From Katha Pollitt’s current Nation column (and via Tennessee Guerilla Women):
It is indeed feminist to say no woman should have to abort a wanted child to stay in school or have a career–FFL’s line is thus an advance on the more typical antichoice position, which is that women have abortions to go to Europe or fit into their prom dress. You can see why their upbeat, rebellious slogans–“refuse to choose,” “question abortion,” “women deserve better”–appeal to students. (But what do those students think when they find that the postabortion resources links are all to Christian groups and that FFL’s sunny pregnancy-assistance advice includes going on food stamps or welfare?) Exposing the constraints on women’s choices, however, is only one side of feminism. The other is acknowledging women as moral agents, trusting women to decide what is best for themselves. For FFL there’s only one right decision: Have that baby. And since women’s moral judgment cannot be trusted, abortion must be outlawed, whatever the consequences for women’s lives and health–for rape victims and 12-year-olds and 50-year-olds, women carrying Tay-Sachs fetuses and women at risk of heart attack or stroke, women who have all the children they can handle and women who don’t want children at all. FFL argues that abortion harms women–that’s why it clings to the outdated cancer claims. But it would oppose abortion just as strongly if it prevented breast cancer, filled every woman’s heart with joy, lowered the national deficit and found Jimmy Hoffa. That’s because they aren’t really feminists–a feminist could not force another woman to bear a child, any more than she could turn a pregnant teenager out into a snowstorm. They are fetalists.
There are two approaches to reducing abortion – supply-side, which tries to reduce abortion by making it unavailable, and demand-side, which tries to reduce abortion by making women less likely to want abortion. In my view, the only genuinely feminist approach to reducing abortion is the demand-side approach. If you favor banning abortion, then you favor a system in which fetuses are saved by eliminating women’s rights; you’re weighing women’s rights and fetal rights, and deciding women’s rights matter so little that it’s not unreasonable to dismiss them entirely from the equation. Rather than seeking a solution that respects women’s rights and fetal rights, they say that women’s rights are so totally overwhelmed by the presence of a fetus, they might as well not exist at all. That view is simply not compatible with feminism.
A coherent pro-life feminism would, in my opinion, take a demand-side approach to reducing abortion; this approach respects both the need to reduce abortion and to protect women’s rights.
(There is, by the way, absolutely no evidence showing that the supply-side approach actually works. In practice, demand-side approaches work better; the countries with the lowest abortion rates are countries in which abortion is legal, the use of birth control is strongly encouraged, and there are generous government programs supporting single parents (usually mothers) and their children. So giving up on banning abortion does not mean giving up on protecting the greatest number of fetuses. If pro-lifers were both sincere and evidence-based in their approach to reducing abortion, that’s the sort of policy they’d be arguing for.)
FFL is actually opposed to reducing demand-side. Here’s what they feel about preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place:
I don’t get what people get for having the contol of women’s reproductive organs. What exactly is the benefit of “punishing” all these women?
As a man, I obviously will never know the extent of a woman’s difficulty in deciding weather or not to have an abortion. But as a father, both my wife and my daughter have had abortions, which I supported their decision at the time, both emotionally and financially, but not without pain.
To me, it comes down to this : no legislation or moral code can abrogate the mother’s biological judgement (its not just choice ) when and weather to have a baby, depending on what ever circumstances she deems favorable or conductive to have that child. And if she is of age to have concieved, then she is of age to make that judgement. I dont really care if one one tactic or another is used, I will support the boots on the ground defense of a woman’s rights.
The alternative is exposure or dangerous procedures for the mother or fecundrial slavery via religion and worse.
john
“If you favor banning abortion, then you favor a system in which fetuses are saved by eliminating women’s rights; you’re weighing women’s rights and fetal rights, and deciding women’s rights matter so little that it’s not unreasonable to dismiss them entirely from the equation.”
No, not necessarily. Logically, it just means that you are deciding that the fetal rights outweigh women’s rights. This is not the same thing as saying they don’t matter. You can argue than it is a wrong position to put the fetus ahead of the mother, but that someone decides that the fetus wins the battle doesn’t mean that they dismiss the rights of the mother.
“Rather than seeking a solution that respects women’s rights and fetal rights, they say that women’s rights are so totally overwhelmed by the presence of a fetus, they might as well not exist at all.”
There is no solution that respects both women’s rights and fetal rights. Either the fetus can be aborted, and thus its rights are not respected, or the women is not allowed to abort, in which case her rights are not respected.
Reducing demand is a good way to combat abortion, but it does not establish a right of the fetus to live. Ultimately, if someone wants an abortion, then either her rights or the rights of the fetus get shafted.
To argue that the fetus is not a person and has no rights, or that the woman’s rights outweigh the fetus’s rights are intellectually feasible positions, but to argue that there is a way to respect both the rights of the woman and the fetus is logically contradictory.
In essence, the solution you propose is that pro-lifers accept that the fetus’s rights (as they see them) not be respected, and that they try to reduce abortion without invoking the fetus’s rights.
That’s fine, but let’s call it for what it is rather than trying to claim that we are respecting both sets of rights.
Accepting reducing the number of abortions as a policy goal means accepting that there’s something wrong with abortion.
Too few women have access to abortion services now. Too many working class women are unable to afford an abortion. There’s only one clinic that offers abortion services in the entire state of Mississippi. 85% of US counties have no abortion services.
If we established a policy of “free abortion on demand,” there’d almost certainly be more abortions performed. And that would be a good thing.
the bolded words are important. i have no desire for the government to tell me what to do with my money. if you want an abortion, or a child, then it is your responsibility to pay for it, not mines. there is no reason to stick your hands in my pockets to pay for your choices. and before anyone suggests it, i have no desire for the government spending money taking the lives of incarcerated adults either.
there is no such thing as “free on demand.” the clinics costs money. the doctors costs money. the maintaining of the facilities costs money. so someone is going to have to pay. and there are honetly more important issues to spend that kind of money on, such as providing for abandoned and abused children.
I have a simple short-term fix for nearly every social problem.
Tax the rich.
The poor made the wealth to begin with. It’s ours by right. And “free abortion on demand” — free to the woman demanding the abortion — will do much to liberate women.
So what ARE you responsible for paying for, jake ? Anything at all ?
And to argue that there is not link between a well-funded reproductive-care clinic (not to mention quality healthcare in general) and a likely decrease in the ranks of abandoned and abused children– well, that’s so specious a POV that I’d laugh if I didn’t feel like crying.
while it is an appealing idea, it isn’t fair to force the wealthy and the rich–the two are not the same–to pay for someone else’s problems. they aren’t pregnant, they don’t need the abortion. while the poor may have made the wealthy, you might want to rethink the “it’s our’s by right” part. that could apply to so many different, more socially relevant issues than abortion. besides, many wealthy and rich people earned that money through hard work (Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Russell Simmons, just to name a few).
“Accepting reducing the number of abortions as a policy goal means accepting that there’s something wrong with abortion.”
Well,
(a) I think that very few people (except for those who want fetuses to experiment on) would deny that a decrease in abotions through a decrease in unwanted pregnancies is a good thing.
(b) The context of this discussion is how people who are opposed to abortion can pursue their goals in a way that is consistent with feminism. So, in the context of this discussion, it makes sense to view reducing the number of abortions as a policy goal purely for the sake of argument.
ignoring your unnecessary sarcasm, i have the right to whatever politcal and moral views i wish. i am not responsible for paying for your unwanted pregnancy just in the same way you aren’t responsible for paying for my medical bills. abortion is a choice, your choice. if you want an abortion, i see no reason why you shouldn’t have to pay for it. if a private group wants to step in, that is fine as well. but you have no right to force anyone to pay for your choices, most specifically when your typical response to them is to “stay out of my business.” if that is a fair statement, then it is equally fair to say stay out of my wallet.
and that would be a vaild retort… had that been my argument. re-read my posts, and do not jump to unfounded conclusions simply because i disagree with you.
I would take issue with the term “rights” as applied by some on both sides of this arguement.
Rights are “not” subject to scoring by points.
Weather you believe rights are given and taken by the powers that be or weather you believe rights are handed down by god; one cannot lose part of a “right” nor can one right outweigh another.
You either have it or not. The issue is your ability to active exercise those rights. The fetus either has it or not- it cannot under any circumstances exercise those rights which some would give it – so if it does have rights, then its rights are given to it by the mother until it is born by basis of shared blood and physical bonding – more than bonding – utter dependancy for survival . The mother’s “rights” are the same as the fetus’. Sometimes that means abortion. Why is that so hard to understand?
After birth, Then you can subject the child to all the control and equivalency you want or society will tolerate.
Call it what you like.
john
Alas, jake, in our current system, I am responsible for paying medical bills for those who cannot pay for their own. I pay for them through higher insurance rates and higher costs for care in general. Frankly, I think it would be both more efficient and more humane to go to a single-payer system. I would, in fact, be happy to assist in paying for your care regardless of how well we got on personally. That’s my idea of how society should work.
Yawn. Yep. Selfishness as virtue. Been there, heard it, don’t believe it. I’m glad it gives you that little frisson of joy, though, jake. Honestly, if you believe that this concept is a two-way street, can I be let off the hook for schooling other people’s kids ? I don’t have any kids, and surely it doesn’t benefit me in any way for others’ children to be well-educated. Why, it’s robbery ! Why should I pay ?
Oh, please, you announced that money is better spent on helping abused and abandoned children then in caring for women before their children are born, or for women who don’t want to raise children. If that’s not what you were saying, feel free to elaborate on what you DID mean;It was you, not I, who implied that these methods of support were mutually exclusive.
P.S.– Both Bill Gates and Donald Trump are the sons of wealthy men. It’s generally easier to make money when you already have money backing you up.
as do i, but that does not make it right. and it is poor logic to simply condone something because it occurs in other areas.
it is a very nice, utopian ideal. unfortunately, that is not realistic. whether it be religious, secular, political, or moral differences, it simply will not work. you cannot force people to get along, and you should no force people to financially support something with which they don’t agree.
i see no problem with you being given a choice as to what your tax dollars are spent on. if you do not want to support public education for children, then you should not have to. it is your money, after all.
so if i am to understand you correctly, a woman who has decided to abort her child is more important than a child being raped and beaten by his mother? is that your argument? that is is better to pay for a woman who made a conscious decision to have sex, to not do so with a condom, and to abort the child than to provide aid, assistance, safety, and a home to a child being abused?
as you said, selfishness is a virtue.
Um, isn’t the Canadian health care system a single payer system? and does it not work (at least compareably) well?
So do most European countries. US has expensive, inefficient and not widely available health care system. The American system is rather exceptional compared to other First World countries, and it sucks. But single-payer health-care is communist health care! Ho hum.
I think the reason that people object so muchm ore strongly to paying for abortions with tax dollars because the side that promotes government funding of abortion calls itself “pro-choice,” calls its opponents “anti-choice,” and denies that it is pro-abortion.
If you believe that government should fund abortion as aprt of health-care coverage, that makes you pro-abortion. You can argue that you are simply pro-choice if you argue that government should not interfere with the right to abortion; but for government to intervene in order to provide abortions is for government to implicitly endorse abortion as a good thing; and is thus pro-abortion.
As for the comparison with “I have to pay to send your kids to public school if you choose to have twelve of them,” such a policy is not endorsing large families; it is endorsing the idea that all kids should be educated.
A better comparison would be the government providing fertility treatments to someone who already has eight children. For the government to do that is for the government to implicitly endorse the decision to have large families. (I don’t think that the government should be providing people with fertility trreatments, by the way).
The idea that people want taxpayer money to pay for abortions would rankle less if the people supporting the idea did not object to being called pro-abortion.
I see a problem.
If people accept this system, it will mean a coup de grace to the premise of one adult, one vote, as basically all public policy choices will be made made by whoever pays most taxes (and suppose I want to keep it all myself?), thus giving the rich more political power. This is anti-democratic to the core.
Well, Glaivester, the other side calls itself pro-life(not just pro-fetal-life). Who the hell is anti-life?
I suppose one could argue that people who are pro-choice and pro-abortion are at least indifferent to life under certain circumstances.
But that’s not exactly my point; I am not against people who believe that the government should not interfere with abortion calling themselves pro-choice, nor am I saying that believing in the (negative) right to an abortion is pro-abortion. If you believe that the government should neither restrict nor fund abortions, I am perfectly willing to call you pro-choice. I just think that pro-abortion is a more appropriate label if you think that the government should intervene in order to provide abortion (e.g. by paying for it).
Glaivester:
I see them as slightly seperate issues. One being issue whether abortion should be a legal health care service, and the other issue being how much health care services, and which health care services should the government provide.
I’d think that Anti-abortion would be something like “all pregnancies must be carried to term, never abortion” and conversely pro-abortion would be “all pregnancies must be aborted” the pro-choice position being “women should have the choice whether to abort or not”.
If you are generally opposed to bigger government including government- funded health care , that is your choice , but I don’t see abortion as a “luxury service” any more than other health care services.
It’s a mismatch of terms, IMHO, but I’d accept the term “Pro-choice” whether or not the pro-choicer wants to have government pay for abortion or not. I’m willing to accept the (rather ridiculous, if you ask me) term “Pro-life” on folks who advocate for fetuses rights, despite the blatant hypocrisy about many pro-lifers supporting death penalties, “pre-emptive” wars etc. In other words, I see pro-abortion as a sort of insult like the word anti-choice (I think anti-choice is more appropriate, but then I’m biased).
WOW
Ok- lets define “responsibility”.
If you live in a community anywhere in the USA, you pay taxes to educate all children in the public education system – hopefully to instill in them citizenship and common American values: pay to drive on all the roads which start where your driveway ends, and you pay for basic medical standards which ensure the general public health. If your partner is impregnated, the chain of responsibility starts at the father, not the state.
ALL else is DROSS. It has nothing to do with who pays, who loses, who gains in the abortion debate. It is a debate of elemental proportions, not local parochialisms.
A woman does not lose her right to make that judgement weather or not the state pays for it.
PS I support the death penalty and the war in IRAQ also.
Brian wrote:
I agree with what Glaiv said in post # 11.
In addition, abortion is objectively a less desirable way of avoiding childbirth than birth control; it’s more intrusive, more expensive and carries greater health risks to the woman (the health risks of abortion are low, but the health risks of a condom are many times lower). Therefore, if we can substitute better birth control for x number of abortions, that’s a positive thing.
Labels
I do not wish to frame my position in this debate in terms of any labels. Government funding of abortion is not pro-abortion, and gov’ment sponsorship of abstininse is not ( necessarily ) pro-life.
Government funding of proscribed family planning, weather for more children or for less is just wrong.
Government levels of funding of a woman’s judgement to continue pregnancy or not is a state responsibility – but something which we are wise to consider both for the sake of the woman and family, and for the children which might have to be raised at societies expense….for which debate is valid.
I personally do not have a solution to those details, but reducing abortion numbers is not the same as encouraging abortion or saying they are wrong and has positive benefits all around.
john
Brian
Lets apply a “free now but pay later so you think three times about it ” abortion on demand system in every county, including Mississippi instead. Equality of means does not mean equality of results.
I feel that the government should pay for the military, including war. Does that make me “pro-war”? I feel that the government should provide for preventive healthcare for all, in the interest of preserving the health of the entire society. Does that make me “pro-sickness”?
I’m sorry, but that logic is just totally ridiculous.
Oh, and Jake and Glaiv? You don’t like having tax dollars pay for women’s healthcare? How about an alternative, where you are not only forced to pay for the living costs and opportunity costs for the woman you knock up while she deals with the 18 years or so of bearing and raising a child, but also forced to provide of your blood and organs. Pregnancy works hard on the body. So I’m sure you’d be totally eager to provide periodic blood transfusions. Maybe donate a kidney.
Oh, and if you refuse, the state can just lock your ass up for endangering the “life of a fetus.”
Accepting reducing the number of abortions as a policy goal means accepting that there’s something wrong with abortion.
Does wanting to reduce the number of coronary bypass operations mean we think that there is something wrong with having a coronary bypass operation?
“Reduce the number of abortions” by itself is a silly goal. Wanting to reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies–a rather large factor in abortion–is not; nor is providing social support so that women who would rather carry to term, but can’t afford to, have more options.
There is a terrible tragedy in needing others’ resources to live, when they do not wish to give it.
But one must ask if that is to be our principle—if that is what the right to live means, in a fetus or an adult, the leech’s right, the mooch’s right, the looter’s right, to take whatever we need whatever the cost.
For that is the situation that the fetus is in; and the life and health and strength and energy it takes from the mother is either a gift or a theft, because it is not a contract fairly entered.
It is a gift or a theft. It must be one or the other. It is a gift or a theft, and if you think that the fetus is a person or a soul then you must understand that that is sad, and that it is reality, and you may not blind yourself to it in the name of simpler answers.
And let me say that I think we are called in this life to charity; and that this is an argument for carrying a fetus to term, but that it is an argument that must be made from within and not without.
And let me say this as well: that those who argue against supporting others on the basis that they can point to their money in dollars and in bits and say, “Look, I have this now, do not take it” are committing a falsehood against the nature of the world. There is nothing we have earned without the support of others; and if we factored that away, looking purely at the work that a single person does and the wealth that they have made, then there would be enough and more than enough for all. Because you who have earned your living are not some rare god who walks on earth but one who has been blessed with the gift of work, that is life to us all, that every person pursues, that every person desires, that is our calling as people of this world, save only for those who have lost their way.
Tuomas:
I’d think that Anti-abortion would be something like “all pregnancies must be carried to term, never abortion” and conversely pro-abortion would be “all pregnancies must be aborted” the pro-choice position being “women should have the choice whether to abort or not”.
I agree – and to me being pro-choice means more than just opposing government regulation of abortion, it also means fighting anything which restricts pregnant women’s ability to have meaningful options. That means state funding for abortions, but it also means a social welfare system that means women who want to have children can make that choice.
But I kind of side with Brian when it comes to the rhetoric around reducing demand on abortion – I support a decent social welfare system, sex education, and freely available contraception, I support them because I’m a socialist and feminist and care about people’s lives. I don’t care what the abortion rate is, or the rate of unplanned pregnancy in and of itself, I don’t see any virtue in reducing it, except the only known ways to reduce it are things I support anyway. If it was proven that church going reduced unplanned pregnancy, it wouldn’t make me care anymore about the levels of church going than do at the moment.
As generally what we mean when we talk about reducing unplanned pregnancy and therefore abortion is ‘through methods that we approve of anyway’ (I’m using a very general form of we here) – talking about reducing abortion becomes a rhetorical device. I don’t think there’s much to be gained from it myself, because I believe that everything that would reduce the demand for abortion as something that can be argued on its own merits – and I think it’s giving up too much ground.
Yes, i could respect that. What i can’t respect is the approach that tries to limit women’s choices, particularly when the people advocating it don’t support the use of contraception.
Amp, thanks for an outstanding post on abortion. As an abortion fence-sitter myself, I rarely find an opinion on abortion that I can enthusiastically support; this is one of those rare times.
Not only that – you’ve actually made me follow your link to “The Nation.”
What’s the world coming to?
The “pro-life” position on abortion takes place in a context that has rarely, if ever, been friendly to female emancipation. The predominant institutional force that backs up anti-abortion rhetoric and law is a church that opposes contraception, that acknowledged female sexual exploitation only in the context of expounding on the evil of birth control pills, that even less than two years ago issued an idiotic document discussing the “role” of women in the Church in a manner that made it clear that men are the fully formed moral agents of the human race while women consitute the species’ lesser other. That God is father and male. That men are “heads” of women; that the ideal woman is submissive. And on and on. Other churches, at odds with RC church on most doctrinal matters, are only too happy to parrot its position on this one.
And FFL links incorporate much if not all of this thinking, only too happy to ignore the bond between religious traditionalism and female subjugation.
There is no reason on God’s green earth why women should trust that this context, hyping the motherhood potential of women through imitation of the Virgin Mary (or JPII’s mother) and downplaying female moral reasoning ability when not subjecting it entirely to whatever superior male force rules her life, will yield a position on abortion that is “best” for women. None.
I honestly don’t think you can be feminist and be traditionally ‘pro-life’ (ie anti-choice). I don’t care how you view the fetus, by constraining women’s control over their bodies, reproduction and choice you are disempowering women. Particularly so if you view a fetus’ rights as equal to or trumping those of a woman.
This is fundamentally contrary to the feminist project, no matter what vein of feminism you adhere to.
If, however, you articulate you being ‘pro-life’ in a non-traditional way, by not seeking to constrain women’s control over their bodies, by encouraging contraception use, contraception funding, sex education, etc, etc (not to mention all the options and assistances for women that assist those who CHOSE to continue their pregnancies) then you CAN be pro-life and feminist. But, hell, in that definition, all us pro-choicers are ‘pro-life’ (though I myself would be LOATH to use the term).
Personally I identify as pro-abortion as well as pro-choice. I don’t see abortion as a bad thing, I actually see it as a good in that it provides a solution to a bad thing: being pregnant without wanting to be. Moreover, I think abortions should be paid for or at least subsidised by the states, because equality of provision does not mean equality of access (it only guarantees those with enough cash access) and similarly for contraception, sex education, pregnancy assistances, and maternity leave … and ooooo, shock, national health care in general. But I’m also a democratic-socialist, so I’d be characterised as an evil communist by a lot of people on the other side :)
would you be so kind as to show where exactly i said i did not want my tax dollars being spent on women’s healthcare? and why is it only women’s health with which you’re concerned? if i am anti-tax spending on healthcare, wouldn’t men and children suffer from that as well? or do they not matter as much?
two problems. one, i actually want to be a father, so i would in no way abandon my child. two, i am almost certain that i cannot have children as a result of the abuse my aunt put me through, and as a result i have a very difficult time trusting women enough to allow myself to be used sexually by them. so it’s not very likely that situation would occur with me.
I had a bit of a “click” moment while reading this. I can understand why so many working class and poor women feel that “pro life” activists are looking out for them more than “pro choice” activists, something that might seem on its surface incomprehensible. The sneering, disgusted tone used in reference to “going on welfare” in order to have a baby when one is poor…it’s telling. I think more than anything the mainstream pro choice movement looks out for the interests of white, upper middle class, upwardly mobile college women. We’re so busy making sure Jane D. can get an abortion so she can finish her junior year at Oberlin without having to move into “family housing,” we neglect the very real concerns of Jane P. who wants her baby but is stuck with a job without real health benefits, and Jane Q. whose mother had a “Mississippi appendectomy” and so forth. I know that most pro-choicers give at least lip service to the idea of universal healthcare and making it easier to afford to raise a child on a working class budget, but oftentimes it is only lip service–much like the mere lip service paid to these topics by “pro-lifers.” Who, finally, is going to really put the needs of working class women first?
1) Excellent article, excellent argument.
2) In regards to the argument about some people’s money paying for other people’s problems, where do you think people GET money? That’s right, from other people. A CEO that gets a half-million-dollar salary gets it, in part, because their ground-level employees are getting significantly less. Any company that’s not in the red has the ability to give more back to its workers. The system in place now favors the wealthy and traps the poor, and it’s arrogant beyond belief to say that the rich and powerful who keep this system in place, have no responsibility for the problems of people whom they and their system made incapable of dealing with those problems. Tax the people for whom fifty grand is no significant loss, not the people for whom an extra twenty dollars a month would be a real big help.
Why should a rich man pay for a poor woman’s abortion? Because it’s less unfair than the labor of the poor paying for the luxuries of the rich. And because if profits had been distributed fairly in the first place, she could have afforded birth control and wouldn’t have needed that abortion.
3) Another tangent of the same argument: consider this. We ALL pay taxes. The government does things with them. Sometimes we agree with these things. Sometimes we don’t. I, personally, greatly dislike the fact that my tax dollars could be paying for a certain war–that is, paying for the potential rollback of Iraqi women’s rights, the deaths of countless civilians, the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and the salaries of murderers. I also greatly dislike the fact that my tax dollars could be paying for purposely-misleading abstinance-only sex-education classes, or pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, or Rick Santorum’s salary, or George W’s Presidential yacht, or the enforcement of speed limits.
But the thing is, IT’S NOT MY MONEY ANYMORE. Once I pay my taxes, they belong to the government, and the only say I have in how they’re spent is the thing they give everyone in exchange for the right to levy taxes: the vote. We get taxed, we get to decide who decides how it’s spent. And it should be spent in a way that lives up to “Government of the people, by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE.” For the people, the things that they need to have their rights upheld. The things the people need for their continued existance, their well-being, their freedoms. And, yes, that includes abortions for those who want them.
jaketk, I’m sorry for the abuse you’ve suffered, and I hope you are getting help–if not, I’m sure a zillion people here would be happy to shower you with links and resources. There’s no reason that your sexual autonomy should be reduced by ‘being used by’ anyone.
I don’t get the don’t-use-my-money argument. People who make this argument seem to think that infrastructure is provided for free, by house-elves.
i think the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are equally silly. people are either pro-abortion and anti-abortion, or pro-first term abortion/anti-late term abortion, etc… if you call yourself “pro-life,” then at any point in which you take a life, any life, you are defying your claim. likewise, if you are “pro-choice,” then at any point in which you attempt to restrict, limit or remove choices for other people, you are defying your claim.
i disagree for two reasons. one, equality of provision without equal access simply creates another status-quo, this time female-oriented. apply this to something like education. if you are willing to provide both males and females with an education, but will not allow males access to certain computer labs, classrooms, school therapists, etc., then they are not equally being provided for. so is the same with government spending. if equal services aren’t allowed for men (paternity leave, contraception, sex education, paternity needs such as DNA tests), then we are not talking about equality at all, but “special” spending.
two, abortion lies purely at the feet of the women involved. men have no say in the decision, family has no say, the fetus has no say, even the doctor has no say. abortion is a choice decided by the woman. it is her responsibility, no one elses. therein, it is her responsibility to pay for it, not mines, not the couple down the street, not half the block, and not the state. if it is her “personal decision” then there is no need to involve me or anyone else. this is like saying you want me to stay out of you life, but to pay for your breast reduction, your car note, your house, and cell phone bill. you’re expecting me to foot the bill and keep quiet as you spend my money.
that’s the beauty of our government. if you don’t like how the government is spending your money, you can say so and do something about it. in ou
“If you believe that government should fund abortion as aprt of health-care coverage, that makes you pro-abortion.”
The same way that if you believe that government should fund prenatal and postnatal care for pregnant women as a part of health-care coverage, that makes you pro-life.
There is a difference between promoting the availability of something, and pushing it on people who don’t want it. For someone to be pro-abortion in the same way most pro-lifers are pro-life, they would have to want to outlaw giving birth and work to make abortion the only choice available to pregnant women. That would be anti-choice in the same way that pro-lifers are anti-choice.
It’s simple, really. All choices should be fully funded and available to those who can’t afford them, in pregnancy just as in providing schooling for any number of children someone has.
if equal services aren’t allowed for men (paternity leave, contraception, sex education, paternity needs such as DNA tests), then we are not talking about equality at all, but “special” spending.
Who argued that only women should have parental leave, contraception or sex education?
it is her responsibility, no one elses. therein, it is her responsibility to pay for it, not mines, not the couple down the street, not half the block, and not the state.
It is your choice to drive a car, so you should pay for your own roads. It is your choice to have a child, so no public education for you. It is your choice to live in a house that is not fireproof, therefore tax dollars should not be spent for you to have the fire department show up for free.
two, abortion lies purely at the feet of the women involved. men have no say in the decision, family has no say, the fetus has no say, even the doctor has no say. abortion is a choice decided by the woman. it is her responsibility, no one elses. therein, it is her responsibility to pay for it, not mines, not the couple down the street, not half the block, and not the state. if it is her “personal decision” then there is no need to involve me or anyone else. this is like saying you want me to stay out of you life, but to pay for your breast reduction, your car note, your house, and cell phone bill. you’re expecting me to foot the bill and keep quiet as you spend my money.
Honestly, I think there is absolutely NO connection between who has the responsiblity for something (such as a woman and her choices regarding pregnancy) and whether or not she has governmental assistance in provision of that. Just because something is a personal decision does not mean it is not also part of a wider societal system where the government should be assisting.
Again, I agree with Kyra, once I’ve paid taxes, they aren’t mine. They are society’s, and society’s avatar is government, in order to provide for those that cannot provide (or provide as much) for themselves. Those that have considerable amounts of money OFF society have done so from society, so it is their duty to give back to that society that they have benefitted so much from.
There are many things that are the domain of just one gender that I have no issue having governmental assistance with. Not that I am in any way comparing prostate cancer with abortion, because I am not (so please do not run with this analogy in any way) but I’m never gonna get prostrate cancer, I have no say in a guy’s prostrate, and neither should I or anyone. However, I feel that if someone cannot afford to have his prostrate treated, then the government should be stepping in. It’s simple morality.
true, money comes from other for services rendered. what do i mean? i mean that the absurdly wealthy CEO got that way by providing services which people paid for and then taking the money and hiring other people to continue to perform said services. what happened was merely a trade, money for services. and yes, laborers could make more if the CEOs cut their salaries down, but that has nothing to do with the government taking taxpayer dollars and using them for whatever. the latter is (supposed to be) in the hands of the voters. the former is a choice the CEO and his board of directors make. they’re not the same thing.
that’s an unrealistic jump. i have $96 to my name at the moment, and i could go to Walgreens and buy at least three condoms easily. so unless said rich man impregnated said woman, it is still unfair to force him to pay for her abortion.
If every woman should pay for her own abortion, birth control, pre-and-postnatal care bills, what-have-you, then she should have by right the ability to do so. If she can’t scrape up the money because all she has goes for rent and food and transportation costs so she can get to work, then her rights are being infringed because she is forced to choose between her bodily autonomy and her body’s needs (food, shelter) and the means to continue providing for them (transportation), all of which she has a right to.
Any wealthy person who has a problem with that is more than welcome to give away all his money, get a minimum-wage job, and try to live on it, and he too will have the right to all the medical treatment he can’t afford. Somehow, I can’t bring myself to see how the wealthy are the ones getting shafted.
maternity leave does not apply to men. contrception and sex education applies to both groups, true. but in the context of the sentence, equal provisions does not mean equal access, it is implied that only some would have access to these services, and it seems unlikely that those to be barred from said services would be women.
i don’t drive. however, in our current state, roads are a necessity, so it is impractical to allow each individual person to build their own road. having a private company do it would be less costly, but perhaps more tricky when it comes to interstates and such. likewise, i have no intention of sending my child to public school, so that really isn’t an issue. but if asked, or needed, i would certainly give money to help provide an education for those who can’t afford it. that’s my choice. same thing with the fire department, who don’t show up for free. i have no problem paying them for their services directly rather than through my taxes. at least i would know they were getting the money, and not my crook of a mayor.
this is going to be a really cheap thing to say, but it’s necessary. some people believe abortion is immoral. are they wrong? some people think believing in an intangible being is immoral. are they wrong?
morality, as we’ve seen in this past presidental election, isn’t the best of measuring sticks.
“two, abortion lies purely at the feet of the women involved. men have no say in the decision, family has no say, the fetus has no say, even the doctor has no say. abortion is a choice decided by the woman. it is her responsibility, no one elses. therein, it is her responsibility to pay for it,”
The only way this would be the case is if she CHOSE to get pregnant and then CHOSE to have the abortion. If she did not choose to get pregnant, she is only reacting to her circumstances.
Jake–The CEO thing, upon further thought, is more a symptom of the problem than the cause; rather, it is the companies that profit at worker expense, and I’m really not sure where all the money goes. Thing is, workers put labor into a company, into its products or services, and these products or services are exchanged to the consumers for money. A fair system would be a cooperative in which all the revenues, minus materials, were divided between the people who created the products/services, and them paying wages to people who coordinate their efforts, facilitate sales, etc–the people who now have management jobs and high salaries. The entire revenue should belong to the workers, and they should have the final say in how much of it is reinvested. Instead, the much of the revenues are reinvested into the company, and the workers therefore recieve LESS than their effort is worth. And it is not right for a company (an abstract entity with no consciousness and therefore no desires) to parade huge profits, while some of its employees can’t afford things that are their basic rights.
By the way, with $96 to your name, you are hardly the super-rich I’m complaining about. If you needed some kind of health care that you couldn’t afford, the government would be, in my opinion, obligated to pay for that too, because it is your right. Of course, it would also be your right to refuse to depend on them, if that was your wish.
are you serious? no one is barring her from deciding what to spend her money on. if she doesn’t make enough money, that’s unfortunate, but she doesn’t have a “right” to be rich. and she doesn’t have a “right” to demand that other people in the same situation should foot her bills because she “can’t afford them.” where’s the personal responsibility?
so you think oprah should just give up all her money and live on the street? wow…
which is most of the cases.
as unfair as it is, anyone involved in business would tell you that marketing is equally as important as the creation of the product itself. you don’t buy nikes because of who makes them. you buy nikes because of how they’re pitched to you. so regardless of how much work the laborers are doing, they aren’t the only ones working hard. they are simply being paid less. the problem is a company is privately owned.
no, it’s not. i have the right to live. i do not have the right to live at someone else’s expense unless that person chooses to do so. i have the right to food. i do not have the right to take whatever food i want. i have the right to access to medicine. i do not have the right to demand it. if i needed a liver, i do not have the right to kill you and take yours. that’s not how it works. my rights end where your’s begin.
if i needed a liver, i do not have the right to kill you and take yours.
How is killing someone for their organs the same as taxing them for a shared public benefit? I mean, we can argue the Libertarian position if you really want, but that’s a silly analogy.
likewise, i have no intention of sending my child to public school, so that really isn’t an issue. but if asked, or needed, i would certainly give money to help provide an education for those who can’t afford it. that’s my choice.
Of course it’s an issue. Your taxes go to fund public schools whether or not your child goes to those schools, or whether or not you have children. You are not “asked” to pay for that education, anymore than you are asked to pay for interstate highways–which fall under the same “I don’t use it, you can’t steal my money to pay for it” logic, by the way.
maternity leave does not apply to men.
Parental leave does, as does disability leave. Who, again, suggested that men not have parental or disability leave?
You know, a friend of mine had what I felt was a brilliant solution and one that I heartily support (www.leftofcenter.blogspot.com is his blog).
Now that vasectomys are fully reversible, each man should have a fully funded vasectomy at a set age, let’s call it 12 (just as a benchmark, the age of 12 should in no way be considered hard and fast).
To get the operation reversed, all he needs to do is get a signed document from a woman indicating that she wishes him to be the father of her child.
It would completely elminiate an awful lot of questions about responsibility, abortion, and unwanted pregnancies. Don’t wait for the legislation, get your vasectomy today!
Seriously… a vasectomy is cheaper, far less invasive and incredibly minor surgery that only blocks sperm, not killing it (Every sperm is sacred, remember). Why is this not an absolutely brilliant and perfect plan?
Psychological issues aside, most men aren’t willing to prospectively risk their fertility on a reversible vasectomy. Reversals aren’t 100 percent – not even close to it. I certainly would not be willing to run that risk, even though I’ve already had children – how much less willing would be folks who’ve not got their reproduction behind them?
Secondly, there are many men who are forbidden for religious reasons from engaging in a sterilization procedure. Not sure how many would actually adhere to the belief (there are a lot of guys who aren’t supposed to fuck around, either) – but it would be a significant number.
No, if we’re going to mess with the menfolk, let’s invent a pill that makes it impossible to get an erection, and put every man on the pill until their wedding day.
Yeah, Wookie, I am not sure where you’re getting the impression that vasectomies are now “fully reversible” but they’re just not. Not to mention, their reversability depends on how long it has been since the procedure–if, say, you were sterilized at 12 and ready to reproduce at 22, that’s ten years. At that point, there are no guarantees at all.
Second, does anyone know for sure what the effects of sterilization on a child not yet done growing would be? Many young men keep growing into their early twenties, at that.
Third, I have a real problem with robbing children of civil liberties. We’re not talking about sperm machines here, we’re talking about little boys who would have to be brought in by their mommy and/or daddy and have their private parts operated on. And if it were a matter of public policy it would involve some sort of force or coercion–maybe like registering for selective service, if you don’t get clipped you can’t get scholarships. I don’t care how efficient or effective that might be, in my mind, that is an atrocity.
I know it’s “all just hypothetical” but I think the hypotheticals we come up with as wishful thinking say a lot about our ideals so we should be careful where we go with them.
Forget sterilization – what about RISUG? Simple, effective, reversable. We really should be putting more money in researching methods like this!
Thanks to Tuomas and the others who cracked a window in this thread. The stench of jake’s Randisms was starting to make my queasy. Rand’ll do that to you. :/
Sorry, RISUG is indeed what I was thinking of… the injectable blockage to the vas deferens. I am aware that the other methods have not the greatest reversability rates.
So why is it not okay to encourage the routine application of birth control through minor operation or injection in little boys, but it’s totally good and acceptable to slap your daughter on oral birthcontrol, IUD’s or depo shots when they turn 12, you know, for their own protection, just in case?
Sorry if that’s phrased as inflammatory, I am very sleep deprived right now and don’t have the energy to phrase it better. Please know I intend no disprespect, but would like to discuss the point further. Please note also that I am intending to turn the topic away from “forced” (which was in no small part tounge in cheek), and turned it to “encouraged”. Why are men not encouraged to use methods to control their own fertility through more reliable means than condoms?
Alsis, right on about Rand. A friend of mine once said that everybody should read one Rand book, but he would worry about anyone who voluntary read more than one.
Whoops, should be voluntarily.
I once made it through about one hundred pages of Atlas Shrugged, which was better than I managed to do with Lord of the Rings. Make of that what you will, Lee. :/
Ayn Rand: Queen of the Run-On Sentence.
Bah.
Back to the subject: what Kyra said. I’m pro-choice (and for myself, pro-abortion). I’m all for reducing unwanted pregnancies, but I’m also for available abortion. I don’t think it’s a horrible thing.
“No, if we’re going to mess with the menfolk, let’s invent a pill that makes it impossible to get an erection, and put every man on the pill until their wedding day. ”
Um, yeah. Because once she’s married to you birth control is all about her business. Sure.
Men always seem to have excuses around birth control. Protect the sacred semen, boys! The woman? She’s just a convenient vessel after you’ve sown your seeds.
If you favor banning abortion, then you favor a system in which fetuses are saved by eliminating women’s rights;
This might make sense if abortion was a “right”.
Then again, even if it was, why should it fare better than, say, property rights, or the Civil Rights of white men? A mostly liberal SC has decided that upholding the Constitution ain’t fun, or something. And years later the federal government is writing laws where the Constitution says it cannot. Abortion is one of these areas.
Me, I’m all for the no doubt anti-woman idea of letting women experience the natural consequences of their actions. Women expect it of fathers, fathers have the same reasonable expectations of mothers, eh?
What’s so scarey about this issue is the claims that women will just break laws they don’t like. We’ve already made it legal for women to just abandon their baby if they don’t want it, lest she kill it and no one wants to punish a woman for a trifle like murdering a newborn. Women expect men to follow the law, but of they get pregnent and abortion is illegal, clearly they have no respect for the law themselves. Anyone see any problems here? Or is it just me?
Mothers and fathers need equal rights and responsibilities. We expect the dad (and often men not the dad) to pay up, regardless of what happens to his life, perhaps we need to raise our expectations for responsible action by women?
Note, my stance is not that we should ban abortion, at least not per se. My stance is that this is not a federal issue and that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to rule in either direction WRT this issue. It’s a state issue if it’s anything at all.
Kyra Writes:
August 14th, 2005 at 11:00 am
2) In regards to the argument about some people’s money paying for other people’s problems, where do you think people GET money?
Just curious Kyra, have you ever heard of the national debt?
The US government is not content spending the money they take in from taxes, not content at all.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-012505budget_lat,0,1493879.story?coll=la-home-headlines
$1.3 Trillion in Deficits Forecast Over Decade
# Cumulative total is 60% more than the estimates of just four months ago.
By Joel Havemann, Times Staff Writer
The budget deficit is becoming a knottier problem in the short term and will be a potentially catastrophic one in the future, the Congressional Budget Office reported today.
The report suggests that President Bush, in the budget he will deliver to Congress in two weeks, will have a harder time keeping his promise to cut the deficit in half during his presidency.
The CBO’s annual report on the budget outlook foresees a deficit of $400 billion this year. It also forecast a cumulative deficit of $1.3 trillion from 2005 to 2014, an increase of nearly 60% from the CBO’s $861-billion estimate of just four months ago.
====
For those who care about their children, guess who will inherit this debt?
It’s really idiotic to call spending borrowed money at this rate an investment in the future. Something like 1/3 of every tax dollar is used to just pay just the interest on the debt.
Where the money comes from is important.
That’s odd, Rich, since we pinko feminists had quite a lot of criticism for Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and expensive and unjustified war. *That’s* the reason why we’re back in the red right now.
As for men’s “rights” regarding abortion: the day a man gets pregnant is the day he can decide whether or not to go through with it or get an abortion.
Sheelzebub Writes:
August 15th, 2005 at 10:38 am
That’s odd, Rich, since we pinko feminists had quite a lot of criticism for Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and expensive and unjustified war. *That’s* the reason why we’re back in the red right now.
So do you say that the problem is not excessive long-term spending, but lack of enough taxation?
I doubt that the really wealthy pay a cent in taxes BTW, or that they ever have. Maybe it’s just me.
But I think that a large percentage of government spending goes to making them even more wealthy. Do you think this possible? Cause to the extent that it’s true, taxes and federal borrowing together go to making the poor poorer and the really wealthy more wealthy. Personally I’m not terribly thrilled by this.
As for men’s “rights” regarding abortion: the day a man gets pregnant is the day he can decide whether or not to go through with it or get an abortion.
Is there anything I have said that you care to address?
Q Grrl Writes:
August 15th, 2005 at 9:07 am
“No, if we’re going to mess with the menfolk, let’s invent a pill that makes it impossible to get an erection, and put every man on the pill until their wedding day. “
I seem to recall some women somewhere complaining about bodily autonomy. Obviously not here.
One question, do men have it?
If not, how is it that women have it?
BTW, sounds like something feminist science would invent.
# Q Grrl Writes:
August 15th, 2005 at 9:07 am
“No, if we’re going to mess with the menfolk, let’s invent a pill that makes it impossible to get an erection, and put every man on the pill until their wedding day. “
Um, yeah. Because once she’s married to you birth control is all about her business. Sure.
Men always seem to have excuses around birth control. Protect the sacred semen, boys! The woman? She’s just a convenient vessel after you’ve sown your seeds.
You have issues with men, don’t you.
Or is it Monty Python?
I’ll admit that I’m not terribly good at taking my BC pill. My only weak excuse is that no such thing exists. I know it’s inadequate, but we men always seem to have excuses around birth control, you know that.
Is there anything I have said that you care to address?
I did address what you said. Is there any post you’d care to read completely?
Nah. Didn’t think so.
# Sheelzebub Writes:
August 15th, 2005 at 11:45 am
->Is there anything I have said that you care to address?
I did address what you said.
Where did I say anything about men getting abortions?
Is there any post you’d care to read completely?
I read what you wrote, it was not a response to anything I had written.
Nah. Didn’t think so.
“the Civil Rights of white men”
Oh gawd, we got another one………………….
Yes dear, white men truly ARE the most oppressed group on the planet….even though you own virtually everything and are almost never held accountable for most of the shit you cause.
Happy now? Will you go away, then?
“I’ll admit that I’m not terribly good at taking my BC pill. My only weak excuse is that no such thing exists. ”
Actually, there are a number of clinical trials of male hormonal contraceptives ongoing in the US. No, they don’t compromise men’s virility, just their fertility. They’re still in clinical trials, not on the market, though, so you can maintain your excuse for a bit longer.
Dianne Writes:
August 15th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
“I’ll admit that I’m not terribly good at taking my BC pill. My only weak excuse is that no such thing exists. “
Actually, there are a number of clinical trials of male hormonal contraceptives ongoing in the US.
===
You know, I’ve had this discussion before, 10 or 12 years ago.
Nothing much has changed.
And I see issues with the current approach, which is basically a slight boost to the testosterone levels. That is, the hurdles are legslative drug issues that are unlikely to be jumped even *if* it’s safe and effective.
Pardon my skepticism.
And there is still no male pill available. Men still get blamed for not taking them however. The drug companies have surveyed women (not men, women) and found that women don’t trust men to take em. Maybe they should survey men about women’s BC?
I’ve also found web pages and discussions saying that said BC, when developed should be limited to married men and men in committed relationships. There seems to be some resistance to the idea of men having control over their fertility. Should we make the female pill available only to married women and women in committed relationships? How does that sound to you?
“FFL argues that abortion harms women”“that’s why it clings to the outdated cancer claims. But it would oppose abortion just as strongly if it prevented breast cancer…”
It doesn’t prevent (or cause) breast cancer, but it does seem to reduce the risk of uterine cancer. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10649152&query_hl=29
“You have issues with men, don’t you.”
Uh, what would make you think that I *don’t* have issues with men?
# Q Grrl Writes:
August 15th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
“You have issues with men, don’t you.”
Uh, what would make you think that I *don’t* have issues with men?
I can only read what I see, and in general it seems quite inflammatory.
The post I responded to said it quite well.
Let’s try and experiemnt, change “men” to “women” in your words above and see how it looks.
# Q Grrl >:
======>
August 15th, 2005 at 9:07 am
“No, if we’re going to mess with the womenfolk, let’s invent a pill that makes it impossible to have an orgasm, and put every woman on the pill until their wedding day. “
Um, yeah. Because once he’s married to you birth control is all about his business. Sure.
Women always seem to have excuses around birth control. Protect the sacred uterous, girls! The man? He’s just a convenient wallet after you’ve sown your seeds.
============
If you read the text above in a post, would you think the poster had issues with women?
What’s your point, son?
I clearly asked: Why shouldn’t I have issues with men?
Now is your chance to defend menfolk rather than repeatedly pointing your accussing finger at me.
Although it is interesting that I freely admitted that I have issues with men and you seem to have further issues with that. Hmmm.
Perhaps I should beat you to the punch: Yes, I am a hairy-legged fat bitch dyke.
There. Solves that.
Q Grrl Writes:
August 15th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
What’s your point, son?
I clearly asked: Why shouldn’t I have issues with men?
Perhaps I misunderstood you point. How could you have issues with men? You could not possibly have met them all, at best you probably know a hundred men out of 3 billion. Do not women get upset when they think men generalize about women? Are they right or wrong to do so?
Now is your chance to defend menfolk rather than repeatedly pointing your accussing finger at me.
What is it that men have done that needs defending?
Although it is interesting that I freely admitted that I have issues with men and you seem to have further issues with that. Hmmm.
Mea culpa, it was not clear to me what you were saying.
Perhaps I should beat you to the punch: Yes, I am a hairy-legged fat bitch dyke.
There. Solves that.
What does that solve?
It does seem to point out that it matters little what I do or say.
Has anyone noticed that not once but twice, this thread on abortion has been hijacked not once but twice by those changing the subject to taxation?
“Why should I pay?” “Where will the money come from?”
So much more comfortable to talk about one’s wallet I guess. “Keeping one’s money in one’s pocket” has a much more appealing ring to it than subjugating women to the financial and physical hardship of unwanted and enforced child bearing. Nice dodge guys! I hear dodgeball is making a comeback on the playground. I’m sure all of those unwanted children to be will need coaching soon!
[Deleted by Amp. I don’t control what goes on in threads started by other folks, but in my threads, life is too short for this idiot. –Amp]
Oh, Amp. I was hoping to see him aspirate on his own spittle. I love it when trolls do that.
Except for the usual, “what about the most oppressed peoples of all, White men…” that plagues nearly every discussion of feminism, this was an interesting thread. Thanks.
personal attacks are a sign of the inability to argue one’s case, and immaturity. and for the record, i’m not a libertarian. i don’t side with political groups. i have never read anything by ayn rand. honestly, if you cannot argue your point without resorting to sarcasm and mockery, then perhaps you should wait until you can.
she chose to have sex.
as is always used in abortion debates. interestly enough, considering the amount of abortions that are performed, and the abundance of DNA evidence, i have yet to hear of one instance where a rapist was convicted as a result of a report filed by an abortion clinic. until i see some hard evidence on the frequency of rape victims having abortions, i’m going to consider it the same way i do any other form of abuse: it happens, but is rature infrequent.
she still chose to have sex.
and so because she was stupid enough to have unprotected sex, my tax dollars should be spent to “undo” her stupidity? what if she does it again? do i have to pay again?
actually, outside of the instances of rape, yes they do. she chose to have sex without protection. she knew she could get pregnant, but did it anyway. that’s her choice. a stupid one, yes. but hers nonetheless. what you’re saying is akin to some 15 year old performing a moonsault off his roof and breaking his neck and then saying he didn’t choose to break his neck. no, he didn’t choose to break his neck. but he knew that he could, and he did it anyway. i should not be required to pay for it.
she stated the government is “by the people, for the people.” i am part of the people, so yes, she is spending my money. secondly, the government isn’t obligated to pay for your expenses. it is obilgated to use the tax dollars to the benefit of all people, unless, through voting, we decide that the money should be spent on special needs. the government has no obligation to provide you with abortion on demand. it merely has an obligation to prevent anyone from barring you from having one, if you can afford it, if the technology is available, if a doctor is willing to perform it.
technically, there is no law in the constiution stating that you have the “right” to healthcare.
what you are arguing is morality. the problem is, i don’t agree with your morals, and will never agree with them. so rather than agrue that which will never change, i am arguing purely on the basis of logic. under the law, you have a right to your life. however, at no point can you demand that you life be continued at the expense of others. that is not your right. i have no health insurance. i have no medical, no dental, no nothing. if anything happens, by all means i am truly screwed. and while it would be moral for someone to help me, i do not have the right to force them to.
i do not believe that the government should pay for elective surgeries. i do not believe the government should pay for your personal choices, particularly when you want them to stay out of your private business.
how am i subjugating women to “financial and physical hardship” by suggesting that they should pay for their own abortions? i’m sorry, but no one is “forcing” women to bear children. if you don’t want to have a child, you can either a) wear a condom (they make them for women now, too), b)use the pill, c) have an abortion on your dollar, not the state’s, not the federal government, not mines, or d) and pardon me for saying somthing so tasteless… don’t have sex. see, no one is forcing you to do anything. well, that’s not entirely true. i am sort of forcing you to be responsible for your own actions. but your rights have no been violated. you can still have an abortion, assuming the doctor will perform it, if you can afford it.
“i am sort of forcing you to be responsible for your own actions.”
God, all these trolls evidently feed at the same trough: they’ve all got the exact same catchphrases. And sadly, it doesn’t matter how often you point out the gaping holes in their logic, the next one who comes along just spouts the same shit.
Yes, love, you hate women. You especially hate the fact that women are out there enjoying fucking (the bad, dirty sluts!). We get it. Now toddle off back to your playpen and have a good old pout about it without annoying the adults here any longer. That’s right…………..
How do you do it, Crys ? I could feel my eyes glazing over thicker than an amateur ceramics project when Jake was only up to his second post. Honestly, my home insurance policy has more stirring, original passes in it.
Actually, in our legal system, there are times when my life has to be protected even if it costs other people’s money. For instance, employers are legally required to spend money on safety equiptment and procedures to help safeguard their employees lives.
I understand that it is your opinion that you don’t want tax dollars spent on health care. But that’s only your opinion – it has no legal weight. In our system, the people who can get elected are the people who decide what tax dolalrs are spent on. There’s no rule saying “the government can’t spend money on anything that any individual citizens don’t want tax dollars spent on.” Nor could there be such a rule, since in a country the size of the USA, there is no possible government spending that someone, somewhere won’t disapprove of.
No, you don’t, because the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. But the question isn’t what you have the right to do; the question is what the government has the right to do. Does the government have the right to use tax money to pay for health care, including abortion? Sure, as long as the elected representatives pass a law saying the government should do so.
“Honestly, my home insurance policy has more stirring, original passes in it. ”
:) And probably had at least some, y’know, thought put into it as well, instead of just a lot of kneejerk response ranting.
See there’s a big problem with the “women chose to have sex, therefore they choose to have babies” argument. And I’m writing a bit tounge in cheek because I’m deliberately phrasing things in a way (inflammitory) that might make them more understandable to the Reich.
Rape, birth control failure and coercion (for those who don’t like to call non-violent non-stranger rape for what it is). There are also poor choices, irresponsibility and stupidity that come into play.
2 problems arise from the “justified” versus “un-justified” abortions topic when considering this (assuming of course that there is such a thing).
The first is that you cannot be the judge of someone elses choices. The services are either available, safe and legal or they aren’t. Punishing the many for the sins of the few doesn’t make sense, it is not moral, biblical or legal. Punishing my idiot sister for having unprotected sex (after already having one pregnancy) that way by removing her access to Plan B/abortion might feel “justified” if you are feeling particularly moral and self-righteous…. surely that is a “good” way to make her learn from her continued poor choices! But to deny her is also to deny my best friend who was drugged and raped at a frosh-week BBQ.
The second is that … hey, men don’t have to take responsibility for any of it. It’s all womens fault, choice and responsibility. And that isn’t a realistic or “fair” picture either.
I thought of a new solution (boy I just come up with great ones). So women shouldn’t have sex, it’s immoral and risky. Men can’t help but need sex, or they wouldn’t rape. So men should only have sex with other men! It’s foolproof!
Wookie: good points, but you did leave out the fact that it’s beyond brutal and obscene to bring a unwanted child into the world to serve as “punishment” visited on their mothers. God, what a great life that would be, knowing that you only existed to be a constant reminder to a woman that SEX IS BAD. No, that wouldn’t warp you at all.
And of course, the planet really *needs* those millions of extra humans, doesn’t it?
Anti-choicers are not only inhumane, unbearable self-righteous and scarily sadistic, they’re also flat-out stupid.
I find it amusing to see how many guys trot out the “sex leads to pregnancy” line. And then stress that the woman chose to have sex. Um. Guys… ejaculation in a woman’s vagina leads to pregnancy. Not sex. Why don’t you start vilifying the men who don’t/won’t/can’t pull out or ejaculate somewhere else?
Shortest of all: It takes two to tango.
I hate taxaphobes. Mostly because of the flat out denial that THEY benefit from the expenditure of OTHER PEOPLE’S tax dollars. I have begun a list of federal expenditures that primarily benefit the well heeled. They include: funding of health care research that will product treatments that will be selectively available to people with the money to buy good insurance; The SEC (I mean, how many poor people own securities?); Interstate highway system and other road funding (as in, how many poor people own cars?); grants and other support that fund well-heeled universities like Harvard and Johns Hopkins, to name two big recipients (these among other universities disproportionately admit the children of wealthy parents); states (especially Southern states) that maintain well funded state universities and shitty primary and secondary institutions, so that they tend to admit on a very disproportionate basis the privately educated children of doctors, lawyers, etc.; student loans for medical and legal education.
And so on. I am not here to say any of the above should be discontinued or changed, but just that you admit that you too benefit from tax expenditures even if they are far more indirect than the poor woman seeking food stamps and health care.
[Slightly edited by Amp.]
Men can’t help but need sex, or they wouldn’t rape. So men should only have sex with other men! It’s foolproof!
I keep suggesting that to men’s-rights types (along with the bonus feature that they wouldn’t have gold-diggers or “not tonight, I have a headache” because men just want sex and lots of it), but you know, they just get angry. I can’t imagine why.
see, no one is forcing you to do anything.
So you are willing to pay for abortions that are a result of rape (no choice to have sex) or when the pregnant woman is under the age of consent (legally, she *can’t* ‘decide to have sex’), right?
that is preventive insurance. likewise, many high-risk employers offer accident insurance. so if you were to be injured on the job, it would be covered. however, if you were to deliberately injure yourself, no insurance would cover you. if you were to behave in a careless manner which then caused you to be injured, the insurance would not cover you. the same is true for car insurance. if you get drunk and get behind the wheel and another car hits you, it’s not very likely your insurance will cover the costs.
no, it’s not. i do not wish to pay for a woman’s abortion. i have no problem providing general healthcare.
and how do they come to that position? is it not by popular demand? is it not because they do not want to risk loosing their position of power, so they concede to whatever their base wants? likewise, we as taxpayers do have a say in how our money is spent. and when we really don’t like the way our state or country is being run, we have the right, as per both the federal and state constitutions, to remove those who are, in our opinion, blocking or barring our rights. that is the very basis of this country.
technically, abortion is not part of basic healthcare. it is an elective surgery, much like laser eye surgery or cosmetic surgery. in the vast majority of instances, you don’t need it, you want it. in that case, just like those surgeries, you should foot the bill. and as a side note, please do not try to spin my opinion into something you feel you trash. i don’t want my tax dollars being spent on abortions. i’ve stated that very clearly at least a dozen times. i said nothing of healthcare.
“technically, abortion is not part of basic healthcare. it is an elective surgery, much like laser eye surgery or cosmetic surgery. in the vast majority of instances, you don’t need it, you want it. ”
But only because you are basing “health” and “healthcare” on those things that are only/primarily related to what happens to the male body. If the female body were the status quo in medical decisionmaking, abortion would not look so “elective.”
Well, I don’t want my tax dollars being spent on organ transplants. I feel organ transplants are merely a result of bad decisions (smoking, lack of exercise, parents passing on bad genes, etc.). Organ transplants are not, technically, part of basic health care and, as such, I should not be required to pay for it with my hard earned moolah! The same thing goes for treating broken bones. Most fractures are a result of poor decision making on the part of person suffering the fracture (skiing, bad judgement while driving, not paying attention while walking down stairs, etc.). Technically, setting bones is not part of basic health care (which consists only of treating diseases and doing lab tests to see if you have a disease and other things that I, in my near infinite wisdom, determine to be part of basic health care) and, as such, I should not have to pay for it with my precious, beautiful currency.
(Sarcasm powers off!)
if i did, could this be a reason why: i am almost certain that i cannot have children as a result of the abuse my aunt put me through, and as a result i have a very difficult time trusting women enough to allow myself to be used sexually by them.
ironically, you sound exactly like her. she too is a feminist. it’s interesting, given that i “hate” women, that it has only women, particularly feminist like you and my aunt, who have treated me in this way. and even as i “hate” women, i have somehow managed to maintain my civility here, surrounded by the very people i hate the most. which, in and of itself is unexplainable as it makes no sense for me to go into the “lion’s den” where i am so ridiculously outnumbered. it’s quite laughable, unless that means… i don’t hate you…
really? i said that? can you show me where?