortion provider.

Anti-abortion law forces parents to watch their 23 week-old child slowly suffocate to death. |

 

[D_Rosalind Mussell]

I found this story heartbreaking and then it made me mad:
Anti-abortion law forces parents to watch their 23 week-old child slowly suffocate to death.

The doctors told the Deavers that their baby had a ten percent chance of surviving even with heroic measures and a two percent chance, if she survived, of ever being able to perform even basic functions, like feeding herself. So even if she survived, the child’s quality of life would be nonexistent. A severely damaged body with almost guaranteed brain damage.
Can you imagine the horror of learning this? Can you imagine having to decide whether or not to inflict such a life onto your child? A shortened life of physical and mental suffering if the pregnancy managed to go full term or several minutes of pain and inevitable death if it didn’t. The Deavers chose to end the pregnancy rather than put their own flesh and blood through such torture.
And then they were told they couldn’t because an anti-abortion billed passed only two months earlier made no exceptions except for the mother’s immediate health. Their doctor was too afraid of the repercussions of this blatantly humane decision and refused to terminate the doomed pregnancy. Essentially, they were told you MUST force your baby to suffer because the GOP is pro-“life”.
Pro-“life”. What a sick joke.
The Deavers could have traveled over state lines to find a doctor who would put their child out if its misery, but Danielle was too distraught to go “shopping” for an abortion provider.

Anti-abortion law forces parents to watch their 23 week-old child slowly suffocate to death. |

This literally just brought tears to my eyes. These people are traumatized for life now because the law wouldn't allow them to do the humane thing. This supports my belief that reproductive decisions should be made privately between patient and physician, with no outside interference.

 

[maxcok]

This literally just brought tears to my eyes. These people are traumatized for life now because the law wouldn't allow them to do the humane thing.

What does that matter? According to the anti-abortionists it was their "Lord's will". :rolleyes2:

 

[B_crackoff]

Whilst that story is sad & tragic, the child would have felt the pain in or out of the womb - & the parents grief would have been the same. Adults have children, not infants, & death is part of life - we shouldn't hide from the trauma & infantalize ourselves - grow up. (I'm sure that the parents grief would not have been more, either way).

What if the child had been born normally, & then 5 minutes later succombed to some hospital borne infection that would destroy our perceptions of its existence? Should we smother it then? Should we euthanise anyone with a less than 20% chance of surviving any illness?

Has anyone seen what happened to that guy in the Beach! Out of sight, & out of mind en?

I remember as quite a young chappie ten years ago, my then GF's sister going into labour at 24 weeks - the doctors saying it was a lost cause - the baby was naturally aborting because something was wrong with it - the GF's sister going ballistic, & somehow - preventing delivery for a week, by forcing them to give her drugs which somehow meant the amniotic(?) fluid refilled her womb.

Ok the child was the size of my palm, but she bounces around like any other kid now - all because her mother didn't believe the doctors.

Does anyone know any doctor with even a 3 for 4 record in absolutely correct diagnosis 1st time around? In the NHS, I've even dealt with a doctor myself incapable of removing a stitch.:wink:

The only thing different between a death inside & outside the womb is that it forces us to confront our demons & become responsible adults, just like our grandparents(well mine & millions of others ) had to when confronted with slaughter on a daily basis during WW2.

Wouldn't most people want to see a wanted child, with even the minimum of hope, rather than some uncaring being chucking it in the incinerator? I'm sure in reflection that the Mom will eventually be grateful that she had the chance to hold & love her child rather than that.

I think it just shows that people today are too wrapped up in themselves, how they feel, & that their empathy is bred from the self same narcissism.

I know it sounds harsh, but man/woman up! Death is part of life, embrace it, & value every second that you & yours have got.